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

Re: HTML frames and the Eolas '906 patent

From: Hector Santos <winserver.support@winserver.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2003 12:11:30 -0400
Message-ID: <00a101c370a3$b58f6680$ad1d2243@FAMILY>
To: "web-plugins" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>

Hi Richard,

If this patent is as broad as it sounds,  the patent "backbone" concept
essentially begins with script mapping activation of client-side BROWSER
components (computer code).

Script mapping is a file extension association table for the web browser
where an extension triggers a special operation on the SERVER-SIDE.

This patent attempts to cover the same idea for CLIENT SIDE application
operations.

The key here is "BROWSER" and what does that mean.  The current invention
focused on HTML and the Mosiac implementation at the time.

However, it makes an "applied usage" example using distributed spreadsheet
operations.

So yes, I believe PDF script mapping is covered.

It covers the "automatic evocation of client-side components" based on the
image being sent.

However, what is not covered (not that I see) is the automatic TRANSFER of
the client-side component.

I have a real problem with this patent.  Again, I am still catching up with
the "relax" software patent laws.  But in the old "days",  when a patent was
a "real patent," the basic rule of them was:

Given existing ideas (patented or not),  A, B or C,  you can not simply
combine them or modify them to come up with a patent D.  There has to be a
unique aspect to it, D,  to come up with patent E.

I say this because:

A) It is pretty obvious that the idea of "hypertext" to present distributed
information from many resources across many servers was available in the
80s.  Obviously, HTML existed before the patent was filed in 1994.

B) It is pretty obvious that the idea of server-side script mapping as a
method to activate server-side processes existed as part of the HTML
specification.

C) It is pretty obvious that the idea of "remote client applet" activation
was already in use for nearly a decade before 1994 in many areas.   It may
not have been HTML based,  but there is no question about the prior art in
this area.

now, if we assumed the patent E is based the above ideas augmented with the
following unique idea D:

D) Linking A, B. C to provide a script mapping method to active client-side
operations.

Then we can probably understand the patent better.

However D is not UNIQUE.   The idea of using tag based concept to not only
activate client-side operations but to transfer the components if it did not
exist on the machine pre-existed before 1994!

In addition,  I wonder if Eolas could be violating a copyright infringement
by modifying the Mosiac code, but more importantly, modify concept B above
in order to come up with D violating the patent requirements.   However,
there again,  I think this rule was relaxed when basically allows to table
unique idea, A, B, C, D and put them together as a "business method."

Sincerely,

Hector Santos, CTO
Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
305-431-2846 Cell
305-248-3204 Office


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com>
To: "W3C Public Web Plugins List" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2003 10:36 AM
Subject: HTML frames and the Eolas '906 patent


>
> Hi,
>
> It also seems to me that content which is shown inside of an HTML frame
> or IFRAME will possibly infringe the Eolas '906 patent if the content is
> displayed by an external program.  A simple example is an Acrobat Reader
> document embedded inside of a Web page using an IFRAME tag.
>
> Richard
>
>
Received on Monday, 1 September 2003 12:22:29 UTC

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