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

RE: If MS pulls plug-in support, who do I sue

From: neo binedell <neoji@mweb.co.za>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 00:37:49 +0200
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <MJELIDNALMHCLOICEPPNEEDHEGAA.neoji@mweb.co.za>

But my point was exactly that.

They specify 'hyper-text' document.
Ergo html document.

An swf is not that as far as i know.

There is no html link to the swf. It is
loaded directly off the server.

Now surely a browser can display whatever
the hell it wants to, 'including' but not 
limeted to html or a 'hyper-text' document, 
which falls under the patent. Otherwise it 
seems to me that the patent defines a 
web browser as anything that connects over 
http, not just html/document transfer?

In that case the stand-alone flash player 
itself would be defined as a web browser 
and therefor fall foul of the patent.

Perhaps a re-read of the patent is on the
menu for me ;p

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
::: Quantum materiae materietur 
::: marmota monax si marmota 
::: monax materiam possit materiari?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-----Original Message-----


I suspect that Eolas would fight that as long as you're viewing the Flash
document from within a browser.

However, downloading and saving the SWF, and then playing it with QuickTime
Player should be okay.

-Jake
Received on Tuesday, 9 September 2003 18:36:31 UTC

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