[p2p-hackers] Altnet goes after p2p networks with obvious patent

[Ian Clarke]

Since then I spoke to a lawyer, and he pointed out that jurys rule on 
matters of fact, not matters of law, and the validity of this patent 
would be a matter of law - making it very unlikely that their claim is 
accurate.

Ian.

On 16 Jan 2005, at 02:21, Susheel Daswani wrote:

> "Clearly I am not a lawyer (and everything I know about IP law I wish I
> didn't need to know), but I am not sure why a jury, having decided that
> Akamai doesn't use the patented technology, would bother to comment on
> whether the patent was valid.  Was the validity of the patent even
> contested?"
>
> I'm researching the case, but the jury may have made a special
> verdict, whereby they are posed several questions and they rule on
> each in turn (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 49(a)).  So it is very
> possible that they could find the patent valid but Akamai
> non-infringing.
>
> More to follow.  That brief you sent seemed to be in regards to the
> trial court case which was superseded by an appellate case (I think).
> Susheel
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
> _______________________________________________
> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
>
>
--
Founder, The Freenet Project	http://freenetproject.org/
CEO, Cematics Ltd				http://cematics.com/
Personal Blog					http://locut.us/~ian/blog/