|
|
|
| Authored by: bprice on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 09:50 PM EDT |
I just reread the goofy claim 1. It's claiming classic 'innovations' as its
own:
1. A method of communicating between computers, comprising the
steps of: creating a message at a first computer, said message including a
reference to a predetermined location; transmitting, by the first computer, said
message to a second location; and receiving said message by a computer at the
second location; decoding said message by the computer at the second location by
retrieving data from the predetermined location, automatically by a single
application, without requiring user interaction, into the computer at the second
location.
This claim, of course, is anticipated by HTTP, DNS, and
many other protocols. Particularly, any protocol that has a redirection
response message anticipates it exactly, with no application of Doctrine of
Equivalents needed.
HTTP: the redirect response is used, for example, by
URL shorteners. A request to bit.ly/123456789 gets the response message
from bit.ly's computer which contains the predetermined location of the
real (or another shortened) URL; the original requestor automatically, ;without
requiring1 user interaction', retrieves the actual 'data from the
predetermined location' from per bit.ly's computer.
URL shortening is
just one use of this feature: It was originally intended to allow the HTTP
server to get its IP address changed without requiring the URLs all over the
world to know about it pending a DNS update.
DNS: my ('second') computer
needs to resolve a.b.c.us. It can't find it in its cache. So it sends
a request to a DNS server ('first') for the us TLD. The DNS server is
not configured for recursion so it sends my computer a message with the
predetermined location, consisting of the NS and A records from the DNS server's
database for c.us. My resolver automatically chases this down...
ARP has predetermined that IP 9.8.7.6 is actually handled by IP 9.8.1.2, and
sends me a message in response with 9.8.1.2's MAC address...
ICMP does the
same...
All of these protocol features, and others, predate this patent by
many years.
1 There are exceptions: I have configured
my copy of Firefox to ask me whether it can follow HTTP redirection
automatically. Do you?
---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially
mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 21 2013 @ 02:56 PM EDT |
According to the RFCs:
RFC 1866 - Hypertext Markup Language - 2.0 (Nov 1995):
"HTML has been in use by the World Wide Web (WWW) global information
initiative since 1990. This specification roughly corresponds to the
capabilities of HTML in common use prior to June 1994. HTMLis an application of
ISO Standard 8879:1986 Information Processing Text and Office Systems; Standard
Generalized Markup Language (SGML)."
-Isnala
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 22 2013 @ 07:17 PM EDT |
If we allow this to apply to communication between a single computer as a
subset of the patented material, then it basically describes the act of
performing
a computation, storing it in memory, and accessing it again - essentially any
program run on a computer violates this patent.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
