SillyDog701

[DJGM]

Last year, AOL's was granted a patent on instant messaging technology on
behalf of it's ICQ subsidiary that it acquired from Mirabilis in 1998. Ideally,
this could mean that AOL could force other IM vendors, MSN and Yahoo,
to cough up financially for licenses on the technology on which AOL now
owns the patent, or face legal action. AOL have so far not made any
decision on whether they would take any such action.

This raises the question, is it possible AOL could also end up owning the
patent on graphical web browsers? Since AOL owns Netscape, which was
born out of the company that was essentially the commercial pioneer of
graphical web browsers, that being Mosaic Communications Corporation,
which in turn, was born out of the now defunct NCSA Mosaic web browser,
what do you think of the possibility that AOL, would also be able to claim
the patent on graphical web browsing technology?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 (CK-DJGM-i.net)

[Mandrake]

In theory, AOL could claim such a patent - and not allow Microsoft to make a graphical web browser! Then, they could do the same to Opera etc if they wanted, and only allow Gecko based browsers (Netscape, K-meleon, Mozilla etc) to use this technology. Imagine Microsoft making a browser out of Gecko - and having to make it open source! Or charging Microsoft HEAPS to use this technology - it could end the financial problems at AOL Time Warner!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021130

[Edward]

I read on a web site whose name escapes me at the moment, that Netscape has a patent on browser cookies.

Plus, AOL is certainly within its right to enforce the IM patent, if it wishes to do so...

In addition, what Mandrake stated above, would be nice if it actually happened.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01

[sisyphus88]

To check the ambit of AOL/Netscape's patents, check this database at the US Patent Office. You should be able to get the entire text of the patent:

http://www.uspto.gov/patft/index.html

Normally, a license to one party to use a patented process does not prevent the patent holder from enforcing the patent against other parties. So the question in my mind is what part, if any, of M$ Internet Explorer is covered by the AOL/NS patent(s). Second question, assuming M$ is in violation of the patent(s), does AOL have the $$$ and other resources to pursue litigation? Such heavy duty litigation is not only costly, but it is a major distraction for the company. Does AOL want to spend years fighting M$ if it might mean the dilution of AOL R & D and its ability to maintain its market in the face of M$ R & D and its marketing power? If AOL prevails years from now, will the money it gets from M$ really be worth the interim costs to the company?

I'd love to see M$ pay through the nose.... but it's not likely to happen.

Sisyphus

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT; en; Stable) Gecko/20020911 Beonex/0.8.1-stable

[Edward]

I looked at that web site earlier to see if I could find the patent on browser cookies, however nothing specific came up on a search using the term "browser and cookie", so perhaps when the patent was applied for, it had a different term used.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01

[Antony]

AOL has the patent of instant messaging, however because the patent is obtained pretty late (after a number of competitors) I don't think AOL has the right to stop MSN, Yahoo... or even charging fees.
As for graphic web browser, same theory applies.

What AOL should do is to STOP un-authorised softwares that can communicate with ICQ or AIM networks.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (CK-SillyDog)

[sisyphus88]

If AOL has a patent issued late in the game, then it must cover only a specific improvement in the browser/IM. If AOL thinks some part of IE violates their patent, it will be very expensive to litigate because they need to show a violation of a narrowly focused issue, not IM or browsers in general.

Another problem is letting things go for a long time before you put companies on notice about their violations. You may succeed in enforcing your patent, but you might not receive damages for the period of time that the company sat on its hands and allowed the violations to occur.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; WinNT; en; Stable) Gecko/20020911 Beonex/0.8.1-stable