W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > August 2003

Re: Microsoft should just do a license deal with Eolas

From: Hector Santos <winserver.support@winserver.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 15:52:37 -0400
Message-ID: <002d01c36f30$44ee7f20$b2759e44@FAMILY>
To: "'Public-Web-Plugins@W3. Org'" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com>
To: "'Public-Web-Plugins@W3. Org'" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 3:12 PM
Subject: RE: Microsoft should just do a license deal with Eolas


> If there is prior art, then by all means the patent should be
> overturned.  If not, then a Microsoft/Eolas license agreement will mean
> much less disruption to the Web than ripping out plumbing like Flash
> which is used all over the Web and starting over.

In my view, there is prior art.  I have not read the patent in detail
(meaning I didn't spent hours re-reading everything to a complete
understanding of it all)  but it seems to cover two important concepts:

1) Automating the process of running a process on a client computer,

2)  Embedding "data" within the presented information.  In other words, it
wasn't for the "invention" this tag would show up as missing, like you see
today with an unresolved image URL.

The first one was always available in some form or another but before
Microsoft popularizing it,  most client/server designers/engineers
considered it a taboo to do.   Microsoft with its OLE technology open the
door and allowed many others do being doing the same (WorldGroup,
WINSERVER).

But anyone very involved in the telecommunications market,  such as myself,
knew about the concept since the early DOS days.  Off the selves products
such CROSSTALK,  TELIX,  QMODEM,  PROCOMM, etc, all offered ways to send
components to end-users machine and many of the better ones offered a
GUI/TEXT scripting presentation system.

As I indicated in a previous method, the RIP people (I believe the acronym
is Raster Imaging Protocol).  GOOGLE "RIP and BBS" and you will find things
since 1993, but I can tell you it was done well before that.  Pat Clawson, I
believe, is the current owner of the technology and he TRIED extremely hard
to push it over HTML, even going as far of getting Japanese investment
(according to Pat).

In other words, item #1 was used by others and as far back in 1993/95 time
frame with World Group and WINSERVER using a "WCN" extension to trigger a
remote client component activity and/or download, if necessary.

With item #2,  well,  the text market did have HYPERTEXT with "server-side
include" capabilities and the embedding of alternate data from difference
sources.  It is pretty obvious why its called "Hypertext" not "HyperGUI."

So I have to learn more about patentability of "Business Methods"  because
if Microsoft lost this, geez, either the JUDGE is stupid or there is
something more to it that I don't know.

I'll tell you one thing, this is a wake up call for my company (and I'm sure
for many others too).  I'm going to being reviewing and go go-ho patent
happy now throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks!   My
business, a BBS/Intranet system,  survives because of old trade secrets and
tons of automation techniques many people don't have, if at all.  My closest
competitor - well, is Microsoft!

Sincerely,

Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
305-431-2846 Cell
305-248-3204 Office
Received on Saturday, 30 August 2003 15:53:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:07:55 GMT