Talk:Eolas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Someone who (unlike me) knows the least bit about any of these three things might like to make the listings a little more specific. - Hephaestos 18:17, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Doyle, do not stick your PR releases here. You know that your patent is under re-exam. You do not describe witnesses as 'discredited under the NPOV either. --Gorgonzilla 14:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't this page be split up into company information and then the patent dispute? Protiek 12:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It's true that this article seems to define Eolas strictly in terms of its patent claim. But others may easily add more. But, this article reads more like a news article than an encyclopedic one.x 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Is the company notable apart from this instance of patent trolling? --209.130.150.117 04:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we rename this page to "Eolas patent", since it's more about the patent than the company itself. Anyone disagree with this? Gavin Compton 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Patent
The section on the patent needs to be expanded as it's currently somewhat unclear exactly the patent describes and perhaps more importantly parts of it are downright confusing. For example, it says found that Viola does 'not teach nor fairly suggest that instant 906 invention, as claimed' but what the heck is the instant 906 invention? My suggestion would be (all sourced obviously) a brief description of the patent, a brief description of the what it has been ruled to cover and a brief explaination of what is the innovation vis-a-vis the Viola browser that the patent office currently believes exists. For reference, this is the version I'm referring to [1] Nil Einne 10:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pro Eolas edits by anon
This anon hasn't edited much else.
The sentence added at the end of the lede is not a fair depiction of what actually transpired in the courtroom. MaxEnt (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
