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 : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Frank A. Coluccio who wrote (20552)	3/30/2007 1:02:24 PM
From: ftth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Thanks for posting the links to the patents. Tons of articles but none list the patents. I wonder what claims in particular, they found violation. I have a hard time believing name-to-address translation was not publicly disclosed years before the filing date. Maybe when you get 5 layers down in the dependent claims you can no longer find an exact match in a public disclosure, but you also have to ask (as is supposed to be asked by the patent examiner in deciding whether to grant the patent), whether, at that time, those extensions several layers down in the dependent claims "were not obvious to one skilled in the art." This would actually be a good case to trial the concept of public evaluation of patents. I bet all sorts of history would spring up, from all corners of the world, that might invalidate these patents. But who knows.....