3 ms·
Depending on the reading of the patent, one could argue this covers the entirety of the browser => server request cycle and not just AJAX. Obviously this is ab
by n8agrin 17y ago
Depending on the reading of the patent, one could argue this covers the entirety of the browser => server request cycle and not just AJAX. Obviously this is absurd, but perhaps more so is that the patent system upholds this kind of nonsense. I wonder if the patent office reviewers have any perception of how their collective foolishness can disrupt the marketplace for good and evil. I was hoping to argue that this lawsuit may further the adoption of WebSockets (http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/ http://dev.w3.org/html5/websockets/) but after reading portions of the patent I have to say that I wouldn't be surprised if Eolas claims WebSockets fall under their ludicrous jurisdiction of "clients manipulating data objects".
Here's a decent sitepoint article on the matter: http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/11/05/violating-eolas-ajax-patent/# http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/11/05/violating-eolas-aj...
- warfangle 17y agoOf course, even if it's limited to the exchange provided by XMLHttpRequest, the proto-AJAX technology was released as an ActiveX object in 1999: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmlhttprequest#History_and_support http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmlhttprequest#History_and_supp... So, considering that they filed this patent in 2002, there are three years of prior art to consider.
- n8agrin 17y agoI completely agree. How could this point have been missed by the USPTO? Does copyright really not factor into patent decisions? It's infuriating.
- warfangle 17y agoI sillily responded prior to reading the sitepoint link - that is a much better article than the OP.
- ynniv 17y agoJust to keep the dates straight, application 09/075,359 was a continuation of application 08/324,443, which was filed Oct 17, 1994.
- NathanKP 17y agoIt sounds to me like the patent is way too broad to be contested effectively by Eolas.