Replies to post #36621 on UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[Sharktnk]

Circular reasoning, obfuscation ... ambiguity. It honestly looks very weak. In a former life I sat in on the Intel vs. AMD case and reading this stuff was like a trip down memory lane ...

"The microcode contained in Intel's microprocessors and microcomputers" (Loosely recalled)

An absurd and inordinate amount of time was centered around just this phraseology, which to me at least translated to: AMD stating that they had rights and access to Intel's microcode for all eternity and Intel countering with "Your nuts".

I thought both sides were idiot's for agreeing to such an ambiguous terminology in the first place, although I sided with Intel considering everything else that was going on at the time it was written, other subordinating factors ...

Bit of a different animal comparing what's going on here but just commenting on the tactics. These guy's are trying to draw out any reference they can and put doubt on these expert testimonies to try and build a counter response for their appeal. From what I've been reading so far, if this is all they've got working for them it should be a short court session.

Interesting side note I came across in re: to the above:

Patents are tricky things, and litigating them can be very risky. You must balance the desire to keep competition from violating your IP, but at the same time minimize the risk that your patent is declared invalid. This is why most cases end up in an out of court settlement, usually via arbitration. Actual patent jury trials are fairly rare, as they are very expensive and very risky to all parties involved

http://www.cpushack.com/2012/09/06/intel-vs-the-world-the-338-patent/

[I_Am_Ram]

The problem with it is they are trying to invalidate the pieces of the patent by invalidating other patents. Even if they were successful it wouldn't matter as Chanbond's patent is something that was very difficult to put together even if all the subparts are simple pieces of technology. After reading this I honestly think Cisco is just trying to make it seem like they tried.