Does this mean Matt has to re-design?
March 7, 2003 9:33 PM Subscribe
SBC Intellectual Property claims patent infringement. Is this a legitimate case of infringement, or a blatant attempt at a money-grab?
"The letter suggests that any website which has static, linked information (top banners, menus, bottom banners) which are displayed while other sections of the page are displayed as non-static (the area where products appear on most websites) infringes upon the patents they hold."
I stumbled onto this through a friend's site. He has ferreted out a few links related to this topic and added them within his post.
"The letter suggests that any website which has static, linked information (top banners, menus, bottom banners) which are displayed while other sections of the page are displayed as non-static (the area where products appear on most websites) infringes upon the patents they hold."
I stumbled onto this through a friend's site. He has ferreted out a few links related to this topic and added them within his post.
This post was deleted for the following reason: SBC was coo coo for lawsuits earlier
Yep bwg, Stynxno gets the DP prize of the moment. Sorry.
posted by DBAPaul at 9:43 PM on March 7, 2003
posted by DBAPaul at 9:43 PM on March 7, 2003
« Older Dr Strangeblix | Security Council members with pivotal Iraq votes... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Stynxno at 9:38 PM on March 7, 2003