W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tracking@w3.org > June 2012

Re: False patent claims

From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:43:26 -0600
To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
CC: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CC049A90.3A33%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Nope.

It should be out in the public for all to see. Just like Mozilla has done.


Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752








-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
Date: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:42 AM
To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Subject: 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 14:44:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 21 June 2013 10:11:30 UTC