- From: Jake Robb <jakerobb@mac.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 23:09:12 -0400
- To: W3C Public Web Plugins List <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
That would be nice, but telnet doesn't use hypertext. -Jake Reza Roboubi wrote: > > Wouldn't telnet then become a clear prior art? > > Alastair wrote: >> >> Although I have not studied the scope of the patent in detail my >> understanding under English Law (which is very similar to US Law) is that >> apps which take over the whole of the browser window would still be covered. >> The part of the window affected just happens to be 100% of it. By using the >> term part they have covered everything down from 100%, Although most of the >> definitions of the word imply that there must be more than one, Websters >> Dictionary has as one of the definitions of the word "an exact divisor of a >> quantity",. Mathematically a division of 1 is still a division. >> >> Alastair Mitton >> OM International >> +44 (0)20 8840 8788 >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Steve Brimley" <steve.brimley@toplev.com> >> To: "'W3C: Public Web Plugins List'" <public-web-plugins@w3.org> >> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 6:04 PM >> Subject: Scope of the patent >> >>> >>> I took the time to paraphrase and simplify the claim part of the patent >>> application in question just so that I could understand it myself. >>> As far as I can see from my reading of the application, the patent only >>> affects plugins that occupy part and only part of the browser window, the >>> rest of the window being occupied by the containing html document. Thus >>> applications like Adobe Acrobat Reader that completely take over the >> browser >>> window are not affected. >>> Does anyone disagree with this? >>> >>> I published the paraphrase on >>> http://www.toplev.com:8080/Miscellaneous/Patent.htm. >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve Brimley >>> >>> >>> >>>
Received on Sunday, 14 September 2003 23:09:50 UTC