June 22, 2005

ITC Begins Investigating Qualcomm

Pierce Law IP News Blog » ITC Begins Investigating Qualcomm
這新聞算大新聞吧?

Qualcomm是提供BB通訊晶片組的大宗，其所擁有的專利也多如牛毛，在收取權利金方面，更是絕不會手軟，如今卻因為Broadcom(美商博通)，受到ITC的調查。

Qualcomm才剛跟Skyworks Solutions Inc.和解，又來了ITC，Qualcomm這夏天真是超忙。

看來，通訊技術的專利戰爭好有得打。

...繼續閱讀

Posted by ritamars at 天空部落 │13:44:16 │ 回應(0) │ 引用(0) │News

June 17, 2005

Hitachi v. three Taiwanese manufacturers

在Hitachi Ltd. filed a patent suit against three major Taiwanese monitor manufacturers & their American divisions--Pierce Law IP Nws Blog看到的消息，Hitachi是在6/6/2005向U.S. District Court of Northern California提出的。

不知道這三家螢幕廠商到底是誰呢?

...繼續閱讀

Posted by ritamars at 天空部落 │13:29:48 │ 回應(0) │ 引用(0) │News

June 16, 2005

Where's the rest of the music come from?

這下終於有人算出來了！:twisted:
呼應之前的post“iPod的玩家們都是數位音樂的小偷？”

原來每個幾乎平均每一台iPod只有21首從音樂商店買來的音樂呀？
儘管，iPod還兼具硬碟功能，確實不能肯定剩下的空間都是裝盜版音樂，不過，一個iPod通常都不會只有21首歌曲就是了。不過這數據，最肯定的一件事，就是iTune音樂商店，還不是現在大眾購買音樂的主要管道。我們（或者應該說是音樂界）仍然可以懷抱一絲幻想，大家都是去買了整張正版CD再回家存在iPod裡的。:?:


話說回來，iTune音樂商店一首單曲定價一塊美金，Rit@覺得還算合理。畢竟一張專輯又不是每一首都喜歡，怎能強迫人家要把專輯中為了湊成10首這吉祥數字用的曲目也一起買呢？另外，iTune音樂商店的音樂最好還是要適用所有MP3播放器才比較好，比較公平吧？


原文報導21 iTunes sold per iPod -- where's the rest of the music come from?

...繼續閱讀

Posted by ritamars at 天空部落 │13:28:14 │ 回應(0) │ 引用(0) │News

June 9, 2005

想要Flickr紀念品嗎？

喜歡這些Flickr紀念品嗎？


只要把自己家鄉的照片或風景明信片寄到下列地址

Flickr

P.O.Box 3816

Sunnyvale, CA 94088

並附上回覆信封(不用附回郵喔！)，Flickr就會把這些紀念品寄給你囉～
p.s.拜託請記得，回覆信封上自己寫上地址，當然最好是寫英文囉～


...繼續閱讀

Posted by ritamars at 天空部落 │21:43:30 │ 回應(0) │ 引用(0) │News

June 8, 2005

Why will Apple sue bloggers but not CNet?



Why will Apple sue bloggers but not CNet?



    Apple + Intel: Where’s the Lawsuit Against C|Net?


    Posted by Ernest Miller

Late
Friday afternoon, C|Net News published an extremely valuable trade
secret about Apple and Intel, days before Apple was scheduled to
announce it (Apple to Ditch IBM, Switch to Intel Chips). So, where’s
the friggin’ lawsuit against C|Net to find out who leaked? Where is the
judge who is going to claim that what C|Net published was “stolen
property”?


Will someone please explain to me the difference between what C|Net has done and what happened in Apple v. Does?


唉～難不成又是欺善怕惡的例子？




...繼續閱讀

Posted by ritamars at 天空部落 │21:34:39 │ 回應(53) │ 引用(0) │News

June 3, 2005

This is Not iPod mini

Not iPod mini同一家公司，真是讓人無言了。
何必要這樣？

難道台灣沒有工業設計的人才了嗎？
同一把戲不要玩太多次，真的讓人會看膩了。

Posted by ritamars at 天空部落 │23:32:59 │ 回應(0) │ 引用(0) │News

May 26, 2005

Again!! -Apple回收NB鋰電池

這已經是自2004年夏季，Apple第2次向消費者召回電池組。

Rit@的小白也收到這次邀請，Apple寄來的信標題寫的聳動"important safety recall"，讓一般會以為Apple總是寄廣告信而忽略的Rit@趕緊看個仔細，原來是要說針對韓國LG Chem製造生產的電池組進行回收，因為這批電池組有過熱會引發火災的問題。

說真的，小白電池真是太容易發燙了，現在說要換，希望會比較好。上網查了一下，Apple的電池組供應商除了LG Chem，還有SONY、松下（Panasonic）與台灣廠商順達等等....以Rit@對Sony產品的好印象，Rit@希望可以換到Sony出品的!!!!!!!不過，這是做夢吧...能換一個好用的最實際。

Posted by ritamars at 天空部落 │08:30:58 │ 回應(0) │ 引用(0) │News

May 24, 2005

BPAI interprets closed transition phrase for method claims

BPAI interprets closed transition phrase for method claims

Ex parte Hideaki Ueda (BPAI ) (NOT PRECEDENTIAL)

In a case involving a process for preparing an organic electroluminescent element, the patent examiner issued a rejection for indefiniteness under 35 USC 112, second paragraph. The examiner indicated that the claimed language of "consisting essentially of" excluded any further steps which materially affect the claimed process. Because the dependent claims included further limitations, the examiner rejected those claims as logically excluded by the "consisting" language.

On appeal at the BPAI, the Board reversed the examiner, finding that the phrase "consisting essentially of" does not limit a claim only to steps specifically recited in the claim -- but is only would exclude ingredients which would materially affect basic and novel characteristics.

In this case, the limitations described in the dependent claims were disclosed in the specification. As such, those elements cannot contradict the basic characteristics of the invention.

byPatently-O: Patent Law Blog
在一方法專利的審查過程中，審查委員依照35 USC 112，認為在一獨立項中使用"consisting essentially of"係排除其他之額外步驟增加，因此對於其後之附屬項所新增之步驟，以語言邏輯上錯誤，而劾駁本案

不過BRAI推翻這項劾駁，認為"consisting essentially of"並非是將方法步驟僅限定在該claim本身所提到的，而是僅排除"ingredients which would materially affect basic and novel characteristics"，而附屬項的步驟，係在說明書中已有提到的，所以不算是"contradict the basic characteristics of the invention"；也就是說，在附屬項增加步驟或許是可行的?
Rit@這邊不是很懂，如果根據這個判定，"consisting essentially of"的半開放式語言，是不是僅限於"disclosed in the specification"?
既然如此，日後在解釋claim的時候，若一疑似侵權製程，所增加的步驟，是在說明書中有提到，也沒有在說明書中被述及會影響此發明的基本特徵，但卻沒被claim進去的步驟，則是否構成侵權?
如果根據上述的判定，這個consisting essentially of是可以更包含在說明書中有提到，但卻沒被claim進去的步驟，那麼這個製程初步會被判定有侵權囉?除非，這個疑似侵權製程所增加的步驟，在被加入原claim範圍，會影響其新穎性，那就可以被排除囉?Rit@猜想兩邊的拉鋸，應該是這樣吧?

Posted by ritamars at 天空部落 │08:46:29 │ 回應(0) │ 引用(0) │News

May 18, 2005

"我不按指紋，給我身分證"

"我不按指紋，給我身分證"連署書 我是所謂的市井小民，我不懂為什麼要按指紋才能拿到我身為中華民國國民本來就該拿到的身份證 如果，按壓指紋就可以遏止犯罪，促進治安那為何還會有慣犯，這些慣犯不早就按過無數次指紋，也在警察局留檔了嗎? 之前未了防止詐欺，而限制轉帳金額，已經讓社會譁然現在領身分證需按壓指紋的規定，更是讓人對政府的思維產生質疑 在這樣下去，有一天，或許會像18世紀歐洲一般，為防止犯罪，把大腦前葉切除，讓人吃癡呆呆不具攻擊性，那天下就太平了嗎?

Posted by ritamars at 天空部落 │12:58:52 │ 回應(2) │ 引用(0) │News

May 12, 2005

Why Taiwan Matters

本週BusinessWeek的封面故事 Why Taiwan Matters- The global economy couldn't function without it. But can it really find peace with China?

Posted by ritamars at 天空部落 │09:18:30 │ 回應(0) │ 引用(0) │News
回頁首▲