Timeline for Updating apps on mobile phone to destroy sensitive data (Good Technologies) - Patent Application - PRIOR ART REQUEST
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 29, 2014 at 2:02 | comment | added | user4545 | Well, it's not a patent, but rather an application for a patent. And non-obviousness does not mean that someone couldn't have thought of it -- it means that it's not a straightforward combination of existing well-known components (e.g., LCD displays are well known as replacements for CRT displays with particular benefits, PC with CRT displays are well known, therefore, it would be obvious to have a PC with an LCD display in order to provide those particular benefits). Sorry, but that's the way the founding fathers and congress, through the centuries, decided the system should work. | |
| Oct 30, 2013 at 19:07 | comment | added | codeslinger | nuts, guess I can't be of much help then. but at least there is a trivial work-around, just have the program check for a flag file and have the destruct code already built in. The biggest problem with the patent system as it currently exists is that the Non-Obvious criteria is not enforced in any meaningful way. As a practitioner skilled in the field, it took me all of 5 minutes to come up with the Bonsai (self-destructing program) concept. The method is a logically deducible result of the criteria/specification, it requires no special thought or technique. The patent is an abomination. | |
| Oct 28, 2013 at 13:51 | comment | added | user4545 | It would have had to have been in public use, offered for sale (either directly or indirectly), or published in a publicly accessible fashion. Anything that was for internal/secret use only probably wouldn't qualify. | |
| Oct 13, 2013 at 2:19 | comment | added | codeslinger | hmm, define "disclosed"? this was a in-house project and only used by employees of the company. would that still count? the only documentation would be a copy of the program itself... if I can find it. | |
| Oct 11, 2013 at 13:19 | comment | added | user4545 | As Ron said, any sort of dated evidence of this software would be invaluable in the patent prosecution process. In order to reject a patent claim, the patent office must demonstrate that all of the claimed elements were disclosed by particular earlier-dated documents (either one document alone or an "obvious" combination of multiple documents). If the patent office doesn't have access to the documentation for the HP system you discussed above, they won't be able to make a rejection on those grounds. | |
| Oct 9, 2013 at 13:55 | comment | added | Ron J. | The documentation/manuals, webpage cache, or other dated proof would be useful. | |
| Oct 9, 2013 at 3:55 | review | Late answers | |||
| Oct 9, 2013 at 13:55 | |||||
| Oct 9, 2013 at 3:49 | history | edited | codeslinger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 92 characters in body
|
| Oct 9, 2013 at 3:38 | history | answered | codeslinger | CC BY-SA 3.0 |