- From: Hector Santos <winserver.support@winserver.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:21:16 -0500
- To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Thanks for the link. In my opinion, Microsoft needs to fix the recent IE compatibility problems or risk making the efforts of W3C of challenging the patent worthless. But then again, it isn't in their strategic interest to keep a status quo with world wide compatibility as recent IE updates have proven to show. Microsoft may be shooting itself in the foot, or maybe it is all done on purpose, but recent Microsoft IE security updates have caused a havoc on the internet, in some cases making obsolete legacy web servers and forcing changes in 3rd party non-IIS web servers. Just google the internet for all the IE problems being reported, "Page cannot be found," "Blank Pages," "Authentication problems," etc. If you go to Internet Explore support forum news://news.microsoft.com/microsoft.public.windows.inetexplorer.ie6.browser You will see something like 20 message in the past 5 hours complaining about IE compatibility problems with Web sites, including my own messages. We had to make a design change to our Wildcat! Interactive Net Web Server, engineered since 1996 without a browser compatibility problem, to support "TCP Half Close" operations because of recent strange IE browser behaviors not exhibited by other browsers. Now with the recent November 11 IE Security Updates, they have made the IE browser behave so strange there is no pattern behind it. In my opinion, if Mr. Doyle plays his cards right, he can probably use this as argument against the W3C claim the patent will force changes in IE not beneficial to the internet community. It might be too late! It was already done and I have strong "sneaky" suspicion Microsoft is doing this intentionally to force updates giving Microsoft an opportunity to sneak in .NET functionality. Hector Santos WINSERVER "Wildcat! Interactive Net Server" support: http://www.winserver.com sales: http://www.santronics.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Monsour" <bob@bobmonsour.com> To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 8:56 PM Subject: PTO orders re-examination of Eolas patent All, See the following story from oreillynet.com http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3969 Regards, -Bob Monsour P.S. Here's the relevant snippet from the story. Apparently, the PTO responded to this request, saying "a substantial outcry from a widespread segment of the affected industry has essentially raised a question of patentability." This order, issued on October 30, reviewed the claims and declared that the prior art introduced by Berners-Lee and Raggett raised "a substantial new question of patentabity." The order, signed by Steve Kunin, Deputy Commissioner of the US PTO, called for a reexamination of all claims relating to the '906 patent. A patent lawyer that I spoke to said that the quick response by the PTO was unusual, and he thought it was a good sign. He said that the order seemed to give a clear indication of support for the claims against the patent. We'll now have to wait for a patent examiner to examine the evidence in more detail and rule on the patent. If you want to follow the adminstrative procedures, go to http://pair.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/final/home.pl and the type in the application number: 90/006,831.
Received on Wednesday, 12 November 2003 09:21:40 UTC