Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: danshapiro.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to danshapiro.com.

Comments · 6

  1. Re:Court in Apple's back yard? by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1 · on Samsung Must Pay Apple $539 Million For Infringing iPhone Design Patents, Jury Finds (cnet.com)

    Don't get fooled by the figures, there is only one thing which have any value: the independent claims. How to read a patent in 60 seconds?.

    Too bad his advice is completely worthless when talking about Design Patents. Note how he never mentions them?

  2. Re:Court in Apple's back yard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Samsung Must Pay Apple $539 Million For Infringing iPhone Design Patents, Jury Finds (cnet.com)

    Don't get fooled by the figures, there is only one thing which have any value: the independent claims. How to read a patent in 60 seconds?.

  3. Re:The only thing they did wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1 · on Inventor Has Waited 43 Years For Patent Approval

    Good grief does every Slashdot patent story have to contain "I was working on something broadly similar a few years earlier"? Please read How to Read a Patent in 60 Seconds. Patents aren't based on whether or not something broadly similar has been done before, they're based on specific claims, which in this case are confidential. Ergo, everyone who thinks they can judge this patent on its merits is simply wrong about that.

  4. Re:Mutually Assured Destruction by neonfrog · · Score: 2 · on How Joel Spolsky Shot Down a Microsoft Patent In 15 Minutes

    http://www.danshapiro.com/blog/2010/09/how-to-read-a-patent-in-60-second/ Referenced in the Spolsky post.

  5. Re:IMAP Is Prior Art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Motorola Seeks Ban On Macs, iPads, and iPhones

    It's "all components of a claim must be true", not "all claims must be true". Dependent claims (that is claims that go like "... as described in claim 1, wherein foo comprises bar and baz") often can't even be infringed simultaneously. For example:

    64. A messaging communication system as recited in claim 63 wherein the first messaging system comprises a wired messaging system and further wherein the second messaging system comprises a wireless messaging system.

      65. A messaging communication system as recited in claim 63 wherein the first messaging system comprises a wireless messaging system and further wherein the second messaging system comprises a wired messaging system.

    Here's a helpful guide to patents

  6. Re:An cue the standard reply by phantomfive · · Score: 1 · on Graphics Rendering Patent Suits Target Apple, Samsung, HTC, RIM, LG and Sony

    the description is the basis for granting the patent, it's the part that actually matters. The claim matter, too, but in a different way. They're calling out parts of the invention description that the inventor claims are unique. But the patent is granted on the basis of the description, not the claims.

    I don't know why you think that. Andrew Tridgell did a good talk about how to read patents, and it was covered on Slashdot. Maybe you missed it.

    Only the claims matter, and for purposes of invalidating a patent, only the independent claims matter. See for example, this explanation, and this more boring one (look for IIA).

    You just wrote a whole lot of text that is completely wrong. You might want to consider where you got that information, and modify your method of collecting information so it doesn't happen again.