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

Re: The Eolas '906 patent backgrounder

From: Hector Santos <winserver.support@winserver.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 06:41:27 -0400
Message-ID: <002301c3713e$c514c690$92dc9e44@FAMILY>
To: "W3C Public Web Plugins List" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Cc: <gripe@infoworld.com>

Ha!   I'm not crazy after all!  Check this out September 1 article I just
found regarding UCITA

http://archive.infoworld.com/ucita/

and this one about the "Remote Disabling of Software":

http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/uc/xml/00/08/21/000821ucissues.xml

The Eolas PATENT will control  DEVELOPERS who want to control the automatic
installation, activation, interactive usage and/or licensing of client-side
applets using UTICA was a legal means to do so.

On a positive note, this is further indication of "prior art."  As Ed
Foster, the author the article,  notes in his article, as the most
informative journalist on the subject,  Article 2B as been in debate the
early 1990s.  The idea of "remote client software" control concepts has been
in use and the minds of many in the industry.

Please note in first article  the listed group UCITA supporters does not
include Microsoft.   The truth is most of the groups, especially BSA is
supported and funded by Microsoft.  BSA is just a political lobby front for
Microsoft.

Sincerely,

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



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hector Santos" <winserver.support@winserver.com>
To: "W3C Public Web Plugins List" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 5:04 AM
Subject: Re: The Eolas '906 patent backgrounder


>
> Richard,
>
> There is no coincidence that 1996 was an important year for Mr. Doyle.
>
> There was a software patent court case in the 1990s that I knew to exist
> that relaxed the software-based patentability guidelines.   So I did a
> search and found the following:
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=1998+%22Software+Patent%22+%22Business+Method%22&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&selm=199902020649.AA15487%40world.std.com&rnum=1
>
> The above may be useful for people who want to understand how the software
> patent laws have changed and why this patent  exist and why there is such
an
> avalanche of silly software patents in the first place in the last few
> years.
>
> Ok, ready to hear the real story of what's going on here? <g>
>
> Microsoft is just as guilty as others filing silly software patents for
> everything under the kitchen sink.  Based on this, Microsoft is faced with
a
> big dilemma in regards to this patent.
>
> If they appeal this patent and win, I believe it will have to based on an
> argument that will reverse the 1998 court ruling.  If this was to happen,
> many of the hundreds of the software patents Microsoft has been issued
will
> be null and void.
>
> So Gates on the one hand does not want to give up control to some little
> "peon" company for an important concept that is and will be even more of a
> critical ingredient in the inevitable thin/slim client/server market where
> servers will have more control of the client machine.  Yet, to fight it
> legally and win will wipe away many of its own patent claims and future
> filings in this critical market area and others.
>
> One thing is for sure,  Gates can not remove "remote client component
> activation" concepts from its current software products or it any future
> system.  This concept if key to the strategic future of Microsoft.
>
> How important this concept is to Microsoft can be seen in their heavy
> involvement in defining and molding the nation's interstate commence laws
in
> regards to computer/software sales; More specifically, UCITA, formerly
known
> as Article 2B.
>
> Still pending are the highly debated changes and amendments to UTICA.
> UTICA defines the amendments to the nations' interstate commerce laws for
> consumer computer and software products.   It is being contested by a wide
> range of groups in the industry. Among the biggest groups are funded by
> Ralph Nader.  This groups are fighting the relaxation of the many laws
that
> exist today for consumers, and to stop any further erosion of computer
> privacy .
>
> In UCITA,  one of the most fundamental changes to the law would allow
> Microsoft and others to "freely" enter the domain of a client machine
> automatically and without authorization.   Coupled with this, is another
> change to the laws which attempts to make the "I AGREE" button legally
> binding across all states.  Currently it is state by state.  The agree
> button will give Microsoft full authorization to enter your computer.
>
> It is not a coincidence that the recent virus problems have reinstated new
> industry talk (started by Microsoft of course) of allowing Microsoft to
> automatically update end-user computers all in the name of "security."
>
> Microsoft wants this to happen, not just for security, but to pre-empt the
> UTICA opponents fighting the changes. Currently, it is illegal for
Microsoft
> (anyone) to enter your computer.  UCITA attempts to change this using an
> existing practice analogy of the Bank Repossession man going into your
> private property to remove your car due to lack of payment.    The
> proponents of UTICA contend they have the same right to repossess
> copyrighted material or to stop the user from using unlicensed or expired
> licensed or pirated material automatically by zapping your computer.
>
> Future client/server systems, such as Web services will rekindle an old
> concept called "Time Sharing."  The need to enter the client machine is a
> fundamental requirement.  This new direction is only possible if a remote
> hosting server has full control to:
>
> a) Sending components to the client machine,
> b) Automatic activation of the components on the client machine, and
> c)  also have the ability to automatically remove or turn off the
components
> on the client machine.
>
> The idea of course with item C is to control the licensing of remote
client
> software, especially for users who don't pay their "monthly subscription
> bills."
>
> Scary?
>
> Whether Microsoft intentions are as I described,  they are certainly not
> going to tell us one way or another.  But I've been involved in the design
> and automation of remote client/server systems for nearly 25+ years now
and
> it doesn't take much for me to see this direction.  I'm knee deep in it.
> Do the research yourself and you will see it all as well.
>
> This is a BIG STAKE!  It is a GOLD!  The lawyers and lobbyists pushing
UTICA
> for Microsoft are considered one of the largest groups of lobbyists for
any
> industry.    If Eolas wins the appeal, the future of thin/slim clients are
> in the hands of Eolas.  Similar to how Gates got IBM to give him a few
> points on each sale of DOS,  considered one of the most fundamental
business
> mistakes in IBM's history, Gates does not want Mr. Doyle doing to same to
> him in this important future client/server market.
>
> 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 10:00 PM
> Subject: The Eolas '906 patent backgrounder
>
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've start collecting material from the Web related to the Eolas '906
> > patent.  Here's a draft version of the backgrounder:
> >
> >    http://www.computerbytesman.com/906patent/
> >
> > If you have any suggestions for addition material, please send along any
> > relavent links.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Richard M. Smith
> > http://www.ComputerBytesMan.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 06:41:24 UTC

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