ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Shouldn't Google be able to get them all invalidated easily? (even without prior art) | Shouldn't Google be able to get them all invalidated easily? (even without prior art) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Private / Protected == | ||
| + | From the page: | ||
| + | |||
| + | Prior art: This is C++ private / protected. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''No, those apply at the level of individual members - not classes.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Whoever made that comment regarding ''not classes'' is incorrect. Private/protected can be applied to members AND classes in C++. As well as C# and probably some other languages. | ||
Revision as of 10:19, 13 August 2010
Unusual patent number
It's because it's a reissued patent. The patent number is 05367685.
- Thanks! I'll update the article. Ciaran 10:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
All trivial patents?
The quoted claims seem to all be completely trivial.
Shouldn't Google be able to get them all invalidated easily? (even without prior art)
Private / Protected
From the page:
Prior art: This is C++ private / protected.
No, those apply at the level of individual members - not classes.
Whoever made that comment regarding not classes is incorrect. Private/protected can be applied to members AND classes in C++. As well as C# and probably some other languages.
