On Friday 12 Sep 2003 21:42 pm, David Keevil wrote:
fridayafternoon paranoia=high
Well if you were MS and you wanted to kill Flash, losing this case just
might be a good way to do it. Granted, they may have underestimated the
damages but I don't think they would mind seeing Flash go away.
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
I am not a lawyer
I'm not either, but I have common sense, wihich largely compensates ;-)
I was refering to the Patent Act of Canada, art. 65: Abuse of rights under patents
See http://lois.justice.gc.ca/en/P-4/89936.html#section-65
See also:
« Although in the United States the patent law does not provide for
compulsory licenses, this is probably the country with the richest
experience in the granting of compulsory licenses to remedy
anti-competitive practices. More than one hundred such licenses have
been granted
That is anti-trust law and not patent.
Nope, if the patent owner does not grant ANY licence, there is no matter for
anti-trust law, where is the trust?
Antitrust Law is when one does something, takes advantage of it and prevents others
from doing business.
If he does not do any business with
if the patent owner does not grant ANY licence,
I mean if the patent owner does not grant ANY licence, AND does not uses it for
himself
~|
Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:4
Subscription:
- 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
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
Jeremy wrote:
Off topic but it is Friday after all.
Bad News :(
http://news.com.com/2104-1032_3-5074799.html
http://www.zeldman.com
What's bad about that?
Jochem
~|
Archives:
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
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
-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
, 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
There is a very important point for people to realize. There really
isn't any good reason why Microsoft would want to win this case. For
them, it would be much better to not support plug-ins, so their
competitors plug-ins are screwed e.g. Real Player, QuickTime, Flash,
Java, etc. Since
Would those browsers be able to remain free if they were to incur
licensing costs?
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 13, 2003 2:01 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
There is a very important point for people to realize
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 1:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
There is a very important point for people to realize. There really
isn't any good reason why Microsoft would want to win this case
Would those browsers be able to remain free if they were to incur
licensing costs?
Fair point, but as I believe it was Jochem who pointed it out, this patent
isn't their core service. A cursory look at their web site (www.eolas.com)
shows that they seem to be more into biotechnology that web
If it were still available as a stand-alone application - which it
would
pretty much have to be - it would still be covered by the patent as it
would be automatically launching executable code from a hyper-text
environment.
The patent specifically refers to plug-ins and not technology
Dave wrote:
Am I off on that?
Sadly, I think you are. The market just has too much momentum behind
IE. Grandma isn't going to switch browsers, and neither is the boss,
Mrs. McGillicuddy down the street etc. People will use what Microsoft
provides for free, or what comes installed on the
-Original Message-
From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 2:25 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
Would those browsers be able to remain free if they were to incur
licensing costs?
Fair point, but as I believe
That would then leave them open to counter-suits. Refusing a service
to
one company for the express purpose of hurting that company's business
is illegal. Especially, as in this case, when there is no competitor
from which the service can be obtained.
However, this isn't a service; it is
PROTECTED]
Sent: September 13, 2003 2:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
If it were still available as a stand-alone application - which it
would
pretty much have to be - it would still be covered by the patent as it
would be automatically launching executable code from a hyper-text
Perhaps they'll stick it to MS then turn around and license it for free
to open source initiatives...ouch!
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 13, 2003 2:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
That would then leave them open
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 2:32 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
If it were still available as a stand-alone application - which it
would
pretty much have to be - it would still be covered
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 2:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
That would then leave them open to counter-suits. Refusing a
service
to
one company for the express purpose of hurting
The Patent actually NEVER refers specifically to plug-ins. You can
read
it here:
I understand that, but if you read claim 2...
2. The method of claim 1, wherein said executable application is a
controllable application and further comprising the step of:
interactively controlling
It is a service in the sense that a case can be made that it is
unavailable from anybody else. You can bring a suit against somebody
for refusing to license for questionable terms.
Especially, as in this case, when the licenser is not in direct
competition with the licensee.
There is cases
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 3:17 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
The Patent actually NEVER refers specifically to plug-ins. You can
read
it here:
I understand that, but if you read claim 2
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 3:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
It is a service in the sense that a case can be made that it is
unavailable from anybody else. You can bring a suit against
Again - if it were also a stand alone application (as it probably needs
to be) then the situation is murkier - how is it integrated. A DLL
on
the machine (as long as it launched by a hyper text command and
controlled by the hyper-text browser) IS a plug-in - despite the fact
that there is
The same claim can be made by MS (ironically) that due to IE's
dominance
MS requires access to this license to sustain marketability.
The difference is that unlike the dominance of Windows in the OS
market, there is no lock-in with IE in the browser market. Therefore,
consumers will not be
Matt Liotta wrote:
However all of this is a moot point: Eolas is obviously not interested
in toppling MS but in making so quick cash. If it comes to it they
won't balk at licensing to anybody with deep enough pockets.
I don't know, there were some interesting quotes from the Eolas shared
There is no law that says you must license your patent.
Yes there are. It is one of the conditions you are granted a patent: you must provide
access to you invention
at a reasonable price, otherwise you may loose it.
~|
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 4:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
Again - if it were also a stand alone application (as it probably
needs
to be) then the situation is murkier - how is it integrated
Yes there are. It is one of the conditions you are granted a patent:
you must provide access to you invention
at a reasonable price, otherwise you may loose it.
I don't believe that is true. Further, a reasonable price is a quite a
debatable thing.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara
Davis
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 4:02 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
Again - if it were also a stand alone application (as it probably
needs
to be) then the situation is murkier - how
and were forced to license to the likes of
Coleco and Magnavox.
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: Claude Schneegans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 5:04 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
There is no law that says you must license your patent
I don't think that's correct. ActiveX (and this Flash and all of the
ActiveX plug-ins) uses COM - which launches the external application
in the same memory space.
Using ActiveX and using a DLL are two different things. It is possible
to make use of a DLL without the use of ActiveX or COM in
Acrobat, for example, does not (I believe) use ActiveX as Flash and
many
others do: Acrobat uses OLE (the Acrobat reader opens within IE, adding
custom toolbars and such just an Office app would, but can also open as
a stand-alone application).
Even though Acrobat Reader is not specifically
They then tried to keep competitors out of the market by claiming
patent
infringement but failed and were forced to license to the likes of
Coleco and Magnavox.
I believe that was a direct result of anti-trust law and not a function
of patent law.
Matt Liotta
President CEO
Montara
Saturday, September 13, 2003, 3:23:40 PM, you wrote:
However all of this is a moot point: Eolas is obviously not interested
in toppling MS but in making so quick cash. If it comes to it they
won't balk at licensing to anybody with deep enough pockets.
ML I don't know, there were some
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 5:34 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
Acrobat, for example, does not (I believe) use ActiveX as Flash and
many
others do: Acrobat uses OLE (the Acrobat reader opens
But that's exactly what happens with OLE of Office applications - as I
said before.
Indeed, but I am not disagreeing with you in that regard. I am stating
that if the technology of Windows Media Player (not the application)
was embedded in IE then it does not fall under the patent since it is
-Original Message-
From: Matt Liotta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
But that's exactly what happens with OLE of Office applications - as
I
said before.
Indeed, but I am not disagreeing with you
I don't believe that is true.
I got some information some time ago since I was considering a patent (not for
software ;-) and if I remember well, this was clear that you cannot take a patent,
prevent any one from using your invention and NOT use it for your own purpose.
I don't know how long it
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 08:27 PM, Claude Schneegans wrote:
I don't believe that is true.
I got some information some time ago since I was considering a patent
(not for software ;-) and if I remember well, this was clear that you
cannot take a patent, prevent any one from using
Old news now...and it ain't over till the fat lady sings ;-)
Just think about the GIF format case...of that guy in the UK claiming the
patent on links...where are they now ;-)
I'm waiting until there is something official...and if MS has it's way as
usual...that could take years
Bryan Stevenson
and if MS has it's way as usual...that could take years
This is the one time where I appreciate Microsoft's ability to drag out
courtroom battles.
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Stevenson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 2:20 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so
This is the first time they have made public the workarounds they are
discussing. That's what is new.
Since they have already lost in court, and the judge has not ruled on
a punishment yet, he could potentially order Microsoft to stop
shipping all versions of IE that infringe on the patent within
Yes, it looks pretty serious to me also. As one person commented, it is not very
often that so many people would like to see Microsoft prevail.
Kind Regards - Mike Brunt
Original Message ---
This is the first time they have made public the workarounds they are
discussing.
changes would CFMX have to
make in order to avoid infringement? Would we have to click a button in
order to get file dialogs to pop up, or what?
M
-Original Message-
From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 3:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
Subject: Re: No so good news
This is the first time they have made public the workarounds they are
discussing. That's what is new.
Since they have already lost in court, and the judge has not ruled on
a punishment yet, he could potentially order Microsoft to stop
shipping all versions of IE
At 12:06 PM 9/12/3, Jeremy wrote:
Off topic but it is Friday after all.
Bad News :(
http://news.com.com/2104-1032_3-5074799.html
http://www.zeldman.com
Hold horses until Microsoft and W3C actually say something... there are
some questions about the Festa article.
More in my blog.
Jon Hall
to
make in order to avoid infringement? Would we have to click a button in
order to get file dialogs to pop up, or what?
M
-Original Message-
From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 3:43 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
-
Vancouver Island ColdFusion Users Group
Founder Director
www.cfug-vancouverisland.com
- Original Message -
From: jon hall [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: No so good news
This is the first time
Netscape and others...
Stace
-Original Message-
From: Haggerty, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: September 12, 2003 3:48 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: No so good news
I have some faith in M$'s ability to appeal things into oblivion. The
Net needs to be free to work, and that applies to IE
I have some faith in M$'s ability to appeal things into oblivion. The
Net needs to be free to work, and that applies to IE as well. This
patent does seem overly broad in that other technologies use
sub-programs, why should browsers be so special?
What I wonder about is the impact on CF. What
fridayafternoon paranoia=high
Well if you were MS and you wanted to kill Flash, losing this case just
might be a good way to do it. Granted, they may have underestimated the
damages but I don't think they would mind seeing Flash go away.
/fridayafternoon
--David K
- Original Message -
12, 2003 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: No so good news
fridayafternoon paranoia=high
Well if you were MS and you wanted to kill Flash, losing this case just
might be a good way to do it. Granted, they may have underestimated the
damages but I don't think they would mind seeing Flash go away
MS has no real competitor to Flash. ASP.NET pages are probably in the
same general orbit, with their kinda-not-really active feel, but Flash
is unique. Now, taking into account .NET framework internet
applications - that's probably what MS would call the closest competitor
to Flash, but
no way...
It's about how you call the stuff. Change how you call it and you can
still show it in a web browser.
At 04:42 PM 9/12/2003, you wrote:
fridayafternoon paranoia=high
Well if you were MS and you wanted to kill Flash, losing this case just
might be a good way to do it. Granted, they
Stacy wrote:
I'm curious to know how it would affect Netscape and others...
It'll affect them the same way, exactly. The patent covers the automatic launching of
an external program (in current parlance, an applet or a plugin); which everyone does.
http://www.eolas.com/technology.html
Subject: RE: No so good news
Stacy wrote:
I'm curious to know how it would affect Netscape and others...
It'll affect them the same way, exactly. The patent covers the
automatic launching of an external program (in current parlance, an
applet or a plugin); which everyone does.
http://www.eolas.com
What would happen if the sky were pink?
What if aliens landed?
What if I put my pants on backwards?
Sounds like you've already started with the Tequilla, Brian... ;-)
Don't forget the beer chaser over at Swan's...
Happy Friday!
What about the fiendish brain-sucking aliens? Remember, they live among us.
(ominous theme music begins... )
2:26pm. A frothy Guinness is only 2 hrs 35 mins away...
--
---
Matt Robertson, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MSB Designs, Inc.
: No so good news
What would happen if the sky were pink?
What if aliens landed?
What if I put my pants on backwards?
Sounds like you've already started with the Tequilla, Brian... ;-)
Don't forget the beer chaser over at Swan's...
Happy Friday
-Original Message-
From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 4:39 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: No so good news
I have some faith in M$'s ability to appeal things into oblivion. The
Net needs to be free to work, and that applies to IE as well
]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 4:42 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so good news
fridayafternoon paranoia=high
Well if you were MS and you wanted to kill Flash, losing this case
just
might be a good way to do it. Granted, they may have underestimated
the
damages but I don't think they would
Well, this particular patent only applies to ActiveX plugins to the
browser,
such as Flash, Excel, and QuickTime, to name a few. Since CF is simply
HTML
when all is said and done, this case doesn't effect CF in any way
other
than
potentially the cfchart tag (if rendering flash
It looks like the potential impact is more related to plug-in's so Flash
more than CF would be impacted. I wonder whether this could make Flash
Remoting of greater relevance, any thoughts or opinions on that?
I don't see why FR would have *more* relevance. I mean, when you use FR,
you're
assisted training,
etc) may be affected by this.
I fully expect it to be thrown out in a higher court, but it does raise
some scary issues.
Jim Davis
-Original Message-
From: Dave Carabetta [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 9:40 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: No so
2:26pm. A frothy Guinness is only 2 hrs 35 mins away...
matt, never knew you lived within 2.58 hours of dublin. i don't believe the
travel distance, even for well maintained guinness, goes much beyond that.
not that it keeps pubs/bars from trying anyway.
72 matches
Mail list logo
