[OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-12 Thread Alex Rice
If this is as bad as it sounds, soon lots of irate web developers will be flocking to Revolution and other web-aware app development environments. 2 September 2003 ::: 10 am edt IE, Flash, and patents: here comes trouble Alex Rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Mindlube Soft

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-12 Thread Mark Brownell
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 12:26 PM, Alex Rice wrote: If this is as bad as it sounds, soon lots of irate web developers will be flocking to Revolution and other web-aware app development environments. 2 September 2003 ::: 10 am edt IE, Flash, and patents: here comes trouble

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-12 Thread Pierre Sahores
Le ven 12/09/2003 à 21:26, Alex Rice a écrit : > If this is as bad as it sounds, soon lots of irate web developers will > be flocking to Revolution and other web-aware app development > environments. > > 2 September 2003 ::: 10 am edt > IE, Flash, and patents: here comes trouble >

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-12 Thread Mark Brownell
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 06:02 PM, Dar Scott wrote: I don't think this patent requires TCP/IP. from: http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/ srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN/5838906 The Internet provides a

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-12 Thread Mark Brownell
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 09:57 PM, Dan Shafer wrote: Ultimately, this one may get overturned by a higher court. In view of the reasonable argument for prior art the granting of the patent should be overturned. After that the lawsuit could fall apart on its own merit. Flimsy patents are

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-12 Thread Dar Scott
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 07:32 PM, Mark Brownell wrote: I don't think this patent requires TCP/IP. from: http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph- Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/ srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN/5838906 The Internet provide

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-12 Thread Dar Scott
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 05:55 PM, Alex Rice wrote: Here are their patents, including the Plugin one http://www.eolas.com/technology.html It seems in the broadest claim a "browser" on a network takes an object specified by media to be at a certain place and displays it "within the displ

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-12 Thread Jean-Jacques Wagner
Well if you are a small developer, using a patent protected item for yourself or a small group of people around you, using such a patent should not give you to much problem. Nobody will pay the court cost to suite you, because you will not have the fund to pay any kind of reward. Most of the tim

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-13 Thread Pierre Sahores
Le sam 13/09/2003 à 06:57, Dan Shafer a écrit : > Check out my blog today (http://www.eclecticity.com) for Jeffrey > Zeldman's thoughts about what this does to the Web developer, and for a > link to Ray Ozzie (Lotus Notes) elaborate refutation of the patent > based on prior art he personally inv

RE: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-13 Thread Pierre Sahores
Le sam 13/09/2003 à 01:47, Tuviah Snyder a écrit : > Wow how will this impact Java. Looks like Eolas has managed to disable Java > in ways MS never could. !!! :-) > Looks like these days maybe developers should spend less time coding as more > time at the patent office. > > Tuviah Snyder <[EMAIL

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-13 Thread Mark Brownell
On Friday, September 12, 2003, at 10:51 PM, Dar Scott wrote: I don't think this patent requires TCP/IP. This is in the background. I'm guessing that the important parts of the background are those parts that provide definitions for words and phrases in the claims. This is in the embodiment.

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-13 Thread Dar Scott
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 08:38 AM, Mark Brownell wrote: You caught me. I just love to tell tall tells around the camp fire. Oh, no, it was good you brought up the mention. Besides, there is no evidence that I know how to read a patent. I'm particularly interested in the suit being ce

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-13 Thread Mark Brownell
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 08:44 AM, Dar Scott wrote: Besides, there is no evidence that I know how to read a patent. Me to. I can read one but you had better not depend on what I think it means. Yes. Yet the mention of Hypercard in the background might contribute to a broad interpr

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-13 Thread Edwin Gore
I believe that because the revolution stack contains code that is interpreted, it is considered to be an executable application - this is how their claim against Java works. - Original Message - > Just as long as a Revolution stack is a document and not an "external > executable applicati

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-13 Thread Dar Scott
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 10:43 AM, Edwin Gore wrote: I believe that because the revolution stack contains code that is interpreted, it is considered to be an executable application - this is how their claim against Java works. Hmmm. Suppose RunRev adds a control that is a view into a

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-13 Thread Ken Norris
Hi Dar, > Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:51:58 -0600 > Subject: Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning! > From: Dar Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> from: >> http://www.164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph- -- I tried to review this for the HyperCard siting, but I got a ba

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-13 Thread Dar Scott
On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 08:39 AM, Ken Norris wrote: I tried to review this for the HyperCard siting, but I got a bad URL address error (Object Not Found). Alex provided this: Here are their patents, including the Plugin one http://www.eolas.com/technology.html And [<-- gratuitous "and

Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2004-01-30 Thread Alex Rice
Just in: SEATTLE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O said on Thursday that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may come to its rescue and cancel a patent that could force the world's biggest software co

RE: Re: [OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

2003-09-12 Thread Edwin Gore
What is REALLY irritating is that prior art on this is S bloody obvious. Anybody ever hear of an operating system? It's this basic framework that you can seamlessly extend with these doodads called applications and drivers. This is, possibly, even worse than some of Amazon's patents. Some of