Mike,
I brought up some issues in my earlier post concerning a possible Gojo patent suit. Until we see some specifics of this claim, I have a hard time giving it much credibility. As I said before, the idea of a company, in this case Exodus, going out of business never having put its patent to test in the courts seems a bit ridiculous. Especially if they thought there was a valid argument to be made. Also, it is very vague were exactly the claim lies. The argument seems to be centered around added technology, not the actual "engine" as the author puts it, for the thin client environment. from the article, "When Microsoft sucked up Citrix'
multiuser NT technology into NT 4.0 and beyond, it also acquired
rights - for a much cheaper price - to Prologue's multiuser NT
technology as well, but not apparently the work that Exodus had done
on its own and filed with the US Patent Office as the "Method and
System for Dynamic Translation between Different Graphical User
Interface Systems"... Exodus had used the Prologue engine
and blended it with its own client/server application protocol and
distributed display developments as the patent indicates."
The description of this added technology is very vague at best. Apparently though, it is not the fundamental basis for the thin client environment. This in itself would diminish the claim. Also, we know that ctxs's ICA protocal is patented. As I recall, this was a big issue on this thread back in February or so. So if memory serves and this is the case, how then could there be two patents on the same technology. Pure speculation, but it seems to me that they may indeed be trying to claim rights to the whole thin client environment. Perhaps trying to claim that it is an operating system like microsoft's Windows. Which again would be ridiculous.
JMHO,
David P. |
