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

RE: What a prior art product must do

From: Richard M. Smith <rms@computerbytesman.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 08:01:21 -0400
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01b001c36fb7$99fa93a0$550ffea9@rms>

A quick guess of what Eolas might be thinking.  In claim #1, a Java
class file is the embedded file and the external application is the JVM.

The '906 patent was filed before Java applets existed, so it shouldn't
be too surprising that they are not described in the patent text.
Regardless it doesn't mean that embedded applets can't infringe the


-----Original Message-----
From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Scott Cadillac
Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 3:39 AM
To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
Subject: RE: What a prior art product must do

I think you have a good point Christian,

The Virtual Machine and/or .NET Runtime does exist outside of the
but I guess a more low-level technical breakdown of how the Browser
the Machine/Runtime would be helpful here.

Scanning quickly through some of the press stuff at
http://www.eolas.com/news.html I saw a few general references to the
"applet" to imply that Java apps are supposedly covered in the Patent.

Obviously I haven't read the entire Patent Text, but a quick word search
doesn't return anything about "applet" or "java" or "virtual" (the Text
pre-dates .NET of course).


Is Eolas stretching their own interpretation?

Or is the simple act of invoking an external process from the Browser
returns anything enough for the Patent?

This is the part that worries me. I don't actually use embedded objects
as a
rule in my work, but I heavily rely on XML, specifically the client-side
Databinding support that MSIE has.

Using the HTML <XML/> element in MSIE, and ActiveXObject() via Jscript,
routinely call external XML data and XSL files that are delivered
dynamically from a Server-side process.

Once the external data arrives back at the page that called it, user
dynamic interaction occurs.

Could client-side XSLT be considered Hypermedia? It is a mixing of
types of data for viewing in a Browser after all.

Any thoughts on whether this sort of stuff is at risk?

I sure wish we had more information....

Scott Cadillac,
XML-Extranet - http://xmlx.ca
403-281-6090 - scott@xmlx.ca
Well-formed Development
Extranet solutions using C# .NET, Witango, MSIE and XML

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> SerpentMage (Christian Gross)
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 12:36 AM
> To: Jake Robb
> Cc: W3C Public Web Plugins List
> Subject: Re: What a prior art product must do
> Jake Robb wrote:
> >The Java Virtual Machine and the Common Language Runtime 
> would count as
> >applications, which must be loaded in order for Java and 
> .NET code to run.
> >I think that voids your loophole.
> >
> Yes, but my point is that the runtime is loaded when the browser is 
> running.  Hence when the "plugin" runs the runtime will already be 
> running.  There is no additional executable to run...
> Christian Gross
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2003 08:01:33 UTC

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