RE: Scope of the patent

The wording of the patent seems to specify that "at least a portion" of the
containing "hypermedia document" be displayed in the browser window.  

Do you agree that that's what the patent says?  

And if you do agree, does your original comment hold good?


-----Original Message-----
From: Alastair [mailto:alastair@om-int.com]
Sent: 13 September 2003 10:40
To: 'W3C: Public Web Plugins List'
Subject: Re: Scope of the patent



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 Monday, 15 September 2003 04:52:13 UTC