- From: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 08:43:26 -0600
- To: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- CC: W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org>
Nope. It should be out in the public for all to see. Just like Mozilla has done. Peter ___________________________________ Peter J. Cranstone 720.663.1752 -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org> Date: Monday, June 18, 2012 8:42 AM To: Peter Cranstone <peter.cranstone@gmail.com> Cc: Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>, W3 Tracking <public-tracking@w3.org> Subject: Re: False patent claims >I would like to repeat my request to keep patent discussion off this >mailing >list. > >Thank you, >-- >Thomas Roessler, W3C <tlr@w3.org> (@roessler) > > > > > > > >On 2012-06-18, at 16:39 +0200, Peter Cranstone wrote: > >> 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 14:44:15 UTC