[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Saturday 25 February 2006 10:12 pm, Robin Cornelius wrote: > Neil Williams wrote: > > "According to Balthaser, its patent covers all rich media technology > > implementations including Adobe/Macromedia's Flash and Flex, Sun > > Microsystems' Java, the community-developed AJAX and XAML, and all device > > footprints which access "rich-media internet applications", including > > desktops, mobile devices, set-top-boxes and video game consoles." > > This guy worked for macromedia though didn't he? and flash was present > on the internet at a date that preceeds his patent so it is invalidated > by priod art? We'll have to wait and see - very little is certain where patents are concerned. It is likely to come down to the opinion of a single judge somewhere. It could be that the patent applies when Flash is combined with other implementations - depends on what is interpreted as "rich-media". Does it require N>=1 methods or N>1 ? That's why I added the ? to the subject - it is far from clear exactly what this patent means. It could mean a lot, it could be invalid. It is most certainly wrong but if it should be upheld or simply not tested, it will have an impact far beyond the US. What is wrong is not always illegal and what is illegal is not always wrong. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgp3ccrUVrE7F.pgp
Description: PGP signature