Reply to post: Re: IMO

Imagine a patent on organizing computer files being used against online shopping sites. Oh, it's still happening

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

Re: IMO

>But only if the method used by claimed infringement duplicates the method described in the body of the patent; remember it is the body of the patent that defined the 'invention' not the claims; the claims merely define what uses of the invention are patented.

The "body of the patent" is not a familiar term, do you mean the description? It is still the claims that count (and has basis in the description) but one can refer to the description for the understanding or interpretation as the author is his opn lexicographer.

>So if the description of the 'invention' contained int he body is insufficient for someone "skilled in the art" to replicate, without them having to invent stuff to "fill the gaps" then the patent itself is void, because it doesn't satisfy the basic criteria necessary for a valid patent to be issued. Reading through this patent it is clear that it fails this basic test...

If that is the case it should not be a problem having it revoked on grounds of insufficiency. Normally that is one of the first thing you look for when accused of infringement.

>Also it fails to define 'user', 'database' and many other key terms. Hence, could knock up an implementation of something that looks a lot like the patent and provided I call my lookup table a 'database'(*), I don't infringe... :)

Words are given the normal meaning unless given a special meaning in the description (ref. what I wrote about being lexicographer) but I cannot see how this is an issue here. For instance "user" would be any reasonable meaning of an user. Where is the problem?

>Any one who has studied database techniques will know that a simple list with pointers to something can correctly be described as a database. Which is also probably why they are going after Amazon et al. because databases are just overlays on to a filesystem and hence are "A method for accessing files in a data storage system of a computer system"....

Matching one single feature is not sufficient to cry "infringement!" as you have to match every single feature to have a case.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon