Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

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).

×
Oracle Patents Google Java The Courts Linux

More Oracle Patents Declared Invalid 150

Posted by Soulskill
from the quarterly-revenue-projections-dropping dept.
sfcrazy writes "The validity of another Oracle patent has become doubtful in the dispute with Google about the infringement of Java patents and copyrights on Android devices. The US Patent Office and Trademark Office (USPTO) has provisionally declared all 24 claims of patent number 6,125,447 as being invalid. The USPTO based its decision on a patent that had been used in another case. This patent was granted in 1994 – three years before Sun filed its Java patent application. The US patent office also considered two publications released in 1996 as evidence that Sun's described method for protecting applications via 'protection domains' was anticipated by 'prior art.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

More Oracle Patents Declared Invalid

Comments Filter:
  • by tepples (727027) <tepples.gmail@com> on Monday July 04, 2011 @09:52PM (#36657270) Homepage Journal

    Abandon general prior art and go on first to file?

    There appears to be a common misconception that adoption in the United States of the more common "first to file" rule will end the role of prior art in determining what is patent-worthy. But as I understand it, a "first to file" rule affects only interference (patent application vs. patent application) disputes, not novelty (patent vs. prior art) disputes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 04, 2011 @10:04PM (#36657330)

    As far as I know there were only testing classes that were decompiled and the decompiled Java code was stored in the test folders of the Android code repository with an Apache license wrongly auto-pasted at the head of them all. They were never shipped with Android OS, but may have been downloaded and used by Android developers. There may be some liability on Google but it is not directly on any shipping Android OS and is not likely to be a big enough infringement problem to deal a blow to Google. The patents are key to Oracle's case.

  • by Dachannien (617929) on Monday July 04, 2011 @11:40PM (#36657666)

    All USPTO examiners must be US citizens. Many are naturalized, yes, but they're not "foreigners".

    Under W, the USPTO hired thousands of additional examiners. Any underfunding was the result of Congress repeatedly raiding the USPTO's collected fees to spend them on other non-patent-related things (military, entitlements, blame whatever you want).

  • trademark (Score:5, Informative)

    by sourcerror (1718066) on Tuesday July 05, 2011 @03:50AM (#36658538)

    "other than giving it a name that doesn't sound like Java it is the SAME SHIT that MSFT pulled in the 90s. I guess if old Bill would have called it a Capuchin it would have been cool?"

    Yes, it would have been cool. The MS case was about trademark, not software patents.

Suburbia is where the developer bulldozes out the trees, then names the streets after them. -- Bill Vaughn

Working...