backtop


Print 28 comment(s) - last by faust67.. on Apr 7 at 2:49 AM

Samsung's lawyers push for damages to be vacated amid invalidity findings

Sources: Samsung [Scribd via CNET], CNET





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Wrong again
By Solandri on 4/4/2013 6:21:25 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Jason, are you trying to say that a spring is a law of nature? I thought not.

While I agree with your legal analysis (that the invalidation was due to procedural reasons), the behavior of springs is even more fundamental than a law of nature. It's a law of mathematics. It's a dynamic behavior which pops out when you solve a generic second order differential equation. The decaying bounce behavior in particular is what you get if the system is underdamped.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damping

All sorts of natural and man-made phenomena are governed by this math, including car suspensions, tides in harbors, buildings in earthquakes, objects bobbing in waves, propeller vibrations, reeds swaying in the wind, etc.

Nobody "invented" it - it's a simple consequence of the mathematics. The best someone can claim is that they discovered it, except this dynamic behavior of second order linear systems has been known about for centuries. It's just that most of the general public (outside of math, science, and engineering majors) is ignorant of it.

quote:
Similarly, are you saying that if a specific implementation of a spring is a claim in an overall system patent, that the patent must be disallowed? I thought not.

Nobody is saying Apple can't patent the behavior of a specific spring-mass-damper-type system. What they're saying is Apple can't claim ownership of the behavior of all spring-mass-damper-type systems. Which is essentially what the bounce patent gave them.

If Apple wants to patent some bouncing behavior using either a specific solution to the second order linear equation, or a different equation which appears to mimic the behavior, by all means they're free to do so. But under no circumstances should they be allowed to prohibit others from implementing a similar but different bounce behavior. That would literally be like giving someone a patent on multiplication and letting them to prohibit anyone else from using multiplication.


RE: Wrong again
By FITCamaro on 4/5/2013 8:08:14 AM , Rating: 3
I think you just broke Tony Swash's brain with logic.


RE: Wrong again
By amanojaku on 4/5/2013 10:27:38 AM , Rating: 3
Solandri blinded Tony with science?

Good heavens, Mr. Solandri, you're logical!
I don't believe it!
There he goes again!
He's argued up, and I can't debate anything!
All my smoke and mirrors
And careful FUD
And reality distortions


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis










botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki