USPTO Rejects Many of Oracle's Android Claims 154
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.'"
Software Patent Rejections (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liability (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liability (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Liability (Score:4, Insightful)
Doctors get paid a lot more money. Doctors are virtually forced to buy insurance to cover those liabilities, too.
If we made the patent examiners individually liable, they would have to also buy insurance, which would mean we'd have to pay them more to cover it. In the end, it doesn't help -us-. It just costs us money.
Require originality bonds instead (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Software Patent Rejections (Score:4, Insightful)
Correction: 46 down, 122 to go [groklaw.net].
There's seven patents in question, with a total of 168 claims being made. 17 of those claims from one patent were just rejected. Two other patents were also examined with claims rejected. Groklow projects that a total of about 48 claims will survive after all is said and done. After that, the question is how many of those 48 are independent claims.
Surprising statistic: over 90% of claims are rejected when reexamined. Really?!?