Or at least implement them within a certain amount of time.
Rick
-Original Message-
From: Thomas Chiverton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, 27 October, 2003 07:24
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
On Friday 24 Oct 2003 17:46 pm, Matt Liotta
On Friday 24 Oct 2003 17:46 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> ideas they never implement? Because the practice of patenting ideas
> without implementing them into a product is quite common.
And shouldn't be allowed.
If you event a physical device and patent it (in the US) you have to provide a
working ex
> No worries, I'm taking out a Patent on being an Asshole, then I'm going
> after Eolas and all these other jokers for infringement. Ask anyone I
> know, I'll get the patent.
>
You'd have a tough time doing full discovery on all "prior art" on the
topic.
Besides, you'd only get a Patent on the PR
I suppose you could "sit on" your patent for a while like eolas (lol).
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:53 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news), beat the horse dead
-Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:17 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
>
> > But Eolas is still only suing MS and that is precisely my issue with
> > him
ept by the patent. That is why patents are based on
process, not on concept.
- Original Message -
From: "Calvin Ward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:37 PM
Subject: Re: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales n
arino
--
Webmaster - HealthObjects
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
410 895 0377
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 3:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
> But Eolas is still only suing MS and that is p
> But Eolas is still only suing MS and that is precisely my issue with
> him. I don't think he has any intentions of suing Apple and AOL. Which
> in my book are still pretty big fish. They have openly said they are
> trying to 'balance the internet browser war'. (ie. We're only going to
> sue MS)
>
of Public Health
Distance Education Division
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:52 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
> Since there's nothing we can do about it, we just have to use
+++
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 12:49 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
> If this was about "protecting intellectual property" all of the
browser
> vendors
r 24, 2003 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
> Since there's nothing we can do about it, we just have to use the
> workaround and hope that Eolas goes belly up.
>
Alternatively, you could get mad at the patent system instead and work
t
> Since there's nothing we can do about it, we just have to use the
> workaround and hope that Eolas goes belly up.
>
Alternatively, you could get mad at the patent system instead and work
to change that instead of wasting time on the latest company exploiting
it.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Mon
At 12:22 PM 10/24/03 -0400, Matt Liotta wrote:
>It is standard practice to sue the big fish first before suing any
>other infringers. Again, Eolas is currently playing fair. Whether or
>not we like, they did get the patent and are allowed to enforce it.
I don't think that being an ass has anything
Dave Watts wrote:
>
> Common business practices are often considered unethical (especially by
> people who don't benefit from those practices); what people are allowed to
> do by law is not necessarily the same as what they should do.
>
> Eolas doesn't actually produce anything. To the best of my
> If this was about "protecting intellectual property" all of the browser
> vendors would be in the same boat, however they're not. Microsoft was
> targeted because they have the deepest pockets and the lion's share of
> the browser market.
>
Again, Eolas is following the standard patent litigation
> Common business practices are often considered unethical (especially by
> people who don't benefit from those practices); what people are
> allowed to
> do by law is not necessarily the same as what they should do.
>
While that may be true, it would seem to me then that it is actually
the law t
Joshua Miller wrote:
>
> If this was about "protecting intellectual property" all of the browser
> vendors would be in the same boat, however they're not.
It is not and it was never about protecting intellectual
property. It is about the exploitation of intellectual property
to earn money.
> M
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
> Distance Education Division
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 11:38 AM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
>
&
> If he was suing Netscape & Apple I'd think differently. However he's
> only targeting MS.
>
It is standard practice to sue the big fish first before suing any
other infringers. Again, Eolas is currently playing fair. Whether or
not we like, they did get the patent and are allowed to enforce it.
> This is now off topic, but I find it interesting that people
> consider Eolas to some how be evil when every other software
> company has patents they enforce too. What specifically is
> your problem with Eolas?
Common business practices are often considered unethical (especially by
people w
OTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 11:38 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
> I still think Eolas is an ass.
>
This is now off topic, but I find it interesting that people consider
Eolas to some how be evil when every other software company has paten
Matt Liotta wrote:
>>It does not allow solutions that use embed.
>>
>
> I also believe HTML 4 (XHTML transitional) has deprecated embed.
Correct. And even before the active content changes were required
this was a problem for those of us who have clients that demand
standard compliance.
Jochem
> It does not allow solutions that use embed.
>
I also believe HTML 4 (XHTML transitional) has deprecated embed.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User S
> If they were only concerned with their IP rights, they'd have sued
> years ago,
> and would currently be sueing more than just Microsoft.
> As it is, it looks to me like a money grab.
>
Which is just plain good business currently. If you don't like it, talk
to your representative about changing
what an analogy... it is Friday. You win best email of the day.
-Original Message-
From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:42 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
I think the problem is that we have all gone down a
On Friday 24 Oct 2003 16:42 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> While that is certainly one perspective, I find it perplexing. Why
> would you assume that another solution would not be of interest?
I haven't yet seen any other method that has the blessing of the people
rewriting the effected web browser, a
Thomas Chiverton wrote:
> On Friday 24 Oct 2003 16:41 pm, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
>
>>Some of us need solutions that are XHTML compliant.
>
> Does XHTML not allow _javascript_ tags or something ?
It does not allow solutions that use embed.
Jochem
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscri
On Friday 24 Oct 2003 16:38 pm, Matt Liotta wrote:
> certainly playing fair.
If they were only concerned with their IP rights, they'd have sued years ago,
and would currently be sueing more than just Microsoft.
As it is, it looks to me like a money grab.
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Pr
On Friday 24 Oct 2003 16:41 pm, Jochem van Dieten wrote:
> Some of us need solutions that are XHTML compliant.
Does XHTML not allow _javascript_ tags or something ?
--
Tom Chiverton
Advanced ColdFusion Programmer
Tel: +44(0)1749 834997
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BlueFinger Limited
Underwood Busi
hahahahahahahahahaaa... like the analogy!
-Original Message-
From: Tony Weeg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 24 October 2003 16:42
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
I think the problem is that we have all gone down a road, so far
so long,
and
> Why ?
> Macromedia/MS have said this is the way it will work - you can bet that
> shortly when you drop Flash into Dreamweaver, it will use this style
> of code.
>
> What's the point of going off doing you're own think, with no gurantee
> it'll
> (continue) to work ? I may not trust MS, but I d
plications architect
navtrak, inc.
www.navtrak.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
410.548.2337
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 11:38 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT (was Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news)
> I still think Eolas is an ass.
>
This
Thomas Chiverton wrote:
> On Friday 24 Oct 2003 16:28 pm, Ciliotta, Mario wrote:
>
>>When will the article appear? I am interested in seeing all the other
>>solutions that are available for use.
>
> Why ?
> Macromedia/MS have said this is the way it will work - you can bet that
> shortly when y
I have a meeting at Microsoft's PDC on Monday that will determine the
publish date, so I won't know till then.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Se
> I still think Eolas is an ass.
>
This is now off topic, but I find it interesting that people consider
Eolas to some how be evil when every other software company has patents
they enforce too. What specifically is your problem with Eolas? They
have offered to license their patent to Microsoft,
On Friday 24 Oct 2003 16:28 pm, Ciliotta, Mario wrote:
> When will the article appear? I am interested in seeing all the other
> solutions that are available for use.
Why ?
Macromedia/MS have said this is the way it will work - you can bet that
shortly when you drop Flash into Dreamweaver, it wi
Matt,
When will the article appear? I am interested in seeing all the other
solutions that are available for use.
Thanks
Mario
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:05 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Macromedia sinks on sales
Good point.
-Kevin
- Original Message -
From: "Sandy Clark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 8:57 AM
Subject: RE: Macromedia sinks on sales news
> IMHO, it still doesn't preclude.
>
>
On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 01:04 AM, Matt Liotta wrote:
> I have an article that will be published by DevX real soon now that
> IMHO provides a much better solution than what is currently provided at
> DevNet.
Since I haven't seen this particular solution, I cannot comment on it
directly, h
: Macromedia sinks on sales news
> Wouldn't removing the Flash and remaking the feature in HTML or
> _javascript_ or something else actually take MORE time than patching the
> tag to work with their already functional Flash? I would
> imagine that the number of lazy folks out there who w
On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 09:53 AM, Kevin Graeme wrote:
> An example of this is any site that wants to be accessible following
> WAI
> guidelines. According to the Web Content Accessiblity Guidelines, a
> site
> must still function with _javascript_ turned off at the browser.
Keep in mind
eta refresh or have a link to the accessible<br>
alternative.</noscript><br>
In reality that more fits in with an accessible site than automatically
launches a plugin.
_
From: Kevin Graeme [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:53 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subj
> I didn't suggest it had anything to do with Laziness. Again, there are
> sites that currently make use of Flash, but not _javascript_. If they are
> required to start using _javascript_ they well decide not to use Flash.
> Remember that just because using _javascript_ is no big deal to you
> does
ED]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 6:24 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news
>
> $9.8 million in revenues? That's really low.
>
> - Jim
>
> Ricky Fritzsching wrote:
>
> > http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3
> Wouldn't removing the Flash and remaking the feature in HTML or
> _javascript_ or something else actually take MORE time than patching the
> tag to work with their already functional Flash? I would
> imagine that the number of lazy folks out there who would stop using a
> technology rather than
Wouldn't removing the Flash and remaking the feature in HTML or
_javascript_ or something else actually take MORE time than patching the
tag to work with their already functional Flash? I would
imagine that the number of lazy folks out there who would stop using a
technology rather than patch some
> Flash has always required "some effort" to implement, how exactly will
> adding a step to the embedding process affect their market position? Do
> you really think people will chose another format than Flash because
> they have to spend an extra 5 minutes to embed the movie? What's the
> alternat
Flash has always required "some effort" to implement, how exactly will
adding a step to the embedding process affect their market position? Do
you really think people will chose another format than Flash because
they have to spend an extra 5 minutes to embed the movie? What's the
alternative anyway
> The upcoming changes in Internet Explorer have been successfully
> addressed. Macromedia is very confident in our recommended solution.
>
I have an article that will be published by DevX real soon now that
IMHO provides a much better solution than what is currently provided at
DevNet. However,
On Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 09:04 PM, Matt Liotta wrote:
> Of course, I'm sure that the Eolas patent dispute may put a
> damper on that real soon.
The upcoming changes in Internet Explorer have been successfully
addressed. Macromedia is very confident in our recommended solution.
Christi
ne misinformed, technically ignorant reporter from the
"Wall Street Journal" to say "the Eolas patent will kill flash". ;^)
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 9:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re:
The general consensus has been that the P/E is justified given Flash's
potential. Of course, I'm sure that the Eolas patent dispute may put a
damper on that real soon.
Matt Liotta
President & CEO
Montara Software, Inc.
http://www.MontaraSoftware.com
(888) 408-0900 x901
[Todays Threads]
[This
ubject: RE: Macromedia sinks on sales news
Yeah, probably a good time to buy into Macromedia.
Ben
_
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 23, 2003 4:55 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Macromedia sinks on sales news
I personally think this is just a temporary
Yeah, probably a good time to buy into Macromedia.
Ben
_
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: October 23, 2003 4:55 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: Macromedia sinks on sales news
I personally think this is just a temporary plunge. I doubt we'll see a
spike, but I think
ral (but
still nasty) market fluctuation.
Or is this just wishful thining. ;^)
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: Tom Kitta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 6:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news
What are your thoughts, will MM reb
mp;D
ate=20031022&ID=2984685
-Original Message-
From: Jim Campbell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 6:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: Macromedia sinks on sales news
$9.8 million in revenues? That's really low.
- Jim
Ricky Fritzsching
Original Message:
> From: Jim Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> $9.8 million in revenues? That's really low.
That's $9.8 million in net income (compared to a net loss of $11.7 million last year). Sales were $89.9 million.
Scott
---
Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net/
What are your thoughts, will MM rebound or will it sink deeper? We don't want Jim's portfolio to sink any more ;-)
TK
- Original Message -
From: Jim Davis
To: CF-Talk
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 6:33 PM
Subject: RE: Macromedia sinks on sales news
Yeah. I no
ROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 6:12 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Macromedia sinks on sales news
http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5095653.html?tag=nefd_top
---
Ricky Fritzsching
_
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
$9.8 million in revenues? That's really low.
- Jim
Ricky Fritzsching wrote:
> http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5095653.html?tag=nefd_top
>
> ---
> Ricky Fritzsching
>
>
>
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5095653.html?tag=nefd_top
---
Ricky Fritzsching
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
61 matches
Mail list logo
