EDTA (was GIFT) Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : EDTA (was GIFT)

EDTA 0.000200

+300.1%

Mar 7 3:00 PM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: GRC who wrote (2203)	6/18/1998 4:53:00 PM
From: Goodboy	Read Replies (1) of 2383

You are forgetting the biggest fact here. That PRIOR ART existed. That will all by itself invalidate this patent. The court has shown a willingness, if not a desire, to invalidate broad and over reaching patents such as this, when many examples of prior art existed. Forget "Point of Sale" or sticking to the claims rather than the specification and example of the prefered embodiment. This patent dies or is dead on prior art. Did you read the Lexis Nexis example or examples from the other briefs. I bet their are many examples (evidence) of prior art prior to this patent being filed. If you can tell me how prior art won't invalidate this patent, then maybe there is some hope. But if you are betting on having the court define point of sale correctly or not limit the claims based on the prefered embodiment or specification, then I guess your just waiting for some suckers to bid this thing up on the temporary good news. Prior art is the E-data killer. Please tell me what you have as a rebuttal to this argument. Thanks.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next