W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > April to June 2015

Re: PSA: Web Components vs Extract Widget patent

From: Aymeric Vitte <vitteaymeric@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 17:55:30 +0200
Message-ID: <55673A72.5090901@gmail.com>
To: Arthur Barstow <art.barstow@gmail.com>, public-webapps <public-webapps@w3.org>
Please see https://gist.github.com/Ayms/64dfd60ddae05aeaff4e

This is a brief code comparison between the extract widget projects from
the patent and the Polymer project.

Since we knew exactly what we had to look for, we found it, the
conclusion is:

"Not seeing obvious similitudes between the Polymer and the EW code,
therefore between the Web Components and the patent, or arguing that
these are standard practices while we see that today it's still
difficult to accomplish and that we still need to hack the entire DOM
all possible ways to do it, as well as performing very strange and not
usual manipulations, could only be the result of very bad faith."

Hopefully the DOM hacking will stop when the specs will be implemented
inside browsers.

Probably the next step is to link to how we have set in 2007 a
template-like element associated with a framework implementing some
HTML5 features, before HTML5.

There is a logic between all our projects and their history, same as the
Web Components logic.

Instead of trying to refute the creativity and innovation of the patent,
maybe we should make it happen the way it was intended to, please see
the Note in the gist.

Maybe it should become obvious too that if we can import and construct a
shadow domed web component, we can extract it the same way, that's the
same thing.



Le 22/05/2015 00:01, Aymeric Vitte a écrit :
> Since this is public now for everybody, please let me give some
> additional information.
> We think that the extraction mechanisms described in the patent and not
> covered by any spec will happen one day too, and could be integrated in
> the Web Components spec, the purpose being to extract a customized
> custom element from any site, not only from the constructor site, it's
> probably very simple to specify now, if there is some interest we could
> participate to this.
> From a technical standpoint, please see below everything we have written
> about the obvious similitudes between the patent (2010) and the Web
> Components (2012), as well as the widget-like projects (2013/2014).
> If someone finds some anteriority, then please advise, this is what we
> have been asking for since 6 months, but please read what follows before.
> The enormous difference between what describes the patent and all
> existing technologies when we issued it is that all existing
> technologies were producing gadgets:
> - that were sandboxed (iframes for example) and could not interact with
> the other elements of the web page where they were injected
> - that were displayed alone
> - that needed some specific format, development skills or tools (like
> browsers, frameworks, apis) to be created and displayed
> - that could not necessarily render or adapt on any devices, like mobiles
> To my knowledge, at that time no project never envisioned at any moment
> any gadgets that could be integrated into a web page as normal browser
> elements (ie DOM elements) on any device possibly interacting with the
> other browser elements of the page while keeping their own properties
> not interfering between each others, which is very exactly what the
> patent describes and what the Web Components are about.
> One of the reason probably is that this was extraordinarly complicate to
> perform at that time, like for our past projects which were difficult to
> implement, and still is today, except if we use the Web Components or
> widget-like concepts of today helped by the improvements brought by
> ES6/7 and HTML.
> The patent describes an universal method to accomplish the above and the
> definition of a "gadget" in the patent is very clear regarding its
> ability to interact with the rest of the page.
> I have tried to detail all this and performed a detailed comparison with
> the Web Components and widget-like projects here:
> - "Main claim, scope and applications"
> https://gist.github.com/Ayms/efc919d6d6381c37dbbe
> Which shows that not only Web Components are impacted, but all
> widget-like projects, thousands of projects, and soon or later all projects.
> and here:
> -"Extract Widget" Patent FR2962237 - Process to create an application of
> gadget type incorporated into a container of widget type" -
> https://gist.github.com/Ayms/ee9f99e5dfabb68bcc27
> The second gist is a bit long and the translation of the patent probably
> not perfect, beside the detailed comparison for each claim of the patent
> with the Web Components, the most interesting section is probably: "The
> patent vs the traditional approach = Web Components"
> https://gist.github.com/Ayms/ee9f99e5dfabb68bcc27#the-patent-vs-the-traditional-approach--the-web-components
> Regarding a possible solution, to make it short, since now 6 months
> (realizing at last that all the components projects were infringing the
> patent) we have stated that we would like to find an agreement so we
> transfer the rights of the patent to the W3C members and they sublicense
> it royalty free for everybody via the W3C.
> This agreement should cover at least the costs of our past projects
> related to the patent from 2007 to 2012 developed by Naïs' team, which
> were all killed when we realized that Google had decided to deprecate
> its Search API, but not only Google is in cause here since no Search
> APIs were available from any of the major internet companies.
> We will not elaborate on this here, this situation leaded us to develop
> our current privacy/anonymity oriented projects, which usually everybody
> loves until we talk about financing, that's what the potential agreement
> will be used for, if any.
> Regards,
> Aymeric
> Le 20/05/2015 15:24, Arthur Barstow a écrit :
>> Hi All,
>> For those interested in Web Components, please note I received a related
>> e-mail titled "Web Components vs Extract Widget patent". I forwarded
>> this e-mail (which has an attachment) to the www-archive list:
>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2015May/0008.html>
>> Please do NOT discuss the specifics of the referenced patent on
>> public-webapps.
>> Yves, Xiaoqian - will this information result in the formation of a
>> Patent Advisory Group [PAG]? If yes, when will that PAG be "launched"?
>> -Thanks, ArtB
>> [PAG] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-Exception

Check the 10 M passwords list: http://peersm.com/findmyass
Anti-spies and private torrents, dynamic blocklist: http://torrent-live.org
Peersm : http://www.peersm.com
torrent-live: https://github.com/Ayms/torrent-live
node-Tor : https://www.github.com/Ayms/node-Tor
GitHub : https://www.github.com/Ayms
Received on Thursday, 28 May 2015 15:55:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:14:56 UTC