Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: richard surckla who wrote (73366)	5/21/2001 5:32:51 PM
From: Ali Chen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Richard, I guess you must just made a #17 on the Esteban basher's list! Congratulations, I guess...and welcome to the club? "... patent owners who seek to apply their patents far beyond the disclosure are likely to encounter a hostile appellate court" - Ali

To: richard surckla who wrote (73366)	5/21/2001 6:28:00 PM
From: tinkershaw	Respond to of 93625

Modern patent barons should take heed, however, because the Federal Circuit appears to be on a mission to fence in expansive patent claim interpretations. This opinion, while certainly the trend this year, does not take away from the opinion I presented. The appellate court reviews these case de novo (ie, without any deference to the trial judge), and has ruled much more liberally on what is the definiton of a patent. If they are ruling narrower this year it is because of the trend of ruling much more liberally over the course of the 90s as the court took over. It is hardly a situation where "modern patent barons" should take heed. The very tone of that title tells you all you need to know about that opinion. Tinker P.S. I am quite aware of the recent decision which could limit the functional equivalent doctrine. Said case is up on certiorari.