Great product??? Anyone that has a site that looks like this in 2006 should be paying me a license fee to look at it. I'm dizzy.
http://balthaser.com/builder/fx_boot.asp On 2/23/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok, so I have now looked at the balthaser website and I do think they > are claiming any kind of a download into the browser cache, which > would inlcude javascript. > > This is hilarious. > > But this patent, as they seem to be interpreting it, is obviously > totally unenforceable. > > They do seem to have a great product/service, but their patent > application is incredibly naive. > > Regards, > Hank > > On 2/23/06, hank williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Just to be clear, the patent is not for rich media apps as a whole. > > The patent is for creating rich media apps over the internet. For > > example a website where you create "rich media apps" via a web site. > > So this is *might*, be a problem for web sites like blogger, for > > example. > > > > But the problem is that first claim, which is kind of the anchor claim > > makes a distinction for apps that are downloaded to the "remote" or > > client computer. In the age of JavaScript apps, does everything that > > uses javascript to create custom account websites infringe? If they > > intend to claim that javascript websites of this type all infringe, > > then I am sure there were websites in 2001 that used javascript that > > had account customization, so this could be easily invalidated. > > > > If they are trying to say that a real full application is downloaded, > > as opposed to being accessed via the web browser, then I suspect > > there is no prior art. I doubt there were java, flash, or c++ > > standalone apps being built by creating configurations through a web > > browser in 2001. The truth is that very little of this is happening > > today, so if this is what they are claiming it doesnt effect many > > people. > > > > I am a big defender of the importance of patents if not the > > implementation of the law via the patent office. The problem is that > > the people that decide are human and imperfect. In my cursory review, > > this patent is unclear, which patents often are. Unfortunately, the > > definiton of "downloading to remote computer" is unclear which makes > > it difficult to determine the scope. > > > > Regards, > > Hank > > > > > > On 2/23/06, Aral Balkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I just set up a page on OSFlash that we can use to gather prior art on > > > this. > > > > > > http://osflash.org/balthaser_patent_prior_art_discovery > > > > > > If you have anything to contribute, please feel free to add to it. > > > > > > Blog post on new page: > > > http://www.flashant.org/index.php?p=540&more=1&c=1 > > > > > > Aral > > > > > > Philippe wrote: > > > > > > >This is just ridiculous and a shame. > > > ><snip> > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > osflash mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
