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

Re: Prior Art

From: Hector Santos <winserver.support@winserver.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 17:40:15 -0400
Message-ID: <005c01c36f3f$4e5d5c70$b2759e44@FAMILY>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>

Hi Richard,

I think you are getting them more credit than they ought to have.   Look,
my #1 business problem in the market are the bad connotations associated
with the word "BBS."    It does stir potential business away.   That is why
we market our package with the word "intranet."  Yet we don't try to stay
totally clear of using the BBS word because I firmly being the Internet is
becoming just a big "BBS."  That is what I saw when I brought the system and
I can tell you our increase sales this past year alone is proven me correct
in my vision.  Many aspects of a BBS today are available as parts in the
WEB,  "mail conferences,"  "File Libraries," and a fast growing segment, the
"Login Only" system, etc, the list is long.  All parts of a standard BBS
system.  Our system does it the best :-)

So what I am saying that if they did the due diligence and did find prior
art, I wouldn't put it pass them that they simply  blew it off "as nothing
to worry about."   After all, in 1994,  the non-internet BBS market was
being to die down.  What was originally the only means USERS use to read and
mail with hundreds of system during the 80s and into the 90s,  our system is
the last mohican of the handful of the multi-million dollar BBS systems that
has successfully evolved with the internet.   So 1994-1998 was a big
transition for us.  Ask many people, including Microsoft, and they will
probably say "BBS system?  You are kidding me right?"

So no, I would not put it pass the Microsofts, or some university grad
student or professor Unix wienie who didn't have a clue about the BBS world
during the 80's and 90s, and even if they did,  like I said, I wouldn't be
surprise if they just blew it off.

Hey, the funny thing is,  I have 5-10 year trade secrets that I can probably
introduce as NEW patents that can effect the internet market and you
(speaking in general) wouldn't even know it unless you knew the BBS market.
That's my point.

Take for example the following two examples:

. .NET and their CLR technology.   I hope Microsoft didn't patent some the
idea of a "common language" for very sub-systems!    That's the backbone
technology of our WINSERVER client/server system and its been in Wildcat!
since before 1996.  I haven't search to see if they have patented it, but if
they did where was the due diligence?  Or did they just blow it off?  There
is certainly prior art here.

WINSERVER?  "Wildcat! Internet Net Server", a Santronics trademark.

Wasn't Windows 2003 previously called "Windows .Net Server"  You don't think
this can provide some market confusion?   Where was the due diligence?
All the marketing dollars wasted.

Well,  WINSERVER.COM has been a domain name since 1996.  It was only after a
letter from me warning them of potential market confusion, that shortly
after the name was changed.   And they said it was because the "Dot Net" was
scaring people away.   Right!   Not saying they change it because of me, but
it is timing was not just coincident in my opinion.

Anyway,  I wouldn't put pass them.   From what I understand, it is the LAW
to prior all prior art in a patent.  Well, in my view, they broke that law.


Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
305-431-2846 Cell
305-248-3204 Office

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: Prior Art

> Hi Hector,
> Having worked in patent cases, I can tell you that companies in general
> look far and wide in other areas for prior art.  Clearly BBS is a good
> area to be looking at in the '906 Eolas case and my guess is that both
> Microsoft and Eolas have looked for prior art in the BBS market.
> Richard
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 4:21 PM
> To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Prior Art
> Hi Richard,    Just wanted to make a comment about this:
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com>
> To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 30, 2003 3:29 PM
> Subject: RE: Prior Art
> > Presumably Microsoft has already done an extensive prior art search.
> I
> > wonder what their results have been......
> >
> Yes, you would think so, however, Microsoft has never been in the BBS
> market
> (yes and no, more below).  In fact, they still classify us as a "home
> market" product which is fine by me, when in fact, we are the among the
> top,
> if not the #1 BBS/intranet system in the Medical, Health, Collections,
> Claims, Payroll market  - anywhere there they corporations still believe
> that a dialup system is more secure than the INTERNET.  In fact,  for
> the
> majority, it (dialup) is the exception to the HIPAA rule if not using
> the
> internet.   As they migrate, our client/server system covers them.
> In any case, yes,  I am curious to find out prior art Microsoft used as
> a
> defense.  I am leaning to the idea that they could care less about prior
> art
> and possibly tried to negotiate a deal that didn't fall well for both
> parties and Microsoft,  known to put TIME, MONEY  and more importantly
> market presence pressure, thought the other party would eventually give
> in.
> So ponder the expression,  "Screw Microsoft!"   In my book,  I'm more
> concern about how I can continue using silly old technology used WELL
> before
> Microsoft and that other party used it!
> 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 17:40:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:03 UTC