Received: from nf4.netforward.com (nf4.netforward.com [204.57.67.249])
	by wallace.hotkey.net.au (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id IAA20769
	for <god@hotkey.net.au>; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:20:49 +1100 (EST)
X-Forwarder: NetForward.com
Received: from www19.w3.org (www19.w3.org [18.29.0.19]) by mozart.hotspace.net.au (NTMail 3.02.13) with ESMTP id ma414686 for <ap@cyberjunkie.com>; Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:19:34 +1100
Received: (from daemon@localhost)
	by www19.w3.org (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA15422;
	Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:07:31 -0500 (EST)
Resent-Message-Id: <199901252107.QAA15422@www19.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:54:25 -0500 (EST)
Old-X-Envelope-From: www-talk-request@www10.w3.org  Mon Jan 25 15:54:23 1999
X-Authentication-Warning: triton.dnai.com: bent owned process doing -bs
Old-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 12:54:18 -0800 (PST)
From: Ben Trafford <bent@dnai.com>
X-Sender: bent@triton
To: Robert Prichard <RobPrich@ix.netcom.com>
cc: www-talk@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <36ACD0B8.7FD7ABB0@ix.netcom.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96.990125125140.4971B-100000@triton>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Old-X-Envelope-To: www-talk
Resent-From: gerald@w3.org
Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:07:17 -0500
Resent-To: www-talk@w3.org
Subject: Re: Microsoft Style Sheet Patent
X-Mailing-List: <www-talk@w3.org> archive/latest/3896
X-Loop: www-talk@w3.org
Sender: www-talk-request@w3.org
Resent-Sender: www-talk-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
Status:   

Thanks for using NetForward!
http://www.netforward.com
v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v^v


On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Robert Prichard wrote:

> Business as usual?:
> 
> 
>  US5860073: Style sheets for publishing system
> 
>   Inventor(s):
>  Ferrel; Patrick J. , Seattle, WA
>  Gertz; Matthew W. , Redmond, WA
>  Meyer; Robert F. , Redmond, WA
>  Millet; Stephen J. , Seattle, WA
>  Schofield; Kevin M. , Bellevue, WA
>  Shewchuk; John P. , Seattle, WA
>  Smith; Walter W. , Seattle, WA

	Wow. The arrogance of this patent is mind-boggling. Why doesn't
somebody forward this to the DoJ, or to the judge in charge of the trial,
with a detailed explanation how intrinsically asisine and untrue this
patent claim is?

	By the by, this is just my personal opinion, and doesn't represent
that of my company, yadda yadda, the usual spiel.

--->Ben Trafford

