About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill
policy-making, technical standards development, and technological
innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we
know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property
conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of
copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying
and the law, and more.
Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.
What Does "Copyfight" Mean?
Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004
1. Walter Oaknight on September 30, 2005 7:29 PM writes...
MOG seems to think MSFT has a much better footing now.
In footnote 3 in the court of appeals it notes “An example of a DLL is spell check; a DLL is a component that can run only within another application.”
The district court upheld that an executable application refers to "any computer program code that is not the operating system or a utility, that is launched to enable an end user to interact directly with the data."
The examiner now says that the claim (in 21 words here) "explicitly require the interactive processing to be enabled by an ‘executable application’ that is a separate application from the browser application"
MSFT could ask the judge to consider the narrowed interpretation. Those 21 words could mean the difference of US$500M or $0.00
Permalink to Comment2. Dr. wex on October 1, 2005 10:43 AM writes...
Thanks for the pointer. I may blink that as well. I've maintained since the outset that the W3C et al were being unnecessarily alarmist. I have faith in MSFT's lawyers to find ways to get them out of this.
Permalink to Comment3. dasitter on October 3, 2005 4:37 AM writes...
Because of cases like this, a lot of tech inovation will leave the US in the next 10-50 years. US patent system was good for its time, but now it is becoming a bit archaic.
Permalink to Comment