|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 03:35 AM EDT |
I'm pretty sure I and many others were using
this stuff before 1995.
I'm assuming that infringing a patent before
it was issued counts double in IVs mind, so
maybe I'd better be quiet.
This is absurd.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 09:03 AM EDT |
Now that I think of it, imagine a dynamic web page which is
generated by the web server. Does this count as a "message"? I don't see a claim
limitation that the "message" must be email but perhaps this is implied by the
specification.
Since Claim 1 does not limit itself to HTML, I
should think Q-Link (the
predecessor to AOL) used a protocol that practiced all elements of Claim 1
back in 1985 (prior to the appearance of HTML). The user's client program would
receive "messages" from the Q-link server that contained references to locally
stored images and sounds (to reduce bandwidth usage on dialup
lines).
In fact, the claim is so broadly worded that any message sent
between computers that contained, for example, an error or status code that the
client might decode to a text message should practice the patent. Such codes
were integral parts of the MIL-STD 1553A and ARINC 429 specifications, just to
name two.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 07:15 PM EDT |
This patent would be violated by simply writing an e-mail
client which complies with RFC1521 and RFC1522, and failing
to include additional functionality to render the payload
data at the same time as the display of the email. (Such
functionality is not mentioned in the RFCs, either to render
or to withhold; to me, withholding and requiring an
additional step would seem less obvious than rendering at
the first call.)
Those RFCs are dated September 1993.
cpeterson[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|