ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Oracle v. Google (2010, USA)"
(→All trivial patents?: :Invalidating is never easy. For one example, see Amazon's 1-click patent. The review process took five full years, and the end res) |
|||
| 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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Invalidating is never easy. For one example, see [[Amazon's one-click shopping patent|Amazon's 1-click]] patent. The review process took five full years, and the end result was that it was narrowed but upheld. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :But let's see what we can gather anyway - it could be useful for this case or for a future case. [[User:Ciaran|Ciaran]] 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
== Private / Protected == | == Private / Protected == | ||
Revision as of 10:24, 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)
- Invalidating is never easy. For one example, see Amazon's 1-click patent. The review process took five full years, and the end result was that it was narrowed but upheld.
- But let's see what we can gather anyway - it could be useful for this case or for a future case. Ciaran 14:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
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.
