Search results

I have not read the opinion, but since a warrant was obtained it seems likely the judge's statements regarding the legality of a warrantless search of the computer would be dictum, and therefore not binding on the the courts. I'd be interested to hear what any other lawyer-ish readers think...

Interesting comment, but this line of reasoning amounts to nothing more than innuendo. Park's view was based on the premise that cancer requires genetic damage via the breaking of chemical bonds, for which the energy of a quantum of an RF photon is much too low. In my opinion this is a very...

Bob Park said it best: "The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the [Nobel] prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer...

If I calculated correctly, the patent expired on August 18, 2015. But typically one can reach back six years for damages.

Actually, it has recently become much harder to obtain software patents (as one example of business methods). It was not directly due to the PTO cracking down, but instead due to a key Supreme Court decision. (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014), in case you're interested.) There is...

I haven't seen the pleadings, but at first glance the claims appear to be directed to activities of the end-user and/or manufactures of peripheral devices connected to a USB hub. At least with respect to the independent claims, I don't see that a hub manufacturer could infringe the claims unless...

I didn't see this information posted in the comments, so FYI: US Patent 6,202,150 Claim 1: A method and apparatus for generating public keys and a proof that the keys were generated by a specific algorithm comprising the steps of: the user's system generating a random string of bits based...

"A right to tax is a right to destroy..." McCulloch v. Md., 17 US 316 (1819)

I agree. Newegg undoubtedly has a noninfringement opinion that they will use to rebut any accusation of willful infringement. Then it will be (assuming the patent is found to be valid and infringed) up to the jury to assess credibility of the opinion and whether Newegg was reasonable in relying...

The questioning on whether Newegg continued using SSL+RC4 is interesting in that TQP appears to be laying the groundwork for willful infringement, which can result in an award of treble damages.

Not true. New prior art can be produced at trial, the patent office can be found to have erred, or the case can go to the supreme court which can rewrite the law. (example: KSR v. Teleflex, in which SCOTUS rewrote the law on obviousness.) The patent holder only gets a presumption of validity...

I love NewEgg, and have a lot of respect for Lee Cheng. Now for the unpopular bits: that said, a patent isn't frivolous just because it covers an idea that has become widely used. This patent survived a re-examination, which is no small feat. Moreover, just because a patent predates the...