decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
patent on putting URL in an email | 343 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
prior art would be both the html spec and smtp I suspect
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 03:35 AM EDT
I'm pretty sure I and many others were using
this stuff before 1995.

I'm assuming that infringing a patent before
it was issued counts double in IVs mind, so
maybe I'd better be quiet.

This is absurd.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

patent on putting URL in an email
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 09:03 AM EDT
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.
Since Claim 1 does not limit itself to HTML, I should think Q-Link (the predecessor to AOL) used a protocol that practiced all elements of Claim 1 back in 1985 (prior to the appearance of HTML). The user's client program would receive "messages" from the Q-link server that contained references to locally stored images and sounds (to reduce bandwidth usage on dialup lines).

In fact, the claim is so broadly worded that any message sent between computers that contained, for example, an error or status code that the client might decode to a text message should practice the patent. Such codes were integral parts of the MIL-STD 1553A and ARINC 429 specifications, just to name two.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Patenting the implementation of an RFC?
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, June 20 2013 @ 07:15 PM EDT
This patent would be violated by simply writing an e-mail
client which complies with RFC1521 and RFC1522, and failing
to include additional functionality to render the payload
data at the same time as the display of the email. (Such
functionality is not mentioned in the RFCs, either to render
or to withhold; to me, withholding and requiring an
additional step would seem less obvious than rendering at
the first call.)

Those RFCs are dated September 1993.

cpeterson

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )