This is a rather complex software lawsuit, but I was intrigued because the person who claimed the patent was only his idea blamed the whole situation on an apostrophe he had used in his patent claim - he said he didn't correctly understand the use of the apostrophe. Apparently the jury disagreed. Here is a clip from the article:
quote:
The lawyers wanted proof. They found it in the form of one sentence among thousands of pages that Crawford submitted to the patent office. The sentence was this:
"This proposal it is in response to Jack Byrd's idea to provide automated offsite backup services for PC users." The lawyers for Carbonite and EMC argued that was conclusive evidence that Crawford's patents were based on Byrd's idea. At a videotaped deposition Crawford gave as part of the Oasis trial, he offered up a surprising defense. He argued that the sentence didn't actually mean the idea was Byrd's, because he, Crawford, had used the apostrophe "s" incorrectly.
Attorney: "I'm asking you, though — you certainly know what the use of an apostrophe 's' means, do you not?" Chris Crawford: "As I've written documents over the years, there are times when I use an apostrophe 's,' and it seems like I'm supposed to use an apostrophe 's.' But I have to say that my grammar is not strong enough to tell you right now with clarity when an apostrophe 's' is used."
"This proposal it is in response to Jack Byrd's idea to provide automated offsite backup services for PC users."
I don't understand this at all. If he didn't mean to use the apostrophe what was the sentence supposed to mean? Why mention Byrd at all if the idea wasn't his?
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Clearly that's what he meant, arnie. He was just lying to protect himself. There is a new term being used now, based on these lawsuits: Patent Trolls. I bet, when we have the 2013 words of the year, this will appear.
Patent trolls aren't new to this year. Negotiations and trials involving them have been going on for several years. It's true that some cases have been resolved recently so the phrase has been used perhaps more widely, though.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
A local attorney is advertising that his firm will work for their client (you) until you take your money from an award to the bank. This implies that every client will win a sizable amount, something that is if not impossible at least highly unlikely. Yet the bar association seems to see nothing wrong with this deceptive advertising.
Here is a clip from the article: 
