I read an article recently where the person who invented Lotus Notes showed that they also had the ability to plugin hypermedia prior to the time the EOLAS patent was filed.
http://slashdot.org/articles/03/09/13/1747219.shtml?tid=113&tid=126&tid=155&; tid=95&tid=99 What happened to prior art in this lawsuit? -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 14, 2003 1:03 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: No so good news Another bit of possible prior art that I keep wondering about is Apple's Hypercard and XCMDs. Hypercard is one of the foundation examples of hypertext. XCMD stands for "eXternal CoMmanD". It was a way to incorporate any external media or datasource into the hypertext document. That included QuickTime video as well as network databases. I recall a project that was built tying Oracle into Hypercard feeding the page content and allowing people to do queries. Hmm. Also, Gopher even had some of this. It was a distributed hypertext medium that could launch media clips as well. -Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 7:00 AM Subject: RE: No so good news > Prior art found perhaps? > > http://www.ozzie.net/blog/stories/2003/09/12/savingTheBrowser.html > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 7:51 AM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: Re: No so good news > > > Jim Davis wrote: > > > No problem. It's just that some people are taking this as an "MS > > finally gets theirs" situation when the ramifications are > > (unfortunately) really much larger than that. > > > > I'm waiting for the definition of "browser" to come up - any hyper-text > > system (CD ROM encyclopedias, help systems, computer assisted training, > > etc) may be affected by this. > > Any hypertext system capable of network operation is affected by > it. The text of the patent is quite clear (and entertaining). > > > > I fully expect it to be thrown out in a higher court > > I don't. The only conceivable reason for it being thrown out is > prior art. I fully expect Microsoft to be capable of finding > that, so I presume it doesn't exist. > > What might happen is that a court orders Eolas to license the > technology under non-discriminating conditions. But they should > be willing to do so anyway, they don't compete with browser > makers so selling/licensing the patent is the only way to make > money from it. > > Jochem > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
