The question isn't how many companies use the "technology" in question, but who used it first. Since it has been so long and it is so common, it may be difficult to prove prior art. While it may not currently be new and unique, it doesn't have to be new and unique to qualify. The patent process takes a long time and I didn't see anywhere that said when they filed it. It could have been filed years ago.
On 7/24/05, S. Isaac Dealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, the patent isn't for emoticons themselves. > > It's for substituting emoticons with images when > > emoticons are seen in text. > > > There may not be so much prior art on that, which > > would suck. Frankly, this is proof that the patent > > system is being used to stifle innovation. > > I beg to differ... every instant messenger client has done this for a > long time. Kinda hard for them to claim it's new and unique when > there's a quick, easy and obvious example of a major company that's > implemented it for a looong time now. -- "You can't destroy EVERYthing. Where would you sit?" The Tick Now blogging.... http://www.blivit.org/blog/index.cfm http://www.blivit.org/mr_urc/index.cfm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Protect Your PC from viruses, hackers, spam and more. Buy PC-cillin with Easy Installation & Support http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=61 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:166112 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
