| |||||||||||||
Reviewing the PatentReviewing the PatentPosted Apr 24, 2011 18:52 UTC (Sun) by orcmid (guest, #74478)In reply to: Google Linux servers hit with $5m patent infringement verdict (The Register) by wahern Parent article: Google Linux servers hit with $5m patent infringement verdict (The Register)
IE 8 doesn't support TIFF either, but the free ActiveX plug-in that the Patent site mentions worked for me. Once I have copies on my machine, I can view them with any number of built-in utilities, of course.
The amended claims do fit. Also, the revision to claims 3 and 5 close a loophole in the wordings that would have had the claims apply to access to the same-hash list for any purpose whatever, rather than only "accessing the linked list of records to search for a target record."
Unless covered by some other patent, it would appear that having a separate process that scans buckets for the sole purpose of scavenging automatically-expired records is not covered, so long as it does not involve the "record search means" for finding a record by its key.
(Log in to post comments)
Reviewing the Patent Posted Apr 24, 2011 20:06 UTC (Sun) by wahern (subscriber, #37304) [Link]
I didn't mean to imply that I thought the USPTO got this wrong according to their examination process. I didn't mean "obvious" in a legal sense, as in an articulable relation to identifiable prior art. I was speaking more in lay terms, as in this is yet another fscking absurd result of allowing patents on software.
I'm not very adept at analyzing patent claims; e.g. means-plus-function and anticipation, both of which I would guess were fairly critical to this case.
|
|||||||||||||