Maybe I am wrong?


The SG patent referred to is 95940 and has an application number of 200301820-7. Now checking on the IPOS site, it looks like the one I spent time looking at 200503881-5 was not the one in question. Thanks to Stephan in pointing it out.

In any case, I think this patent troll should just be ignored. There is enough prior art to make this patent invalid.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s