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

Re: 906 Patent Re-Examination

From: <jim@idexer.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 22:54:43 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <3703.68.128.195.108.1067842483.squirrel@webmail.sunwave.com>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>

>
> Regarding Eolas's patent I would like to say that the W3C should be
> ASHAMED of the acts they are taking to destroy 906.  We live in a

I happen to be very proud of their acts :-) Eoloas destroyed '906
by ignoring the obivious. It was obivious at least Feb. '93 when I
wrote about loading QuickTime movies via TCP/IP in an future
XMosaic browser in the Compuserve Unix Forum.

> the complete opposite.  906 patent has been decided and WE ALL have to

Hate to burst your bubble there, but '906 is far from decided.

> move forward.  We all will adapt.  If you are going to find prior art
> or another loophole to make patent No. 5,838,906 invalid you should go
> through every other patent first and confirm there validity.  Every
> person knows of someone who came up with the invention way before it
> was patented.  Does that make every one of those patents invalid?  I
> suggest each of you think about all the innovations you ever dream up
> in your life meaning NOTHING.

If an innovation ends up meaning NOTHING than it was never an
innovation to begin with. Inventors have long abused "loopholes" and
not the other way around as you suggest: much like moron's abusing
domain name registration. One abuse is to anticipate a company coming
to market with a new product by than applying for a broad patent that would
cover that product. The slimmy inventor than seeks all sorts of delays
so that he can hide his patent application from the true inventor
during his patent research to enable an infringement ambush later.

Then there is the inventors who use such broad and general descriptions
that could almost be applied to anything. So we need to be more concerned
with the process and merits of a patent rather than worrying about someone
losing a patent to prior art!



Jim
Received on Monday, 3 November 2003 01:54:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:07:56 GMT