Re: Microsoft patented keyboard-navigation?

[dropped ac-forum since I am not a subcriber to that list]

I read the patent. It was filed March 6 97.

It not only includes navigating with a keyboard, but also
  + predefining the "tab" key as the particular key to use
  + being able to do this even if the links are defined in an image map
  + being able to provide a visual indicator that can be rectangualr OR =20
non-rectangular (circles and polygons are explicitly mentioned)
  + being able to expose this mechanism in a ccoputer readable way.
  + Lots of repetition of the above.

Most of this occured with Lynx when I used it in 1996. Although it didn't=
 =20
display circles or polygons.

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:38:02 +0100, Rotan Hanrahan =20
<[email protected]> wrote:

> I see a threat to the mobile/celular Web. I see a threat to Web =20
> accessibility.

I see a threat to the patent based on prior art and the fact that it is =20
blindingly obvious.

I see a threat to the credibility of claims that software patents are =20
worthwhile, particularly from people who apply for such patents. (I see a=
 =20
threat to the credibility of the research groupp that did this, and hope =
=20
for their sake that they can blame it on some other department).

I see an even bigger threat to the credibility of anyone who tries to =20
enforce such a patent.

(I see a threat to credibility all over the place. I recently saw a =20
government minister explaining that his legislation enforcing US patents =
=20
was fine, since the US patent system doesn't let bad patents be granted..=
.)

I see a job opportunity, for working at the US patent Office. (Along the =
=20
lines of "When I am an evil mastermind I will employ a 5-year-old to =20
review my plans  for world domination and point out the flaws that any =20
5-year-old could see").

I don't see any real threat from this patent, except that somebody might =
=20
be forced to waste time defending the blindingly obvious in court. =20
Fortunately, since I don't live or work in THe US where the patent is =20
valid, it is unlikely to be me. I suspect that the patent holders are =20
smart enough  to realise that they wasted their money on the application =
=20
an will just let it slide into obscurity, so I don't think even that risk=
 =20
is very high.

cheers

Chaals

--=20
Charles McCathieNevile         [email protected]
Fundaci=C3=B3n Sidar             http://www.sidar.org