Please see https://gist.github.com/Ayms/64dfd60ddae05aeaff4e
This is a brief code comparison between the extract widget projects from
the patent and the Polymer project.
Since we knew exactly what we had to look for, we found it, the
conclusion is:
Not seeing obvious similitudes between the Polymer and the EW code,
therefore between the Web Components and the patent, or arguing that
these are standard practices while we see that today it's still
difficult to accomplish and that we still need to hack the entire DOM
all possible ways to do it, as well as performing very strange and not
usual manipulations, could only be the result of very bad faith.
Hopefully the DOM hacking will stop when the specs will be implemented
inside browsers.
Probably the next step is to link to how we have set in 2007 a
template-like element associated with a framework implementing some
HTML5 features, before HTML5.
There is a logic between all our projects and their history, same as the
Web Components logic.
Instead of trying to refute the creativity and innovation of the patent,
maybe we should make it happen the way it was intended to, please see
the Note in the gist.
Maybe it should become obvious too that if we can import and construct a
shadow domed web component, we can extract it the same way, that's the
same thing.
Regards,
Aymeric
Le 22/05/2015 00:01, Aymeric Vitte a écrit :
Since this is public now for everybody, please let me give some
additional information.
We think that the extraction mechanisms described in the patent and not
covered by any spec will happen one day too, and could be integrated in
the Web Components spec, the purpose being to extract a customized
custom element from any site, not only from the constructor site, it's
probably very simple to specify now, if there is some interest we could
participate to this.
From a technical standpoint, please see below everything we have written
about the obvious similitudes between the patent (2010) and the Web
Components (2012), as well as the widget-like projects (2013/2014).
If someone finds some anteriority, then please advise, this is what we
have been asking for since 6 months, but please read what follows before.
The enormous difference between what describes the patent and all
existing technologies when we issued it is that all existing
technologies were producing gadgets:
- that were sandboxed (iframes for example) and could not interact with
the other elements of the web page where they were injected
- that were displayed alone
- that needed some specific format, development skills or tools (like
browsers, frameworks, apis) to be created and displayed
- that could not necessarily render or adapt on any devices, like mobiles
To my knowledge, at that time no project never envisioned at any moment
any gadgets that could be integrated into a web page as normal browser
elements (ie DOM elements) on any device possibly interacting with the
other browser elements of the page while keeping their own properties
not interfering between each others, which is very exactly what the
patent describes and what the Web Components are about.
One of the reason probably is that this was extraordinarly complicate to
perform at that time, like for our past projects which were difficult to
implement, and still is today, except if we use the Web Components or
widget-like concepts of today helped by the improvements brought by
ES6/7 and HTML.
The patent describes an universal method to accomplish the above and the
definition of a gadget in the patent is very clear regarding its
ability to interact with the rest of the page.
I have tried to detail all this and performed a detailed comparison with
the Web Components and widget-like projects here:
- Main claim, scope and applications
https://gist.github.com/Ayms/efc919d6d6381c37dbbe
Which shows that not only Web Components are impacted, but all
widget-like projects, thousands of projects, and soon or later all projects.
and here:
-Extract Widget Patent FR2962237 - Process to create an application of
gadget type incorporated into a container of widget type -
https://gist.github.com/Ayms/ee9f99e5dfabb68bcc27
The second gist is a bit long and the translation of the patent probably
not perfect, beside the detailed comparison for each claim of the patent
with the Web Components, the most interesting section is probably: The
patent vs the traditional approach = Web Components
https://gist.github.com/Ayms/ee9f99e5dfabb68bcc27#the-patent-vs-the-traditional-approach--the-web-components
Regarding a possible solution, to make it short, since now 6 months
(realizing at last that all the components projects were infringing the
patent) we have stated that we would like to find an agreement so we
transfer the rights of the patent to the W3C members and they sublicense
it royalty free for everybody via the W3C.
This agreement should cover at least
