aelfwyne
join:2004-01-28
Beaumont, TX
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| ridiculous
This is (has long been) getting ridiculous. Patents are supposed to protect ideas/inventions that are UNIQUE enough that they are not obvious. These kinds of things are OBVIOUS extensions of technology, and should not be covered by a patent. Just because the patent office is too chickenshot to turn down ANY kind of patent these days, doesn't mean the courts need to uphold their validity.
Someone needs to do some serious restructuring of US patent law. |
|
IOddity
join:2005-06-06
Rio Dell, CA | Hm, in 1999 my browser had just discovered images, programs being called from within the browser doesn't seem a very obvious extension of the technology at the time. Hell, I was just glad to find out that there was more than text to browsing. |
|
homers
join:2002-02-05
Santa Clarita, CA
| MS will lose
Microsoft will lose because they have the money to pay -- a liberal judge will not see any harm into the transfer of cash from big bad corporation to a university and small company. IF MS were a small or cash strapped company, this wouldn't be an issue. |
|
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
clubs: 
| reply to IOddity
Re: ridiculous
you are kinda late. IE4 and up afaik has had image support and my circa '98 computer was preloaded with IE5. and im sure that image support was availble in windows 95 cuz our old computers back in elementary had them and they were able to browse image-laiden web pages.
but thats besides the original point. just trying to correct you a bit.
--
Alec Trebek: Well, all you had to do was write down a number. And you wrote... Threeve. A combination of three and five. Simply stunning. And you wagered... Texas with a dollar sign in front of it. I'm speechless. |
|
redxii
too big to fail
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Texas
Host:
/dev/null
Broadband Tweaks
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
| Does Eolas produce their own browser?
Didn't see any mention of it anywhere.
I find the patent invalid because it states "A system allowing a user of a browser program" and not "A system allowing a user of Eolas' browser program"...
I can't find anything on "open distributed hypermedia system" but "open" appears to say freely available and royalty free.
--
Microsoft Windows 2000/XP Security: Some Assembly Required. |
|
BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN | they do not need to produce a browser. only patent something that a browser will use. |
|
a
@qwest.net | reply to homers
Re: MS will lose
microsoft will lose because of the fucking idiots not only at the patent office but also within our so-called justice system, being, need i say, computer illiterate! |
|
redxii
too big to fail
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Texas
Host:
/dev/null
Broadband Tweaks
Suddenlink
ISDN
Fiber Optic
1 edit | reply to BVT
Re: Does Eolas produce their own browser?
said by BVT  :they do not need to produce a browser. Then I personally think the patent is worth nothing if they have nothing to show for it.
Hey that's catchy: Show nothing, get nothing.
--
Microsoft Windows 2000/XP Security: Some Assembly Required. |
|
r81984
Fair and Balanced
Premium
join:2001-11-14
St John'S, NL
 ·magicjack.com
·Cox HSI
·Insight Communicat..
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Unfair patents
Why are people allowed to patent processes using technology they did not invent. When what they patent is just common sense. I wonder if I patent the process to turn a knob to open a door when I did not invent the door or the door knob? Everyone in the world who opens a door should pay me money. |
|
IOddity
join:2005-06-06
Rio Dell, CA | reply to Vchat20
Re: ridiculous
Yeah, I was late getting my graphics, was using a unix system at my school. Pine was my email, Lynx was www. |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO | blame Eolas
So Eolas is to blame for all of the virii and spyware that worm in through IE? Can we sue them? |
|
mr weather
Premium
join:2002-02-27
Mississauga, ON
| Ground for invalidity
Not sure of the patent law in the US but in Canada there are many attacks you can use to invalidate a patent.
If M$ can show a browser with such a capability available to the public before the application date of the patent (1994) there's one argument (anticipation).
If they can show it was obvious to a person skilled in the art in 1994 to put such a function in a browser, there's another argument (obviousness).
The new problem is the if the patent is indeed re-issued, Eolas just extended their monopoly an extra seven years. 
--
"It's all coming down!!" - Mike Holmes |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | And People Criticise MS for Patenting Everything
Wouldn't a ruling like this make you do the same??
People can blame or criticise the system as much they want, but MS patents everything so as to prevent such things from happening to them.
Change the laws, but until then . . . |
|
b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | reply to IOddity
Re: ridiculous
Oh come on!
Netscape for Windows 3.1 had full graphics back in 1990! |
|
averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
·Cox HSI
1 edit | reply to redxii
Re: Does Eolas produce their own browser?
said by redxii :said by BVT :Hey that's catchy: Show nothing, get nothing. edit: thumbs up |
|
IOddity
join:2005-06-06
Rio Dell, CA | reply to b10010011
Re: ridiculous
Windows 3.1 didn't even hit til around beginning of '92 if I recall correctly. What are you smokin? |
|
baby_bear
@comcast.net |  He's GW'in (ie clueless).
Netscape Ver 1.0 Final didn't exist till Dec. of '94 |
|
cao1964
join:2000-08-09
Danville, PA
| reply to IOddity
said by IOddity :Windows 3.1 didn't even hit til around beginning of '92 if I recall correctly. What are you smokin? I think that was 3.1 For workgroup, maybe it was 3.11 or something like that. |
|
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | reply to aelfwyne
Microsoft Trying to STEAL from the kids..
What's Next? |
|
