 
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 | Re: ridiculous 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. | |
|
| | 
Vchat20
Landing is the REAL challenge
join:2003-09-16
Warren, OH
| 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. | |
|
| | | IOddity
join:2005-06-06
Rio Dell, CA | Re: ridiculous Yeah, I was late getting my graphics, was using a unix system at my school. Pine was my email, Lynx was www. | |
|
| | b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | Oh come on!
Netscape for Windows 3.1 had full graphics back in 1990! | |
|
| | | IOddity
join:2005-06-06
Rio Dell, CA | 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 |  Re: ridiculous
Netscape Ver 1.0 Final didn't exist till Dec. of '94 | |
|
| | | | 
cao1964
join:2000-08-09
Danville, PA
| 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. | |
|
| | | | b10010011
Whats a Posting tag?
join:2004-09-07
Bellingham, WA | 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 | |
|
| | BIGHUSKER
join:2002-01-20
Minneapolis, MN
| said by IOddity :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. | |
|
| 
packetscan
Premium
join:2004-10-19
Bridgeport, CT
clubs: | Microsoft Trying to STEAL from the kids..
What's Next? | |
|
| TonyB9
join:2005-05-20
Novato, CA | If MS loses, ALL browser manufacturers, both commercial and open-source, that use this technology will be liable...could get very messy. | |
|
| | noogoo
join:2005-06-27
| Re: ridiculous 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/ | |
|
| haertig
join:2000-12-31
Broomfield, CO
| 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? | |
|
| | 
Rogue Wolf
Drank Your Milkshake- He Drank It Up
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: ridiculous said by haertig :What kind of idiot would grant a patent on this obvious concept? »www.uspto.gov/
--
"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." | |
|
| pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
 ·Future Nine Corpor..
·ooma
·Comcast
| 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." | |
|
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. | |
|
|
a
@qwest.net | 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! | |
|
| | |
| | |
a
@qwest.net | Re: MS will lose it's not the system, it's who uses the system & our present judiciary, lol... | |
|
redxii
too big to fail
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Austin, TX
Host:
/dev/null
Broadband Tweaks
ISDN
Fiber Optic
AOL Broadband
| 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 | Re: Does Eolas produce their own browser? they do not need to produce a browser. only patent something that a browser will use. | |
|
| | |
| | | averagedude
join:2002-01-30
Mesa, AZ
·Cox HSI
1 edit | Re: Does Eolas produce their own browser? said by redxii :said by BVT :Hey that's catchy: Show nothing, get nothing. edit: thumbs up | |
|
| | | BVT
join:2004-10-25
Mount Juliet, TN | dont get me wrong, I agree with you. Just that is not the way it seems to work | |
|
| | | |
redxii
too big to fail
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-26
Austin, TX | Re: Does Eolas produce their own browser? I didn't get you wrong. | |
|
|
| 
tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
 ·Millenicom
 ·WildBlue
| Re: Unfair patents said by r81984 :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. You might as well try it. Be aware that the method for swinging on a swing has already been patented. »patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Pars···/6368227 | |
|
footballdude
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
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 . . . | |
|
anoyed
@virgin.net
| Patent nonsence This patent should be made invalid beause it has prior art and it is very obvious.
The mere fact that a web page contains a link which opens a new page is very similiar to this idea. The only difference being a different application loads insted.
I wonder how far back MS Word was able to embed Excell objects into documents? | |
|
Taget
join:2004-07-29 | This is a good thing.. ..the only way that there will be any reform in the patent system is when the big boys start getting burned. | |
|
| 
brooklynman4
join:2004-09-07
Brooklyn, NY | Re: This is a good thing.. I cant believe microsoft lost one now who paid them off ? | |
|
GhostDoggy
join:2005-05-11
Duluth, GA
| Eminent Virtual-Domain? Maybe a sort of eminent virtual-domain needs to be enacted since there are so many parties right now that are in clear violation of the stated patent.
Hell, I bet there are government apps that are doing this.  | |
|
OzWheelz
@optusnet.com | Easy fix for MS. I guess the next version of IE will be a Web Looker-at-er. It wont be a browser any more.
| |
|
|
elias
Premium,VIP
join:2000-07-24
Miami, FL
clubs:  | Sue Mozilla? So are they going to sue Mozilla for having Extensions and plugins and such?
-- Elias | |
|
tranceGhost
@carvel.com
| Microsoft finally gets stopped From day one, Microsoft's business plan has consisted on one thing. Steal other companies ideas and technology and repackage it as their own:
CPM -> DOS
OS2 -> Windows Environment (3.1)
MAC OS -> Win95
I am grateful that the courts have finally caught up to them!
P.S. The image handling mentioned in the earlier posts is an inherent feature of http, not an add-on function. The ability to "click" on an image (not specified in http as a link,) and open say, Photoshop. is what is being referred to. | |
|
|
|
|
Microsoft Loses With Eolas Patent Ruling
·
·
Here's a Little History