|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> You just got through saying that precedent applies to identical or
> nearly identical situations. So your question.. doesn't make sense in
> context of what I am saying.
You only think it doesn't. I will assume that since you avoided answering
the question, the answer is "no".
> at all, instead of merely how obvious it seems, would set a precedent to
> deny similar patents entirely.
But the lawyer defending the suit doesn't care.
> In other words, what I am saying is, attacking the validity of software
> patent is a meta issue that effects "all" of them, not just the specific
> cases.
And you're missing my point again. The lawyer doesn't care, nor does the judge.
> You don't make an
> argument that invalidates your own future cases, just to win one where
> someone else is suing you over supposed infringement.
Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Or are you just guessing
that's how it works?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |