Slashdot Mirror
Whose Prior Art Filing Triggered Eolas Reexam?
theodp writes "The Eolas patent case history shows another prior art filing was quietly made ten days before the widely-publicized W3C filing and two weeks before Tim Berner-Lee's reexam request. Now Ray Ozzie speculates the earlier filing was one being floated at the time that was jointly signed by a number of other parties who supported W3C member Dave Raggett's prior art, which Microsoft unsuccessfully tried to use in the $521 million Eolas lawsuit. Ozzie also notes that those involved argued for all to stand solidly behind the Raggett prior art and not cite anything else. So who are these other parties, and was it their filing and lobbying that triggered the Eolas reexam?"
Unfortunatly, I already have prior art on posting to slashdot claiming I had prior art as you will notice my post is above yours.
Pay up.
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
oh wait...were not talking about LoTR... *smacks self* software not fantasy...
" Can't have a thread without conspiracy, can we? "
Here on Slashdot? No. I think you agree to something like that when you register.
"Derp de derp."
This will be rejected because of too little obfuscation. Better try:
A thing or process, that, either by explicit activation or automatically, performs with a probability less or equal to one, any intended or unintended action, covering a range of usefulnesses from zero to absolutely, where action is meant to include the trivial action, i.e. not changing its own state or the state of the environment at all nor hindering its own state or the state of its environment to change.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
It's simple.
... I feel so dirty.
1) Design machine.
2) ???
3) Prophet.