|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 01:11 AM EDT |
I think this language is OK for accuracy and fairness purposes. But perhaps you
may show how ridiculous this is by considering the following:
This claim would be infringed with mail in HTML format. Sometimes someone
includes an IMG tag with a URL to the image. The mail client will download the
image and incorporate it in the mail according to the HTML. So you would
infringe on this patent by writing and reading email in HTML format when the
image is found via a URL instead of attaching the image file. But this is all
part of the HTML standard. This patent reads on standard use of HTML as provided
by the standard. And the patent itself acknowledges that there is prior art for
HTML in email.
Even assuming there were no complete implementation of the IMG tag in HTML
email, shouldn't that be obvious given the standard? Or am I missing something?
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. And I don't see a limitation that the message can't be created
and sent using HTTP in response to a request by the intended receiver. If this
claim construction is correct you would infringe on this patent just by
implementing a dynamic HTML server and reading the web page with an ordinary
browser as long as you implement the IMG tag as specified by the standard.
The priority date of this patent is April 4, 1995. I expect prior art will
abound.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
