From: Mark (markr13_at_comcast.net)
Date: Wed Jun 18 2003 - 17:02:52 PDT
If Apple wanted to broaden the scope of the patent, they could have done
just that. By abandoning a patent, you can rewrite the specification (and
pay all over again) and keep your original filing date as a priority over
anything else that got filed since. The original patent obviously had
flaws that prevented it from issuing, or it would have done that long ago
(average time to issue a US patent is about 2.5-3 years). They didn't,
but kept the original MessagePad references. What there're up to is
anyone's guess (and quite a few of them are here!).
-- Mark Ross markr13_at_comcast.net ------------------------------ Need a Screen Protector to keep your Newton in tip top shape? Go to <http://www.NuShield.com> for NuShield screen protectors. Don't leave your Newt Naked! MessagePad 2X00 films now available in clear and antiglare Phone/Fax/Voicemail: (530) 678-5513 > >Does anyone give Apple the benefit of the doubt for making sound >business decisions that aren't driven entirely by Steve Jobs's ego any >more? > >Offhand, I would think (based on an admittedly limited understanding of >patent law) there's a chance that Apple might see that this patent as >broad enough to cover a similar technology or a different application >of the technology. But when you look at the actual document (and not >just the Mac Observer article), it appears to refer to specifically to >a MessagePad, even describing aspects of the hardware. So I'm confused. > >(Mark, is this out of the ordinary for a patent filing that would >presumably cover the software, or the interface?) > >BRIAN/bpearce_at_cloud9.net -- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries List FAQ/Etiquette/Terms: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 18 2003 - 17:30:01 PDT