InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 34
Posts 7605
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 09/29/2011

Re: calebla post# 5823

Saturday, 09/24/2016 4:48:32 AM

Saturday, September 24, 2016 4:48:32 AM

Post# of 39810
The allegation is: Google is filing new patent(s) that incorporate the existing '339 patent.

I don't understand why Google would waste time examining technical materials if their intention was simply to attempt to re-file portions of the '339 patent as a new patent, since the '339 patent had been viewable by the public for something like 8 years before that.

Ican's allegation that Google is attempting to patent this technology while simultaneously challenging the patentability
of this technology is.... confusing.

It's also strange that he is saying the unpatentability challenge "doesn't mean much" ... if it means so little why does Google spend money on it? If it "doesn't mean much" why does Nash write a message complaining at her unhappiness that 7 of the 13 claims in the patent will likely be successfully challenged?

I don't know how it's possible to slice this unpatentability challenge to be a positive result for MAXD, but I'm sure management + supporters on the forums will somehow claim it was an essential and expected part of the master plan to eventually win billions from google.