False patent claims

• From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
• Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:39:19 -0600
• To: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <CC0499B7.3A2C%peter.cranstone@gmail.com>

For those who are interested in following along. Here's Mozilla's take on
the Patent claim: https://wiki.mozilla.org/DNT_false_patent_claim

They go on to sayŠ

Based upon a thorough analysis by independent patent counsel, Mozilla
concluded that the Œ206 patent did not cover the W3C DNT specification
because the specification did not satisfy all of the limitations of the
claims.

Maybe Mozilla would care to add a little more detail in exactly how adding
a privacy header to the protocol did not satisfy all of the limitations of
the claims and in doing so share their complete analysis.




Peter
___________________________________
Peter J. Cranstone
720.663.1752

Received on Monday, 18 June 2012 14:40:00 UTC