View Single Post
Old 11-03-2009, 11:58 AM   #4
calvin-c
Guru
calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.calvin-c ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 787
Karma: 1575310
Join Date: Jul 2009
Device: Moon+ Pro
As noted, IP law is a mess. I didn't see anything, really, in the article that says what SD is suing over, except possibly violating the NDA. Not that I think there isn't anything else, it just isn't made clear. Are they suing for patent infringment? Copyright violation? Theft of trade secrets? (I don't think you can sue for that, unless actual theft is involved. More likely that suit would be for violation of the NDA.)

A major problem is the PTO allowing 'too-broad' patents. As the article noted, the two devices work quite differently, but it's possible that SD patented the idea of having two screens in a single device. That would suck-but similar 'we own all variations' patents have been granted before. Personally, I think patents should be limited to specific devices, not to ideas. But that's not how the law reads (at least US law).
calvin-c is offline   Reply With Quote