W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > September 2003

RE: What a prior art product must do

From: <jim@idexer.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2003 19:29:22 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <2397.>
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>

"Richard M. Smith" <rms@computerbytesman.com> wrote:

> A jury has already ruled against Microsoft in this case.  If the '906
> patent was obvious from the patent law standpoint, my assumption is that
> Microsoft tried to make this point in court and lost.
> Richard

Richard, you are assuming M$ defense team got everything right. Not always
the case with the best of lawyers. Never assume civil cases ends with the
jury. It's most rare in civil litigation when a case is decided by a jury.
Most always a case is finally decided by judges, not the jury <g>

M$ appears to have only offered prior art with the Viola Browser, which
the judge prevented because he wasn't convinced it was "public" knowledge.
In the judges judgement, the Viola browser was deliberately kept secret
from the world, and thus, Eolas would have had no prior knowledge of it
(if I follow the judges thinking correctly here.) This may well give M$
grounds for a new trial.

Received on Tuesday, 30 September 2003 22:31:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:09:06 UTC