X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fbb9d,25fb686ac46c0d5d
X-Google-Attributes: gidfbb9d,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-27 00:01:54 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!lios!news.gweep.ca!not-for-mail
From: google@inio.org (Ian Rickard)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.ascii
Subject: Re: [DIS] A little history question
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:01:54 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 13
Sender: robomod@lios.aq2.gweep.ca
Approved: rec-arts-ascii-moderator@gweep.ca
Message-ID: <ebf4d1a8.0301270001.6a3755bf@posting.google.com>
References: <ebf4d1a8.0301192316.6979adfc@posting.google.com>
 <ak8q2vgv2et4p9iar2p4hcuufqin6gvdaf@4ax.com>
 <ebf4d1a8.0301250415.1b87c40d@posting.google.com>
 <LJDRIFAZc+M+EwB+@shieldwolf.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: lios.aq2.gweep.ca 1043654514 14282 127.0.0.1 (27 Jan 2003 08:01:54
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@lios.aq2.gweep.ca
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 08:01:54 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-Date: 27 Jan 2003 00:01:40 -0800
Xref: archiver1.google.com rec.arts.ascii:268

CJRandall <colin@shieldwolf.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> what kind of published document ?  on-line or printed ?
Printed would be the only improvement over what I have now.  I already
have the google archive of the original posting of the source code in
Feb. '94, along with a binary that someone compiled and posted a few
weeks later.  I haven't gotten around to asking if either of those is
admissable, but I doubt it.

> curious ... what is significant about October 1996 ?
That date is one year prior to the file date of US Patent #6,137,498,
which I'm hoping to use Gifscii as prior art against (specifically the
first two claims).