- From: Hector Santos <winserver.support@winserver.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 08:54:30 -0400
- To: "web-plugins" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
This is the smoking gun? More prior art description a remote client/server concept of transforming server commands to graphic images on a client machine. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc965.txt I don't know about anyone else, but there is SO much prior art and information showing the obviousness and the non-novelty of Mr. Doyle patent it really isn't funny anymore - but shocking and even more shocking Microsoft is having a hard time with this. In my opinion, this RFC is the smoking gun. Check out this particular section along with my HLS inline comments: From RFC 965 V. AN ARCHITECTURE FOR PIGCF PROCESSING This section presents an example software architecture for the generation and interpretation of PIGCF in a multimedia conferencing system using GKS as the underlying programmer's graphics interface. HLS: Cool. Today we got HTML! This section should not be interpreted as a definitive statement of such an architecture, but only as an exercise to illustrate how the format proposed in this paper fits within the overall framework of a conferencing system. Choosing GKS simplifies the example architecture; nevertheless, other graphics packages can be used by adding, to the architecture, the modules to interpret and generate the PIGCF level L items. HLS: So what you are saying is that its the IDEA that counts? Never mind how its implemented? Figure 1 shows the major software modules charged with graphics interaction and display at a conferencing workstation. This is a familiar programmer's view of the graphics pipeline. A conferencing application program updates data structures and uses device-independent graphics services through a language binding. HLS: Language Binding -- hmmm, sounds familiar! These services, in turn, use device-dependent graphics services that call on device drivers to accept input and to present graphic pictures. ...... HLS: Device drivers == remote terminal applets! Accept input? You mean interact with the end-users? ..... The application performs numerous other functions for conference management and control of other media streams, but we need not consider them in this example. HLS: You mean like a image Panning /Zooming and other interactive actions? In Figure 2, the basic graphics pipeline has been augmented with the software modules involved in the generation, transmission, reception, and interpretation of PIGCF streams. .... HLS: Whoa! Let me get this straight. You mean you have hosting software (web sever), transfer software (TCP/IP), reception software (Browser) and interpretation software (client side applets?) HA! That pretty much covers it!! But that's impossible, its still only 1985!!! Mr. Doyle is NOT HERE yet! ... The application has a module for interpreting the lower and higher levels of PIGCF and one for generating the upper level U. The device-independent graphics services include modules for generating and interpreting the lower level, L..... HLS: Now you getting fancy on me!! .... This reflects the current practice of including the generation and interpretation functions in the graphics package. HLS: Current practice of SENDING components to end-user machines? Wait a second! Again! You are way ahead of yourself! This is 1985 and Mr. Doyle did not invent the practice yet! There is also a module that transmits the outgoing PIGCF streams to remote work stations. Similarly, there is a module that receives incoming streams from remote stations.. In actual practice, the transmit and receive modules are decomposed into several processes implementing a layered protocol architecture. HLS: Yeah, you already said this! I have to be nuts but I suggest the following: Mr. Doyle borrowed a page or two from existing, published RFC 965 information and other videotext concepts already in work and high in the "Future technology Index". He is probably a Unix wienie, but also had access to IBM/Sears Prodigy with its mass marketing of "Videotext" systems. He probably was also a CompuServe user and maybe used a some of the frontends for it. Or maybe he was lurking the Fidocon 89 trade show and saw my Gold Xpress demonstration of plotting Pie Charts and Histograms on a remote client system based on interpreted data received from the remote host system. Either way, he then takes public domain software, twisted it little to implement RFC 965 and videotext ideas and uses the currently growing internet HTML protocol to demonstrate that it does WORK! Who knows!? One thing for sure he was definitely exposed to the prior art. There was just too much of it around. And if not, then he isn't much of a PHD! Sorry Michael. If anything, you have a copyright, not a patent! Sincerely, Hector Santos, CTO Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com 305-431-2846 Cell 305-248-3204 Office
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 08:56:49 UTC