paranoid side imagines Microsoft making the claim because it would be more
convenient for them...
Dana
Sandy Clark writes:
> The fact is that in reality the patent itself is invalid. There is a lot of
> 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]
