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 14: | Line 14: | ||
: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) | :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) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Actually, looking deeper, the problem is that the parts quoted here (the first claim, which the patent then expands upon) don't seem to very representative of the actual patents, which do have more specific detail. | ||
| + | |||
| + | You should probably remove the quotes and either reproduce the full patent, write a summary or just have a link. | ||
== Private / Protected == | == Private / Protected == | ||
Revision as of 12:49, 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)
Actually, looking deeper, the problem is that the parts quoted here (the first claim, which the patent then expands upon) don't seem to very representative of the actual patents, which do have more specific detail.
You should probably remove the quotes and either reproduce the full patent, write a summary or just have a link.
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.
