Quoting pentester2189114 (at) hushmail (dot) com [email concealed]:
> It?s important that this be one piece of ?prior art,? rather than two
> or more pieces that, when linked together, invalidate all of the claims.
> Tools that do some of this stuff are abundant and don?t necessarily
> cause the PTO to change anything. One piece of ?prior art? that 1) crawls,
> 2) discovers the links and input fields, 3) sends unauthorized requests,
> 4) reports on the results. This can be software, but it can also be
> a methodology followed by a pen tester as documented in his/her report.
> The ?prior art? needs to be older than March 3, 2000, and it?s better
> if it predates March 3, 1999.
Does that mean, therefore, that they cannot encorce their patent against
products or methodologies that only use a portion of what the patent covers?
> It?s important that this be one piece of ?prior art,? rather than two
> or more pieces that, when linked together, invalidate all of the claims.
> Tools that do some of this stuff are abundant and don?t necessarily
> cause the PTO to change anything. One piece of ?prior art? that 1) crawls,
> 2) discovers the links and input fields, 3) sends unauthorized requests,
> 4) reports on the results. This can be software, but it can also be
> a methodology followed by a pen tester as documented in his/her report.
> The ?prior art? needs to be older than March 3, 2000, and it?s better
> if it predates March 3, 1999.
Does that mean, therefore, that they cannot encorce their patent against
products or methodologies that only use a portion of what the patent covers?
Thanks
Sullo
--
http://www.cirt.net/
[ reply ]