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 : EDTA (was GIFT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: m rosen who wrote (1747)	4/6/1998 8:16:00 AM
From: GRC	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 2383

rosen, 3 points 1) Why have you backed up the the time from the first week of April to the second? Did something change? 2) Which type of clerk did you speak with, legal clerk or administrative clerk. If legal, which one, and I will call them and post comments. 3) Your post had several non-sensical statements from a legal point. I'd like to clarify one, so that other on this thread do not misunderstand Markman hearings. You said (among other things) "In order to receive a broad interpretation of the patent Judge Jones will need to here from Freeny to clarify the ambiguities in the patent and to understand his intent at the time the patent was drafted..." Actually, the inventor's testimony isn't terribly helpful in claim interpretation. The point is not what the inventor now says he thought they meant or intended the claims to mean, but rather what OTHERS reading the claims at the time of the application thought they meant. The claims must be self-explanatory as of the time they are filed, not after the patentee explains what they meant. Oddly enough, the famous Markman case had a similar situation. Markman (the inventor) testified what the claims meant. The jury apparently agreed with Markman, an found in his favor. The trial judge ignored the inventors testimony, and overturned the jury's ruling, saying, in effect. Markman's testimony wasn't helpful, and that the court as a matter of law (i.e. without help from the inventor) could decide what the claims meant. Markman, appealed, and the appellate agreed with the trial judge. In fact, on the issue of how helpful the inventor's testimony is, the appeal court said "First, the testimony of Markman and his patent attorney on the proper construction of the claims is entitled to no deference."