[OT] browser plugin patents - warning!

[Dar Scott]

On Saturday, September 13, 2003, at 10:43 AM, Edwin Gore wrote:

> I believe that because the revolution stack contains code that is
> interpreted, it is considered to be an executable application - this 
> is how
> their claim against Java works.

Hmmm.  Suppose RunRev adds a control that is a view into a stack.  A 
Revolution based app gets a stack from a network source and runs it, 
but its stack-view control loads a local stack.  The local stack uses 
some custom properties of of the stack-view control to communicate on 
the network.  Perhaps this would run afoul of the broadest claims of 
the patent.

Oh, maybe not.  Because if a stack is an executable application, then 
surely the first stack is not a HyperText document.  Or might a stack 
be both?

I'm just looking for trouble and should be punished.

Dar Scott