Uh oh #
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 16:39 GMT
Maybe they should checked on who Segate licensed it from first. Yea I don't think you really want to get into a patent dispute with IBM.
Wounders if IBM will come knocking for royalties.
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 11:47 GMT
This is great news. Hopefully it will send out a message that you can't just sit on a patent and wait for someone to infringe it.
And if Siemens have claimed any royalties in respect of this falsely-granted patent, they can be expected to have to pay them back with interest.
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 13:11 GMT
The judge allowed technical evidence to be given?
Obviously Siemens tried this case in the wrong state. Texas FTW (if you're a patent troll).
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 16:39 GMT
Maybe they should checked on who Segate licensed it from first. Yea I don't think you really want to get into a patent dispute with IBM.
Wounders if IBM will come knocking for royalties.
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 18:55 GMT
Though TBH who cares about Siemens? About the only thing I ever see with their name on it is my Dads cell phone which I keep trying to get him to get rid of.
Posted Tuesday 6th January 2009 18:56 GMT
....obviously to impress the jury. He's no engineer and being mathematically adept to the point of ferreting out electroweak unification is not going to help a lot in solid-state physics, thin-film technology or harddisk design.