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

RE: What a prior art product must do

From: Richard M. Smith <rms@computerbytesman.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 22:07:41 -0400
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005a01c387c0$cb9f6f40$550ffea9@rms>

A jury has already ruled against Microsoft in this case.  If the '906 patent was obvious from the patent law standpoint, my
assumption is that Microsoft tried to make this point in court and lost.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of jim@idexer.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 7:27 PM
To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
Subject: Re: What a prior art product must do

> Looking over just claim #1 of the '906 patent, here's my reading what a
> product must do as a minimum to be prior art for the '906 patent:

Why look for prior art? All that needs to be shown is that the claims were
already obivious and publically known. Anyone remember the old HTML
mailing list in the early 90's? That's where eoloas got all the material
for writing the patent. When Marc added <img> to Mosaic most thought that
wasn't enough and wanted <embed> and other tags. Marc said he didn't have
enough time to add <embed> then. So this shows where the ideas came from
and that they were all obivious and openly discussed by those who worked
with early HTML and browsers.

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 22:07:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:09:06 UTC