Re: False patent claims

I would like to repeat my request to keep patent discussion off this mailing list.

Thank you,
--
Thomas Roessler, W3C  <tlr@w3.org>  (@roessler)







On 2012-06-18, at 16:39 +0200, Peter Cranstone wrote:

> For those who are interested in following along. Here's Mozilla's take on
> the Patent claim: https://wiki.mozilla.org/DNT_false_patent_claim
> 
> They go on to sayŠ
> 
> Based upon a thorough analysis by independent patent counsel, Mozilla
> concluded that the Œ206 patent did not cover the W3C DNT specification
> because the specification did not satisfy all of the limitations of the
> claims.
> 
> Maybe Mozilla would care to add a little more detail in exactly how adding
> a privacy header to the protocol did not satisfy all of the limitations of
> the claims and in doing so share their complete analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peter
> ___________________________________
> Peter J. Cranstone
> 720.663.1752
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 14:42:40 UTC