Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Android Google Oracle Patents

USPTO Rejects Many of Oracle's Android Claims 154

Posted by Soulskill
from the get-outta-here-with-that-nonsense dept.
sfcrazy writes "In yet another setback for Oracle, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected 17 of 21 claims associated with one of the patents in Java that Oracle asserted Google had violated with Android. Groklaw reports, 'In the reexamination of U.S. Patent 6192476 the USPTO has issued an office action in which it rejects 17 of the patent's 21 claims.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

USPTO Rejects Many of Oracle's Android Claims

Comments Filter:
  • Liability (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Waffle Iron (339739) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:50AM (#36541460)

    It looks like costly mistakes were made by the USPTO. In a fair world, the original patent examiners should be held personally liable for all of Google's legal fees in this matter. That lesson would most likely make them take a little more care to properly evaluate the next bogus patent application that crosses their desks, before millions of dollars of unnecessary costs are created.

  • Re:Liability (Score:5, Interesting)

    by angel'o'sphere (80593) on Thursday June 23, 2011 @10:55AM (#36541538) Homepage Journal

    If patent examiners would be "liable" then you can as well ask that judges should be ...

    What I mean is: if people working for any government agency would be liable (and not the agency or the government) then all those agencies would come to a grinding halt.

    Or even more likely no one would want to work for them ...

  • Google FUD (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 23, 2011 @11:01AM (#36541620)

    Alternatively, you could say, "USPTO accepts 9 of 14 claims on one patent in the case." Why is this article looking at a single patent and not all? Smells like FUD.

"One Architecture, One OS" also translates as "One Egg, One Basket".