Re: [ba-ohs-talk] RDF infringes patent?
Ahh, now we're all going to have to pay money for data structures. (01)
Ok, maybe its time to return to that grand issue of what should be
patentable? Noting how just about anything could be said to have been
patented in one form of another, haha, you really have to think about
innovation and blocking it before you answer. (02)
I'm happy to say they only have one other patent: US6092077, which covers
the same structures (I scanned through it, tho not too thoroughly...). (03)
As for:
>Reading the patent, it looks like it might also impact NODAL, Xanalogical
>structures and anything else remotely like that. (04)
It doesn't apply to structures that are none dynamic linking... unless
they are dynamically processed... Except, I'm almost sure someone holds
a patent on that side of the structural ideas and we just haven't heard
of it, yet. :) -- Just search for patents and your ideas will be damned!!! (05)
David (06)
1/9/02 11:10:43 AM, "Peter Jones" <ppj@concept67.fsnet.co.uk> wrote: (07)
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-8351560.html
>"A Canadian company is claiming that a popular Web technology infringes on a
>patent it owns.
>
>"The technology in question, Resource Description Framework, is based on
>Extensible Markup Language (XML) and allows programmers to write software to
>access Web resources, such as Web page content, music files and digital
>photos.
>
>"The RDF standard has been endorsed by the World Wide Web Consortium, which
>evaluates and recommends standards for Web technologies.
>
>"Vancouver-based UFIL Unified Data Technologies, a private company, claims
>that it owns U.S. patent 5,684,985, a "method and apparatus utilizing bond
>identifiers executed upon accessing of an endo-dynamic information node."
>The patent was awarded in November 1997."
>
>There's a link to the patent doc concerned in that story.
>
>Reading the patent, it looks like it might also impact NODAL, Xanalogical
>structures and anything else remotely like that.
>
>--
>Peter
>
>
> (08)