{ED} Thanks you for your views, I appreciate any feed back. I did feel I needed to take out the harsh language though.{ED}

My company has been in this area for some time. We didn’t apply for any patents because we are opposed to the use of software patents that do nothing more than reapply existing technology. Patent 180 is a good example of this.

For the past 10 years Cormoran Communication has provided effective workflow management solutions to creative services organisations in Australia, North America and Europe through our Traffic Office Manager software. This is a FileMaker solution that included a browser version that has been shipping since 1998. FileMaker has been shipping product which I believe predates the 180 patent.

Products such as Apple’s WebObjects also covers the same area of technology. I believe it has been around a lot longer than patent 180.

In 2003, my company started development of a replacement for Traffic Office Manager which arose from the need to distil what we’ve learnt in the last 10 years about business process management software and the need to remove our dependence on third party suppliers – FileMaker.

once:radix replaces FileMaker Pro and FileMaker Server. The decision to undertake this project was ambitious. It is no exaggeration to claim that we are now one of the world leaders in Rich Internet Applications.

It seems that our solution is the first to include a sophisticated Integrated Development Environment. This allows solutions (such as our first application – once:fabrik) to be created and customised quickly, using a Graphical User Interface.

After extensive development, we now deliver data at speeds similar to dedicated client-server technology over local area networks, yet still with acceptable performance over internet connections.

We now have systems operating in Australia, North America and Europe The prospect that we will be excluded by this ambit claim is extraordinary. All it does is stifle creativity.