11–20 of 26 posts
There is an interesting question in the comments...one of the patent claims specifies incrementing a counter - so is decrementing the counter instead a valid workaround? EDIT: thinking more about this, what if you pushed/popped them with a stack, or FIFO'd them with a queue. Seems there are various ways around the increment semantics.
There is an interesting question in the comments...one of the patent claims specifies incrementing a counter - so is decrementing the counter instead a valid workaround? EDIT: thinking more about this, what if you pushed/popped them with a stack, or FIFO'd them with a queue. Seems there are various ways around the increment semantics.
Semantics. Are you decrementing the counter by a positive number, or incrementing it by a negative number?
There is an interesting question in the comments...one of the patent claims specifies incrementing a counter - so is decrementing the counter instead a valid workaround? EDIT: thinking more about this, what if you pushed/popped them with a stack, or FIFO'd them with a queue. Seems there are various ways around the increment semantics.
Semantics. Are you decrementing the counter by a positive number, or incrementing it by a negative number?
Can someone explain dependent and independent claims to me?
An independent claim stands alone. For example, if you had invented the bicycle, an independent claim might look something like this: 1. A device for transportation consisting of two wheels joined by a frame on which one or more passengers sit. A dependent claim depends on an another claim. Here's an example that depends on the above independent claim: 2. The device of claim 1 where one of the wheels is in the front…
It's very common in patents to only really have invented the last claim - all the previous claims are thrown out but the last one stands. It's partly an easy way of getting all your points across logically and partly a tactic of having some ground to give up in a legal battle
There is an interesting question in the comments...one of the patent claims specifies incrementing a counter - so is decrementing the counter instead a valid workaround? EDIT: thinking more about this, what if you pushed/popped them with a stack, or FIFO'd them with a queue. Seems there are various ways around the increment semantics.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents
* I am not your lawyer, get a lawyer, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Semantics. Are you decrementing the counter by a positive number, or incrementing it by a negative number?
Yeah that's the point. Sometimes semantics distinctions matter to the law. So can you just decrement by a negative number to get around it, legally?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Semantics. Are you decrementing the counter by a positive number, or incrementing it by a negative number?
Yeah that's the point. Sometimes semantics distinctions matter to the law. So can you just decrement by a negative number to get around it, legally?
It's why every second word in a patent is "substantially"
There is an interesting question in the comments...one of the patent claims specifies incrementing a counter - so is decrementing the counter instead a valid workaround? EDIT: thinking more about this, what if you pushed/popped them with a stack, or FIFO'd them with a queue. Seems there are various ways around the increment semantics.
There is a doctrine in patent law called the "doctrine of equivalents." [1] In short, it limits the ways you can use obvious work-arounds. In practice, it's very complex because there are often good reasons why they specified an "incrementing" counter rather than "any counter," but the idea is that you can't make a trivial change to get around the bulk of a patent.* [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equiva…
There is an interesting question in the comments...one of the patent claims specifies incrementing a counter - so is decrementing the counter instead a valid workaround? EDIT: thinking more about this, what if you pushed/popped them with a stack, or FIFO'd them with a queue. Seems there are various ways around the increment semantics.