Who owns the patent for HTML, if there is one?

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Grant Robertson:

I have been on Usenet practically since there has been a UseNet and I
was on bulletin boards for years before that. I know how to ask
questions to get the information I need

Then you must be very happy with this discussion. From other people's
perspective, you have acted like a clueless newbie and now you're acting
like an ill-mannered newbie after being corrected. Of course, many of the
newbies _claim_ they've been on "UseNet" or "Internet" longer than we know
they existed.

So why don't you
just go away and let the adults have an adult conversation.

Oh, it seems that you are already entangled into an "adult conversation"
with yourself.

 

[Grant Robertson]

From other people's
perspective, you have acted like a clueless newbie and now you're acting
like an ill-mannered newbie after being corrected. Of course, many of the
newbies _claim_ they've been on "UseNet" or "Internet" longer than we know
they existed.

Is it clueless to phrase questions in such a manner as to obtain the
actual information desired rather than opinion and speculation? Have I
been rude or personally insulting other than to simply ask you to stop
being mean for meanness sake and act like an adult.

Why do you insist in attacking me just because I didn't phrase a question
in a manner you would have preferred. Something has obviously just rubbed
you the wrong way and you won't leave it be. Now you feel some need to
run me down in public because I didn't bow my head in submission.

Please, just let it go.

 

[Neredbojias]

No. I wanted to know if HTML was patented so that is what I asked. I
didn't want everyone's opinion about what I should do about my
standard. I only wanted to know if HTML was patented. If I had
explained why I wanted to know then no one would have told me the
actual information I was seeking but would have gone off on all these
darn tangents instead.

I'm not trying to garner anything other than information about whether
HTML was patented and perhaps some guidance on how to protect my
standard. Why you feel the need to attack me for simply asking a
question in such a way that I will actaully get a useable answer is
beyond me.

Yeah, right. First of all, I wasn't "attacking you" for your original
question. I took exception to your statement replicated in my previous
post. Do you see the difference?

I suppose this is just a matter of personal attitude, but one thing I know:
any discussion must be open and honest to be of any real value. When you
try to circumvent that, you are "stacking the deck" so to speak, and
whatever responses emerge are suspect.

Btw, since I believe your question was indeed answered, why do you even
bother to dally in the out-of-focus surplus?

 

[Grant Robertson]

Btw, since I believe your question was indeed answered, why do you even
bother to dally in the out-of-focus surplus?

Because when someone who appears to be credible impinges on my character
I feel compelled to defend myself. By the way, I took a look at your web
site. I think the reason we ended up rubbing each other the wrong way is
that we are so much alike. Both very opinionated and neither tolerating
anyone pushing us around. As I read many passages I found myself laughing
at the similarities.

 

[dorayme]

Because when someone who appears to be credible impinges on my character
I feel compelled to defend myself.

Grant Robertson has not been treated with the courtesy he
deserves throughout this thread. It goes into my collection of
"An honest Jewish tailor with ambitions for a bigger shop,
mistaken for a Christian where ambition is irrelevant, being fed
to the lions" on alt.html.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit dorayme:

"An honest Jewish tailor with ambitions for a bigger shop,
mistaken for a Christian where ambition is irrelevant, being fed
to the lions" on alt.html.

That sounds like an implicit though rather clear way of invoking Godwin's
law. I don't we needed that, since constructive discussion never started.
The real question, or part thereof, was revealed all too late, as I
mentioned. The OP now has the answer to the question he originally asked
(and still appears on the Subject line), though 1) it is completely useless
for his purposes, 2) he could have found a more reliable answer by
contacting the patent offices of the countries he is interested in.

 

[dorayme]

Scripsit dorayme:


That sounds like an implicit though rather clear way of invoking Godwin's
law. I don't we needed that, since constructive discussion never started.
The real question, or part thereof, was revealed all too late, as I
mentioned. The OP now has the answer to the question he originally asked
(and still appears on the Subject line), though 1) it is completely useless
for his purposes, 2) he could have found a more reliable answer by
contacting the patent offices of the countries he is interested in.

Well, I am not going to argue too much. He seems to be a genuine
enough feller with a few questions, he has not got the background
others have and it looked a little bit like he was being painted
into corners. I always felt sorry for those Christians even
though I have more issues with their beliefs than anyone can even
begin to guess at.

About Godwin's Law, I notice that there is Quirk's Exception as
well. So maybe I have fallen under this extension and I therefore
fail to stop the beatings of this poor tailor, and so the thread
can legitimately go on.

 

[Grant Robertson]

since constructive discussion never started.

Constructive discussion never started because you chose to insult me
early on.

The real question, or part thereof, was revealed all too late,

Who are you to decide what my real question is?

The OP now has the answer to the question he originally asked
(and still appears on the Subject line), though 1) it is completely useless
for his purposes,

It was not completely useless. I have now learned that neither HTML nor
XML have original patents. I can now compare that with the number of
submarine and bogus patents that are cropping up in attempts to cash in
on both. I now have more information to help me decide whether I should
go to the trouble of patenting my standard.

Interestingly, no one in comp.text.xml chose to insult me so I got my
information quickly and efficiently.

2) he could have found a more reliable answer by
contacting the patent offices of the countries he is interested in.

I posted in the newsgroup after searching for over an hour among various
patent search engines and on W3C.com. Not weeks, I know, but the types of
hits I was getting made it clear that searching for "HTML" and "patent"
was not going to be helpful. One can not simply call up the USPTO and ask
them if there is a patent on HTML. They will tell you to get a patent
lawyer and do patent search. Not an inexpensive proposition. In your
arrogance, you have again assumed something that is not true just to have
something to insult someone about. Perhaps you need to take a step back
and give people some breathing room.

I was hoping that someone could site a source somewhere that told me for
sure one way or another. Instead all I got was you taking the
"conversation" off on some tangent with your arrogance and patronizing
attitude.