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

Clearification of my Sept 25 Post

From: <jim@idexer.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 17:25:25 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1920.68.128.213.38.1064967925.squirrel@webmail.sunwave.com>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>

I've gotton 3 emails over my sept 25 post titled: Modern Browsers May NOT
Infringe Eola After All. Here is the gist of my argument.....


Quote from 906 claim:


Table II, below, shows an example of an HTML tag format used by the
present invention to embed a link to an application program within a
hypermedia document.


                  TABLE II
    ______________________________________
              <EMBED
                TYPE = "type"
                HREF = "href"
                WIDTH = width
                HEIGHT = height
              >
    ______________________________________



End quote. Notice the use of *TYPE* there. In order for Eolas claim to
function it must include "content type" along with the tag values in order
for it to work. I argued modern day browsers don't rely on this to link an
application with an external app. My arguments is that use of the <embed>
tag alone is harmless because it is not by itself copyrightable or
patentable. The patent does not claim invention of the word <embed>. And
because modern use of the embed tags do not require *TYPE* to function
they may well sufficently steer clear of the 906 approach.

Furthermore, the linking of an application by it's content identifier may
well already be covered by windows itself and Eolas infringing windows!
After all, it's the OS that really does the magic and not Eolas.

Jim
Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 20:25:26 UTC

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