prior art out there that precedes the patent.
The papers written by Tim Berners Lee, the fact that Microsoft Word allowed
embedded items, Lotus Notes all show prior art..
A patent is supposed to cover something newly invented that hasn't existed
before. With existance of prior art, a patent cannot be issued. "Prior Art
is a similar invention that predates a patent, therefore invalidating it."
Run a google search on Eolas prior art and see what you get, there is a
large amount of information out there.
Sandy
_____
From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 3:00 AM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Re: Validity of Eolas Patent To Be Reexamined
yanno... I was just wondering about this. Instead of working around the
patent, why not just pay Eolas? Have they set an unreasonable price?
genuinely curious,
Dana
Jim Davis writes:
> Well, all I can say is I'm glad Berners-Lee is head of the W3C and not
> you. ;^)
>
> He, at least, seems to think this is an issue for the W3C to be involved
> in. and I think I'll take his word for it, if nothing else.
>
> Jim Davis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 2:46 PM
> To: CF-Community
> Subject: Re: Validity of Eolas Patent To Be Reexamined
>
> Why does the addition of the optional parameter really even matter
> when there are already more non-standard parameters on the object tag
> than I have fingers in IE? The object tag spec does not mention, or
> infer in any way how the ua is supposed to react to an embeded media
> type that just so happens to use data from an outside source.
>
> Please show me the place in the spec that conflicts in any way with a
> popup being displayed when a proprietary media/file type is loaded
> via the object tag.
>
> --
> jon
> mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Wednesday, November 12, 2003, 2:22:41 PM, you wrote:
> SC> I fail to see your point.
> SC> The Eolas patent doesn't specifically cover flash, etc. It deals
> with how
> SC> HTML deals with these items and that is specifically a web
> standards issue.
>
>
> >>From CNET news:
>
>
> SC> http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5106129.html
>
>
> SC> "Specifically, the consortium pointed out early HTML drafts by W3C
> Director
> SC> Tim Berners-Lee and W3C staff member Dave Raggett that it said
> qualified as
> SC> prior art in the case."
>
> SC> A copy of the letter written to the patent office may be found here.
> SC> http://www.w3.org/2003/10/27-rogan.html
>
> SC> _____
>
> SC> From: jon hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> SC> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:50 PM
> SC> To: CF-Community
> SC> Subject: Re: Validity of Eolas Patent To Be Reexamined
>
> SC> Oh the irony...how exactly do flash, quicktime, windows media,
> applets,
> SC> etc, have anything to do with web standards?
>
> SC> My letter to [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> SC> "Seeing as WASP is a pro-standards organization, why are you glad to
> SC> see the reexamination of the Eolas patent?
>
> SC> The the patent workarounds in IE could do much to lower the usage of
> SC> non-standard file formats on the web, which seems to me to be more
> SC> inline with WASP's goals than your current stance, which the only
> SC> justification for I can think of is the addition of a non-standard
> SC> parameter to the object tag in IE, which seems hardly worth worrying
> SC> about in the grander scheme of things."
>
> SC> Personally I don't really care, but WASP does seem to be out of line
> SC> with their mission statement to me.
>
>
> _____
>
>
>
_____
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
