Re: ridiculous in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r14476978 en Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:22:34 EDT Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:22:34 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14491468 noogoo : change their names from browsers to something else like viewers or programs. there were programs that ran programs before browsers, right? or you can call an operating system a browser that runs programs. what's the point of patenting the idea just for browsers? because it was done in other things not called browsers?
--
noogoo vs. the copyright law - »noogoocopy.blogspot.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14491468 Sun, 02 Oct 2005 22:39:34 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14481325 pandora : Prodigy had text and image viewing in the early 90's using it's proprietary software. While not a browser as we have them today, it did permit embedded images as ads and as clickable icons. I believe some processing was done locally, but not as part of any open source or extensible language.

Further, older technology using Windows CMS had formatted controlled screens, which could display images (in color if you could afford it). While largely text based, it was possible to run the Xedit editor (which WAS text based) but to invoke REXX programs (which was an exec language, today it'd be considered a scripting language). Under VM, remote calls to foreign systems were possible with Xedit using IBM's REXX and a facility called IUCV, there were special ICCV messages which could be directly called linking external applications. I used and wrote such a system back in the late 80's, it permitted billing and auditing of applications as batch or interactive plus was used to communicate to schedule airline tickets, it interfaced to the old airline code system through a 3705 modified with X25 support and links to a custom device. I copyrighted and sold code to effect this to 3M back in 1985-7. RSCS had an exec language, and could make remote procedure calls. NCSS had a network which permitted it's database server to make calls across systems. Similarly the older (mid to late 70's) Wylbur and Orvyl systems permitted operation of scripts and very intelligent programs from edit environments. Orvyl was capable of running independent scripts, and could communicate job functions with ASP or HASP to remote systems (permitting a scripted invocation of a remote program, and retrieval of output at a remote host all by script).

Travalmation used the 3M code (and licensed it from me) in the early 90's, this permitted a user at a console controlled by a (believe it or not) Fortran program to invoke a retrieval program in another user which would then make X25 network requests for travel fares and search for the best fit, lowest cost fares obtained from remote systems using the SABRE system. A user would thus be presented a screen, and would invoke a foreign request processed first locally then remotely across an X25 network. Mapping and translation, plus culling and sorting (not to mention caching) or results was done on another remote application before returning results to the customers window.

Automatically invoking generically an application on a remote host was done by NCSS, D&B, American Can, and Perkin Elmer using various techniques under modified VM systems as early as the late 60's.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14481325 Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:24:29 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14479134 BIGHUSKER :
said by IOddity See Profile :

Hm, in 1999 my browser had just discovered images
Were you surfing on lynx in 1999? Images have been around almost since the dawn of the web...they were definitely there when I was surfing away at 28.8 in 1996.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14479134 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 21:19:11 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14478221 Rogue Wolf :
said by haertig See Profile :

What kind of idiot would grant a patent on this obvious concept?
»www.uspto.gov/

:hmm:
--
"We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?"
"You must be, or you wouldn't have come here."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14478221 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:54:41 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476978 b10010011 : Windows 3.1 (originally codenamed Janus), released on March 18, 1992.

You are right, but by 93 there was full graphical web browsers for Windows 3.1.

What a long strange trip its been:D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476978 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 15:54:48 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476485 haertig : Seems to me like this patent (as described here ... I haven't read it) is an obvious extension to the idea:
"I don't know how to fix my car myself, so I'll ask an outside mechanic to do it"


Whether you're talking about a car or a browser is silly. What kind of idiot would grant a patent on this obvious concept?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476485 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:47:24 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476436 TonyB9 : If MS loses, ALL browser manufacturers, both commercial and open-source, that use this technology will be liable...could get very messy.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476436 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:40:32 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476378 packetscan : Microsoft Trying to STEAL from the kids..

What's Next?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476378 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:33:29 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476365 cao1964 :
said by IOddity See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476365 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:32:23 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476312 anon : He's GW'in (ie clueless).

Netscape Ver 1.0 Final didn't exist till Dec. of '94]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476312 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:26:01 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476156 IOddity : Windows 3.1 didn't even hit til around beginning of '92 if I recall correctly. What are you smokin?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476156 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 14:05:48 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476066 b10010011 : Oh come on!
Netscape for Windows 3.1 had full graphics back in 1990!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14476066 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:53:33 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14475978 IOddity : Yeah, I was late getting my graphics, was using a unix system at my school. Pine was my email, Lynx was www. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14475978 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:42:35 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14475868 Vchat20 : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14475868 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:30:00 EDT Re: ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14475811 IOddity : 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. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14475811 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:22:46 EDT ridiculous http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14475771 aelfwyne : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,14475771 Fri, 30 Sep 2005 13:18:15 EDT