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 10:02:03 -0400
Message-ID: <000701c379ff$9db78fa0$75619944@FAMILY>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>

Did this guy just graduate kinderlaw school or something?

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: "'Hector Santos'" <winserver.support@winserver.com>; "'Jerry Mead'"
<jerrym@meadroid.com>; <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 8:06 AM
Subject: RE: Ray Ozzie claims prior art in Lotus Notes


>
> I just sent a quick email to Mike Doyle and his lawyer asking for
> comments on Ray Ozzie's article.
>
> Richard
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hector Santos
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 4:22 AM
> To: Jerry Mead; public-web-plugins@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ray Ozzie claims prior art in Lotus Notes
>
>
>
> 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 10:02:07 UTC

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