| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
27 claims still allowed?27 claims still allowed?Posted May 27, 2006 16:30 UTC (Sat) by stevenj (guest, #421)Parent article: U.S. PTO smashes JPEG patent (Linux-Watch)
According to the article, 27 of the original 46 claims were allowed by the patent office. Does anyone know whether these remaining claims are still broad enough to prohibit JPEG implementations?
(Log in to post comments)
27 claims still allowed? Posted May 28, 2006 15:56 UTC (Sun) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] The Groklaw commentary suggested that, for the claims they didn't allow, they didn't allow them due to the existance of prior art that the people writing the patent knew about but didn't reveal, and that the standard response to such behavior is to punish the dishonest inventors by throwing out the whole patent, regardless of the merits of the other claims, because the application as a whole cannot be trusted.
If this is accurate, the rest of the patent is irrelevant.
|
|
||||||||||||