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

Re: Ray Ozzie claims prior art in Lotus Notes

From: Hector Santos <winserver.support@winserver.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 04:21:32 -0400
Message-ID: <000701c379d0$0e698260$75619944@FAMILY>
To: "Jerry Mead" <jerrym@meadroid.com>, <public-web-plugins@w3.org>

Ha!

How could I forget Ozzie and Lotus notes!   It jolts even more early prior
art technology!

All in One - a 1980's complete Personal Information Manager, Group Ware
product used on VAX machines with VT100 graphical terminals.   Networked,
Remote Client/Server based,  Embedded technology to draw charts, merged with
Word processing,

Lotus Framework,  again the same thing.

Apple's QuickCard,  again the same thing.

Thanks for the post Jerry!  I particularly LOVED this statement:

        "I am quite embarassed to say that we frankly didn’t “get” what was
so innovative about this
        newfangled “Web” thing, given the capabilities of what had already
been built."

Ray, don't be embarrassed, everyone felt the same way - it was obviousness
of remote client/server technology and the natural progression of the ever
evolving "smart terminals."

        "In 1993 or thereabouts, we saw the emergence of TCP/IP, HTML, HTTP,
Mosaic and the Web.
        From our perspective, all of these were simplistic emulations of a
tiny subset of what we’d been
        doing in Notes for years."

and even then I recall Lotus and company being a day late with the
technology!   Graphical/Text BBS groupware systems existed before Notes was
made available.   And I really love his final statement:

    "Finally, claims 6-10 are identical to claims 1-5, with the substitution
of “The computer program
    product” instead of “The method”.  Well, yes, we did create an actual
product to do such a thing.
    We even shipped it about 18 months before his filing.  Lotus was a
public company and at the
    time one of the biggest forces in the personal computing industry, so
surely the person or persons
    doing the patent filing must have or should have known about our
hypermedia innovations.  Given
    all the press coverage, he was likely also influenced by them in
envisioning his own distributed
    hypermedia enhancements to the then-nascent Web browser technology."
Which is what I've been saying all along.  The internet was the buzz word,
the WWW was the thing! It was beautiful, elegant and it was changing the
world so to the most ignorant fools nothing else matter.  BBS
technology didn't count.  You didn't count Ozzie!  It was a new era and
nothing else matter.

Nevertheless,   I'm sure Mr. Ozzie pull in the "who's who of PC computing"
will be significant enough to change the course of patent claim.   I wonder
whether Steve Job's is waiting in the wings to throw his prior art history
as well - Quick Card and Next!!

Mr. Doyle,  allow me to send you case a Killian's Irish Red for an darn good
effort!   You really didn't think you could get away with this?  Or did your
ignorance of non-internet world get the best of you?  In any case,  consider
your erroneous patent claim NULL and VOID!

PS: I'm still wondering why Microsoft with its unlimited resources and
grandiose team of lawyers couldn't put a valid prior art defense.

Sincerely,

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



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jerry Mead" <jerrym@meadroid.com>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 2:37 AM
Subject: Ray Ozzie claims prior art in Lotus Notes


>
> http://www.ozzie.net/blog/stories/2003/09/12/savingTheBrowser.html
>
> Jerry Mead
> http://www.meadroid.com/
>
>
Received on Saturday, 13 September 2003 04:21:49 UTC

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