RE: Eolas - agree on the prior art .....

One might observe that Microsoft's legal team (and technical helpers) spent the past three or four years, with a virtually unlimited budget, searching for pertinent prior art.  
-Micah

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard M. Smith [mailto:rms@computerbytesman.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:18 AM
To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
Subject: RE: Eolas - agree on the prior art .....



This list looks like a good starting point, but the patent prior art
game is played a bit different than Mr. Hallam-Baker indicates.  One
must compare the operation of a product against each claim of a patent.
There has to be a close match for the claims of a patent.  If a product
operates differently than the claims section, then the product isn't
prior art.  Any search for prior art must begin with a good
understanding of the claims section of a patent to know what to look
for.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Hemant Desai
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 11:04 AM
To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
Subject: Eolas - agree on the prior art .....



Mail from Phillip M. Hallam-Baker (hallam@w3.org)
which has the following date :

Date: 1995/08/22

There is a long list of prior art on the inclucsion of executable
content
within the Web. This includes:

tkwww    (Published prior to October 1992)
Viola    (Demonstrated July 1993)
HTTP/1.0 Spec   (Published 1992)
emacs-www   (1992? 1993?)
Mosaic/ application/x-csh (1992, 1993)
www/ application/postscript (1991)
www-talk   (1992 threads on executable content)

The Web is simply another hypertext application though. The inclusion of
a
feature from another hypertext system is therefore obvious. Thus the
following
are also of relevance :-

DEC LinkWorks    (communication PHB->TBL, 1992)
Xanadu    (Ted Nelson, 1970 ->)
NeWs    (Gosling et al. 1982?)


In addition the use of the term "weblet" to indicate a modular approach
to browser building is in current usage.


This type of nonsense is not the way we do buisness on the Web. The
community
has grown without Mr Doyle's assistance and will continue to do so. The
technology he claims ownership of was clearly understood to be part of
the
original concept of the Web and there is ample evidence to support this
claim.

Irrespective of the intended licensing arrangements there is simply
nothing
that adds value in the Eolas claim. I see nothing that I regard as novel
or
original. It is interesting to note that the work was performed using
Mosaic.
Many of the projects I refer to were published before the publication of
Mosaic.

Perhaps the net could compile a more complete list. Please do it in news
and do not mail me!


It seems odd that US patent law should permit the granting of a patent
merely
to use a well known technique within a famework explicitly designed to
support
extensibillity.

Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 11:28:34 UTC