Reply to post: Re: ignoring the fact of Prior Art ?

Apple: Trust us, we've patented parts of Swift, and thus chunks of other programming languages, for your own good

Michael Wojcik Silver badge

Re: ignoring the fact of Prior Art ?

It's complicated.

Some considerations would be: To have standing, you probably need to show actual harm, for example that you're being sued for infringing the patent. And when the case is appealed out of district court (and if you win, it most certainly will be; any number of firms would take that on contingency), it goes to CAFC, which is notoriously fond of patent holders. (Unlike East Texas; that's largely a myth.1)

1In 2008, East Texas ranked seventh in rate of plaintiff wins for patent disputes. In earlier years it arguably was more patent-friendly, though that's largely due to a number of "marginal factors" which make defending against infringement suits more expensive. Obviously that encourages defendants to settle, which is good for PAEs (trolls).

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019