Please read it, for a change! (Score 1)

Did anybody actually bother to read the patent? I don't know how the word "hyperlink" got associated with this whole deal, but it is an erroneous description of the problem. The fact is, quite simply, that the 1968 film does not cover all of the independent claims made in the BT patent. It seems as if everybody got the word "hyperlink" from the '68 film and immediately thought the patent had this magical word in it somewhere. It simply is not. I would be interested to see where, in the film, the word "modem" is mentioned, or perhaps "telephone network". Both of these concepts are required to validate the claims made in the patent. If these technologies are not utilized in the film, then it does not invalidate tha patent. Learn some patent law, and read the patent before going crazy about patenting prior art!