Israeli Claims Patent Over Adding
There are virtually all sorts of questions raised by this, as well as the reporting at the Israeli site Ynetnews leaves a lot to be desired. Very first, neither Ynetnews nor TechCrunch point to the actual patent. I've been searching upon both the supposed inventor's name Kamagra Oral Jelly (Aviv Refuah) and his company's name and also I can't find it. Kamagra Oral Jelly Nz If anyone around can find the actual patent, please article a link in the comments.
Your next problem with the article is the claim that that patent is "worth millions" and Kamagra Oral Jelly that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo "will have to pay royalties." It remains to become seen if that's true (and granted what's stated, it seems quite doubtful).
Next problem? The article claims this this patent is about the address bar within the browser not a search engine box though, the actual reporter doesn't seem to understand the difference between the a couple. Admittedly, Google now offers a browser in Chrome, but this article keeps referring to the Buy Kamagra patent as a "search option." Yahoo doesn't offer a browser.
Then there's the issue regarding claiming that Google and Yahoo "use" this technology:
Refuah says a variety of internet giants such as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo have been using the program for ages, and now they will have to pay out royalties to Netex.
That implies falsely that Google, Microsoft and also Yahoo have somehow been using some technology they got from Netex. It's a popular trick used in reporting about patents, yet its highly misleading. Much, much, considerably more likely is which Google, Microsoft and Yahoo simply added any useful and obvious feature, that will Netex is now showing up and claiming ownership years eventually. But, honestly, can anyone with a straight face explain why this kind of thing should be patentable?
Even a story?I can see how you'd want to be first so that you can comment about stuff. And this is appropriate up your alley, about abusive, stupid patents and these kinds of. But it's not really even a new story. It's a short article that is certainly short on details from the reporter that apparently doesn't even understand what they're talking pertaining to.
You did do due diligence and Kamagra Gel try in order to find the patent, but when you couldn't, maybe you should have realized this was just simply crap reporting and not really about a bad patent. There's less below than there is about Glenn Beck raping in addition to murdering a young girl in 1990.
Maybe you can wait next moment until something becomes actual news before jumping inside with both feet.
Re: Even a story?"It's the short article that is short about details from a reporter that apparently would not even understand what they're talking about."
And who, my helmety sources tell me, suffers by dwarfism, accounting for all the other shortness you mentioned.
"You did do due diligence and try to find the patent, but after you couldn't, maybe you should have realized this was just crap reporting and not really about the bad patent."
Sometimes crappy reporting IS the story. And attempting in order to use a smart, capable community for instance TechDirt's adds credence to a smart blog's model. Gotta think two steps ahead for you to stay in front of those evil newspapers.
Here's the particular patentThe patent in question, I believe, is about to be able to issue. An Israeli patent was filed in 1998, and then the national equivalent in the US was filed in 2000, application number 09/529,792. It has 9 ages of prosecution. The issue fee was paid upon August 18, so the patent should issue later the following year. I believe that this is the broadest claim this will be "claim 1" upon issuance, I think:
A strategy of WWW page retrieval from a web site, comprising:
your) receiving information associated with content of a web site, wherein said received information is not any WWW address and comprised characters typed for entry by the user into a URL entry field in a browser operable upon an electronic device having web browsing capabilities, in which in turn a standard URL address would be entered;
b) said information received by way of a software not associated with said website site;
c) determining a geographical location of the user;
d) providing a page address involving said web site, responsive to said information and said determined geographical location, by said software;
e) sending the page address to the browser intended for retrieving said page responsive Kamagra 100mg Oral Jelly to said address; and
f) thereby causing said page to be directly displayed on the user using the browser, without any additional user intervention beyond the actual entry of said information.
OK, you tell me. Google does the idea infringe, or not? I don't see Google "determining this geographical location" but then again, I don't really know regarding sure. I did not look in any way of the other claims about to issue who knows, some may be broader? And also I know nothing about the state of prior art in 1998, even though I would guess the above claim is usually probably legit. And finally, I know nothing about what the patentee said during prosecution to secure his claims despite the fact that now that I gave you the application number, you may search for it in the PTO Public PAIR just like I did and figure it out.
http://alduara.shinefish.com.tw/viewthread.php?tid=290281&extra=
http://diaocha.dqedu.net/home.php?mod=space&uid=83644
http://www.getenglishaccess.com/forum/newtopic
http://58.211.229.227/guestbook.asp
http://www.ahztzx.net/E_GuestBook.asp |
