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

RE: What a prior art product must do

From: Scott Cadillac <scott@xmlx.ca>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 09:44:38 -0600
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000201c36fd6$c9973400$5400a8c0@mercury>

Thank you for correcting my assumption Richard,

I guess it shows that I haven't spent much time with Java :-)

Any thoughts on my question about embedded XML and external calls to other
XML and XSL/XSLT?

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 
> Richard M. Smith
> Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2003 6:01 AM
> To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
> Subject: RE: What a prior art product must do
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> patent.
> 
> Richard
> 
> -----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
> Browser,
> but I guess a more low-level technical breakdown of how the Browser
> accesses
> 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
> phrase
> "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).
> 
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HIT
> OFF&d=PALL
> &p=1
> &u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,838,906.WKU.&OS=PN/
> 5,838,906&
> RS=P
> N/5,838,906
> 
> Is Eolas stretching their own interpretation?
> 
> Or is the simple act of invoking an external process from the Browser
> that
> 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
> XML
> Databinding support that MSIE has.
> 
> Using the HTML <XML/> element in MSIE, and ActiveXObject() 
> via Jscript,
> I
> 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
> and/or
> dynamic interaction occurs.
> 
> Could client-side XSLT be considered Hypermedia? It is a mixing of
> different
> 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 11:45:23 GMT

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