Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st Mar 2011 22:52 UTC, submitted by ephracis
Permalink for comment 467266
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
Here is a reasonable summary:
http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=201103211720086...
From that opinion: "Hint - "Enable display of a webpage's content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster" is something that anyone with a slow modem and Netscape 2.0 had no choice over - that's how it worked, and predates the patent application date.
The rest of the patents are equally silly. For example, the one about tabs and navigation is anticipated by any web page using frames. Also anticipated by lots of game interfaces.
Prediction: The patents will be show to be invalid, but in the meantime the usual suspects make all sorts of foolish noises."
If the patent claims get thrown out, as there seems at first galnce to be a very good chance, then Microsoft is a sitting duck for tortiuous interference and antitrust counterclaims.