From: william(at)elan.net
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 1:08 PM
<...>
That is certainly true and because IANAL the language in claims
is difficult to make out. I'm posting here the claims that I
believe relate to the MARID portion of that patent application,
perhaps you'll understand it better.
IANAL either, but I do have my name on a number of patents. From what I see
of the claims you posted, independent claim 22 plus dependent claims 27, 28,
29, 30, 35, 36 37 and 38 describe SPF classic. If those claims are allowed,
we may need a license to use SPF, which MS is not even compelled to offer
and can set any terms they wish, i.e. implementing PRA and/or using XML.
Let's just hope the examiner has enough information to reject these claims
due to prior art. Unfortunately, there's no guarantee that the examiner
will be sufficiently familiar with the prior art and once granted, patents
cost a fortune to challenge.
--
Seth Goodman