Replies to post #58931 on Calypso Wireless (fka CLYW)

[litton51]

"We did not infringe on the 923 patent. And if we did, it isn't a defendable patent anyway. And even if it is a defendable patent, everyone else is using it, too. And even if everyone is not using it too, it is the result of prior art. And even if it is not the result of prior art, it is too vague. And even if it is not too vague to defend, its features are those we came to on our own without any knowledge of the patent or potential infringement. And even if we we did have knowledge of the patent and knew the features mirrored those of the patent, we never entered into an agreement with CLYW to examine and then market the patent with their approval. And even if we knowingly violated an agreement with Calypso to market the patent, it isn't worth much money anyway. And even if it is worth a lot of money, Calypso never had the capability of marketing it themselves. And even if Calypso had the capability of marketing it themselves... Say! What about those Red Socks! So we demand the case be dismissed!

[HighRider]

No big surprise on this summary judgment motion. Tmob is hoping something will stick. As we discussed here previously, they are saying they use signal strenght not distance. I think everybody remembers the recent discusion on that topic. Distance is integral to determining signal strength. So now Tmob is using the wireless Andrew information as prior art, but it was not before the USPTO and tmob even says so. This is like saying I thought of the idea, but decided not to patent it and you can't use it either because I thought of it. That's not how it works. You file a patent if you think of the idea, then you can say it is prior art.