They are written for scientists or technologists or experts in whatever the field is whether its mechanics or fluid dynamics or bio chemistry. And the Patent Office actually encourages you not to put too much background science into your patent, but its all deemed to be there. So, when a generalist judge gets one of these patent cases, they have to figure out what the patent means in order for them to figure out whether the patent is a valid claim of an invention and whether the defendants invention infringes the patent. And often thanks to a ruling the Supreme Court handed down close to 20 years ago called markman, they have whats called a markman hear chg is basically a little mini trial before the court, not a jury, where they decide what the terms in the patent mean. Often you have experts testify. Now, usually in federal court when you have experts come in and testify and the judge decides which expert he believes and which expert he doesnt, that is reviewed very deferential on ap
Public private Partnership Capacity to adjust true proprietary capability. Microsoft handed over microsoft 7, and maybe 8, too. But for 7, to say, heres what we have, and thats a trust issue. So working with the government, the private sector will continue to do what it does. I was at black hat two weeks ago and i met up with a bunch of guys that came up with the next generation, or what they thought, was the next generation enkripgs solution. It starts where the es leaves off. And they are giving away a bmw to anyone who can crack their inkrepgs. But the point is, what we want do is work with the government. He want to give them the solution and work with them to secure what needs to be secured. And we understand that we have to share a significant amount of our technology to do that. But were okay with that because the government understands that the flip side of sharing that technology is a trust issue of deserving the proprietary nature of that technology. Making sure they arent da