>
> On 20 February 2018 at 17:20, Chuck Atkins
> wrote:
> > FWIW, the patent should expire this June in which case it should no
> longer
> > be an issue.
> >
> I think you're confusing "application fill-in date" with "date patent
> issued".
Nope. Last year I contacted RPX Holdings, the compay t
On 20 February 2018 at 17:35, Emil Velikov wrote:
> On 20 February 2018 at 17:20, Chuck Atkins wrote:
>> FWIW, the patent should expire this June in which case it should no longer
>> be an issue.
>>
> I think you're confusing "application fill-in date" with "date patent
> issued". Former is in 19
On 20 February 2018 at 17:20, Chuck Atkins wrote:
> FWIW, the patent should expire this June in which case it should no longer
> be an issue.
>
I think you're confusing "application fill-in date" with "date patent
issued". Former is in 1998, while latter in 2003.
Exact dates and document numbers a
FWIW, the patent should expire this June in which case it should no longer
be an issue.
On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:00 AM, Emil Velikov
wrote:
> On 20 February 2018 at 13:36, Eric Engestrom
> wrote:
> > Reported-by: Pierre Moreau
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom
> > ---
> > docs/patents.txt
On 20 February 2018 at 13:36, Eric Engestrom wrote:
> Reported-by: Pierre Moreau
> Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom
> ---
> docs/patents.txt | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/docs/patents.txt b/docs/patents.txt
> index b20a045d4b579cba36c3..91c5757d14dc8c7fde
Reported-by: Pierre Moreau
Signed-off-by: Eric Engestrom
---
docs/patents.txt | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/docs/patents.txt b/docs/patents.txt
index b20a045d4b579cba36c3..91c5757d14dc8c7fdec9 100644
--- a/docs/patents.txt
+++ b/docs/patents.txt
@@ -27,5 +27
