Ha ha, this is priceless.
I’m going to make some popcorn, pull up a chair and enjoy the show. I’m hoping that they rip each other new ones and then both go down in a big flaming heap.

By the “patent horizon,” twenty years ago, the notion of a network stack was well established. D. Del Corso, H. Kirrman, and J. D. Nicoud, _Microcomputer Busses and Links_ (1986), pp. 46-50 gives a description of the OSI seven-layered stack network model, citing two sources from 1983. The OSI model was in the process of progressive standardization in the 1980’s, with new editions adopted at four-year intervals. Baha Hebravi, _OSI Upper Layer Standards and Practices_ (1993) is a compendium drawing mostly upon the 1988 standard, and only secondarily on the 1992 standard. Most of the substance, as distinct from the precise detail of implementations, is, however, to be found in D. W. Davies, D. L. Barber, W. L. Price, and C. M. Solomonides, _Computer Networks and their Protocols_, (1979). This last book covers a wide range of topics, including the notion of network layer transparency, packet switching, routing, virtual circuits, flow control, packet radio, transfer protocols, file transfer, virtual terminals, network optimization, public-key cryptography– all this, and much, much more! In the aftermath of Davies, et. al., fitting a high-level application out to use the mobile internet had to be considered a routine process, more rather like ordering something from a catalog than like a invention of unique genius.

In a previous comment, I cited the capabilities of Wordstar 5 and ProComm.

http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20090312/1711214100#c298

I might add that, circa 1988, the Wordstar package included an integrated telecommunications program, Telemerge. ProComm had file viewer, and its own DOS shell. Both had various capabilities competing with the regular DOS shell. This was normal for the time, as every application program was pushing and shoving to become the dominant application program which would contain all others. As for hypertext per se, Apple had developed HyperCard (see: Carol Kaehler, _HyperCard Power: Techniques and Scripts_, 1988). There was a competing product, HyperPad, produced by Brightbill-Roberts, which, failing in the primary market, was relaunched as shareware. Taking all of these together, the emergence of the full-blown web browser was little more than an act of consolidation and standardization. About the only thing which makes the Kindle noteworthy, from a software standpoint, as distinct from the cheapness of the hardware, is the decision to prevent the user from freely copying and printing things. The decision to use DRM amounted to locating the cipher machine inside an application program in order to hide its decrypted output from the user.

Of course DRM existed in 1989. It was called Copy Protection. It was applied to software, rather than media, and it tended to work out badly for all parties. The difficulties which legitimate customers have been having with DRM’ed music did not surprise me one bit– because that was exactly what had happened last time, twenty years ago.