[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: public-web-plugins
Subject: Re: Microsoft Seeks Browser Plug-In Patent Of Its Own
From: TheoDP () aol ! com
Date: 2004-01-06 10:08:52
Message-ID: 0A4E4300.654BF0EA.00053D18 () aol ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Since Microsoft's unsuccessful litigation and proposed IE changes
seem to be playing a big role in driving the W3C's efforts (e.g.,
the unprecedented patent challenge) and schedule (e.g., no public
call for prior art before the 301 filing) in the matter of the
Eolas plug-in patent, I'm curious if the W3C and the PAG are
concerned that the recently disclosed Microsoft plug-in patent
application:
1. Doesn't seem to have been made public when Microsoft sought the
W3C's support back in August (did MS disclose this to the W3C and
PAG at the time?)
2. Seems to cover some of the same plug-in territory as Eolas (did
MS provide the W3C and PAG with legal assurances that it will never
be used to block compliance with W3C Recommendations?)
3. Might be used to counter any claims that Microsoft and others
might try to make about plug-in patents not being considered
innovative by someone "skilled in the art"
In an earlier note (the W3C's Susan Lesch replied that she had no
comment), I was also interested in some comments from the W3C and
the PAG about feedback I got from the USPTO regarding the Eolas
patent reexamination:
1. It was indicated that the prior art submitted by the W3C in
October had already been submitted to the USPTO by another
(unnamed) party (any idea if that's true and who the other party
is?)
2. It was also indicated that because the reexam was ordered almost
immediately after the USPTO received the duplicate prior art from
the W3C, the public will be unable to contribute any new prior art
for consideration as part of this reexamination (any idea if that's
true or false?)
In a message dated 1/5/2004 11:19:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, djweitzner@w3.org writes:
> I certainly didn't mean to be condescending.
>
> As I understood you original note, you would like W3C to do something in
> particular about the particular patent application you cite. My response
> was simply to explain when we are or are not likely to look at a given
> patent. We're most concerned about patents that are actually being used
> to block compliance with W3C Recommendations, as Eolas is
> doing. If I've
> missed something, please clarify.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic