- From: Richard M. Smith <rms@computerbytesman.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 12:55:57 -0400
- To: "'web-plugins'" <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
This is a question more for Microsoft. I haven't heard them make this argument in their lawsuit. Although Microsoft did mumble something about Mike Doyle of Eolas hearing about their future plans for OLE about the time he said he invented Weblets. Not sure what article this was in. Richard -----Original Message----- From: public-web-plugins-request@w3.org [mailto:public-web-plugins-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Alex Rivero Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 12:46 PM To: web-plugins Subject: prior art and obvious. I believe most of the things we are speaking about are not straight prior art, but they can -should- be used to claim obviousness. As far as I understand, if it can be showed, based on prior inventions, that the patent claims are obvious for any engineer, then the patent is invalid. Is this the plan?
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 12:57:07 UTC