On 2008.03.20, Bastiaan Jacques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In US patent law, the relevant date for prior art is the filing date, not > the date the patent was awarded. So that's Jan 29, 2003. I doubt that > what Adobe has patented is novel, so we might try to encourage the EFF > to include this patent in their patent busting project. Assuming US > Congress doesn't eleminate ex parte review, of course.
In many ways, AOL's Rainman/FDO system is definitely prior art for an interactive multimedia client/server, and that dates back to what, 1995? I bet they even hold several patents on that technology that probably invalidates all the claims in the recently awarded patent to Adobe. Does anyone know what's involved in challenging a patent like this? -- Dossy -- Dossy Shiobara | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dossy.org/ Panoptic Computer Network | http://panoptic.com/ "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70) _______________________________________________ Gnash-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnash-dev
