On Nov 17, 2010, at 11:01 45PM, James A. Donald wrote:
>> On 17/11/10 7:26 AM, David G. Koontz wrote:
>>> On 17/11/10 9:01 AM, David G. Koontz wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> A. US6704870, granted on March 9, 2004 (Yes, published)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sony asserted prior art against this patent in the 2007 case before
>>> agreeing
>>> Certicom's motion to end the lawsuit, which was granted without
>>> prejudice.
>
> On 2010-11-18 8:42 AM, Ian G wrote:
>> What does that mean?
>
> It means that Sony pointed out that Certicom's claim is as full of shit as we
> all know it to be, and that the court case ended without the court, which
> found Certicom's claim and Sony's defense equally incomprehensible, finding
> for or against anyone.
>
Go to
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txedce/2:2007cv00216/103383/112/
and read the document. It says that the case is being dismissed because the
parties have settled. It says nothing about why either party chose to settle.
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
_______________________________________________
cryptography mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
