Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Internet Explorer The Internet

Feds Reject Eolas Browser Plug-In Patent 269

Posted by CowboyNeal from the surprise-turn-of-events dept.
theodp writes "The USPTO has issued a preliminary decision invalidating Eolas' claim to Web browser technology central to a case against Microsoft, which could save the software giant more than half a billion dollars in damages. If upheld, this also means Microsoft will not be required to make changes that would have crippled IE's ability to work with plug-ins like QuickTime and Flash. Eolas has 60 days to respond to the decision. The USPTO has only invalidated 151 patents out of nearly 4 million patents awarded since 1988."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Feds Reject Eolas Browser Plug-In Patent More

Feds Reject Eolas Browser Plug-In Patent

Comments Filter:

  • So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Trillan ( 597339 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:35AM (#8484816) Homepage Journal

    I still can't believe that a trivial use of cookies managed to get patented. I suppose this is inevitable when the patent office is run as a for-profit center.

    • Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:03PM (#8484982)
      I can't believe that out of 4 million patents, only 151 of them were been invalidated since 1988. Scary.

      • Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Well, why bother until someone tries to use them?

        Maybe this just means that only 151 of the stupid patents we all laugh at have been put to use against someone.

      • Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rollingcalf ( 605357 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @02:13PM (#8485765)
        "I can't believe that out of 4 million patents, only 151 of them were been invalidated since 1988. Scary."

        And I can't believe that as many as 4 million patents have been granted since 1988. Scary.

        There can't have been that many actual inventions in the last 16 years. Probably not even in the last 16 decades.

        • Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? (Score:4, Informative)

          by PierceLabs ( 549351 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @02:49PM (#8485995)
          There is a common misconception that patents == inventions which simply isn't the case. You patent a method for doing something AND that something doesn't even have to be truly useful to anyone (hard to prove utility) or work.

          As such it doesn't really surprise me. Heck there are multiple patents for ketchup dispensers :)

          • Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by rollingcalf ( 605357 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @03:14PM (#8486156)
            "There is a common misconception that patents == inventions which simply isn't the case. You patent a method for doing something AND that something doesn't even have to be truly useful to anyone (hard to prove utility) or work."

            The point of my post was exactly that patents != inventions, which is why there are so many. My point is also that patents should be limited to actual useful inventions.

            When patents are granted for trivial steps in a process or trivial items, they can prevent others from building full-fledged working inventions because the would-be inventor of the more complex and useful device now has to tangle with 50 different patent holders who each have a claim on some minor aspects of the proposed creation. Had those trivial patents not been granted, the stuff they describe likely would have been created anyway as a natural part of building the more complex and useful invention.

            • The point of my post was exactly that patents != inventions, which is why there are so many. My point is also that patents should be limited to actual useful inventions.

              Okay, now we both know that, for some of these frivolous patents to be getting through, the patent clerks must obviously be stupid, but...

              Your condition that "patents should be limited to actual useful inventions," strikes me as incredibly impractical. I challenge you to spontaneously tell me which ideas I present to you are "actua

      • Where patents are invalidated (Score:5, Informative)

        by waterbear ( 190559 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @02:49PM (#8485994)
        I can't believe that out of 4 million patents, only 151 of them were been invalidated since 1988. Scary

        That's not what the story meant (but it was ambiguously worded). The report related only to patents invalidated by the Patent Office's re-examination process. That is a relatively new procedure. Many patent challenges are made in court, and those were not being counted. One of the factors dissuading would-be challengers from using the relatively new PTO patent re-examination process is that it has been perceived as not close enough to fairly balanced, and too likely to uphold the patent. Many challengers have preferred for that reason to reserve their patent challenges for federal court.

        -wb-

    • Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually just recently that patent was rejected, too.
    • Hope for One-Click to get thrown out? No, I don't think so.

      The lesson here is that the patent office is on the side of large corporations with billions of dollars. Don't hold your breath that AOL/TW's patent will be invalidated just because many independant web developers can see that it's trivial.

  • Now for more (Score:4, Interesting)

    by redune45 ( 194113 ) <slashdot.redune@com> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:35AM (#8484817) Homepage
    Hopefully they'll keep it up. And start rejecting more of those stupidly obvious patents.

    • No, more likely (Score:5, Insightful)

      by blue_adept ( 40915 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:42AM (#8484860)
      they'll continue to only reject patents owned by individuals when they annoy a multibillion dollar corporation

      • Re:No, more likely (Score:5, Insightful)

        by msuzio ( 3104 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:40PM (#8485146) Homepage
        Well, I don't really care in this case. The patent was bogus, even if Microsoft was the sole target. It's one of those costs of freedoms, you know -- you have to agree that everyone gets the same sorts of freedoms (*)

        (*) yes, I know Microsoft already has fewer freedoms in business due to being declared a monopoly. Let's not pollute the discussion :-).

      • Re:No, more likely (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:47PM (#8485188) Homepage
        they'll continue to only reject patents owned by individuals when they annoy a multibillion dollar corporation

        Actually this is the main pain point.

        Patents held by companies that do business are not generally a problem. IBM and Microsoft both own a metric shit-load of patents and they don't cause a tenth of the problems that Doyle/Eolas type individual 'inventors' do.

        OK Microsoft has a patent on encoding document files in XML format. Does anyone really think that they would try to enforce it? The prior art is called HTML. The only logical reason for filing that patent and many of the other recent ones is to stop a would-be Doyle doing the same.

        If you think the Eolas situation is sick take a look at Lemelson, over a billion dollars extorted through a completely worthless claim. The old crook's widow bribed MIT to start an 'inventor's prize' to burnish his name. To their everlasting shame MIT took the cash.

        It would be much better if the USPTO would do its job and reject the crap. One of the issues I face as an architect is that a patent holder can often play stupid games when we are agreeing a standard. It gives unfair leverage. So I end up having to file patents to stop other people doing the same to me, now I have the unfair leverage.

        In about two months time there is going to be a slashdot story accusing me of all sorts of stuff because I patented every idea I could think of to stop spam. But it is the only tool I have to stop some other person doing it.

        At least I know that my employer has a big interest in making the ideas unencumbered and is in no danger of being taken over or going under. But there is always the danger of a SCO type situation. SCO would never have tried the desperation suit against IBM if they still had a viable business.

        • Your Sig (Score:3, Funny)

          by autopr0n ( 534291 )
          If George W. Bush is against 'same sex marriage' he should watch a video and learn a new technique like the rest of us.

          What on earth does that mean?

          • Re:Your Sig (Score:3, Funny)

            by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
            >If George W. Bush is against 'same sex marriage' he should watch >a video and learn a new technique like the rest of us.
            What on earth does that mean?

            OK I'll rewrite it...

    • Re:Now for more (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:55AM (#8484933)
      Can holders of patents that are subsequently invalidated sue the US Patent Office for lack of due diligence in granting the patent?

      • Re:Now for more (Score:4, Insightful)

        by cyborch ( 524661 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @03:21PM (#8486193) Homepage Journal
        You people (americans) gotta stop this sueing. Can't you see that you are ruining your own legal system? Can't you see that you are ruining a lot of things for yourselves? Stop and think about consequences for one second. If you sue McDonald's about hot coffee all you will get is lukewarm coffee. Stop sueing eachother and start thinking for yourselves god dammit! If you pour hot coffee into your own lap you WILL get burnt! That does not mean that hot coffee is a bad thing, it means that you should be more careful. Please stop sueing and start thinking!

  • Finally... (Score:3, Funny)

    by clifgriffin ( 676199 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:36AM (#8484820) Homepage
    A consumer oriented decision in this case. Web developers and users everywhere should start clapping.

    I'll be the first.

    *clap*
    • *clap clap clap*

      Win one for those crappy flash animations.

      /sarcasm

    • Re:Finally... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by lee7guy ( 659916 )
      Why should we celebrate the demise of one of the few sw patents that really show the right people how ridiculous sw patents really are?

    • yea, let's hear it for inline executeables

      crackers everywhere can resume clapping

    • The Eolas people never said that they would require that anything other than IE would have to not use their patents, or even have to pay anything to them. They were going after MS and IE.
      • Even better that this patent got invalidated then. THeres nothing worse than bad ethics and morals.
        • My original post came out kind of garbled:-) But what's wrong with trying to make a buck off of Microsoft? That was their target, not open source projects. As long as we have the current patent system in place, I don't see what's wrong with using it against huge corporations. They wouldn't hesitate to use it against individuals.

    • Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xenographic ( 557057 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:57PM (#8485267) Journal
      Well.. are you sure about that?

      I will agree that they did the right thing here--I don't think that that patent ever should have been granted.

      However, I fear that the reexamination was triggered by Microsoft's many lawyers and massive amounts of cash, rather than any sudden desire for the USPTO to be more consumer-oriented...

      What was that figure? They've only reexamined 141 out of 4+ million patents? I'd be willing to guess that there are quite a few other patents out there that never should have been granted...

  • Good news, bad news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jimbolaya ( 526861 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:36AM (#8484828) Homepage
    This is good news, bad news for Microsoft.

    [this] could save the software giant more than half a billion dollars in damages

    That's the good news.

    Microsoft will not be required to make changes that would have crippled IE's ability to work with plug-ins like QuickTime and Flash.

    That's the bad news.

    • Re:Good news, bad news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Helvick ( 657730 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:45AM (#8484879) Homepage Journal
      The other good news is that the W3C's submission [w3.org] demonstrating that this should have been nullified due to prior art seem to have been listened to.

      • Re:Good news, bad news (Score:3, Insightful)

        by HiThere ( 15173 ) *
        Except that since the beneficiary is MS, one is left with the suspicion that political pull had more to do with the decision that the relevant facts.

        There are lots of invalid patents that are let stand merely because they don't annoy anyone powerful. Is this one genuinely invalid under law? IANAL. So all I can do is notice that if one guessed ahead of time based on political pull, one would have come to the correct answer. And that this method of estimating the decision often works.

    • so far not so good (Score:4, Interesting)

      by segment ( 695309 ) <sil&politrix,org> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:46AM (#8484883) Homepage Journal

      Microsoft will not be required to make changes that would have crippled IE's ability to work with plug-ins like QuickTime and Flash. Would this really matter? The government is tiptoeing through the laws with MS in any circumstance, so how long will it be before the next MS release has implemented functions that will (by default) play these filetypes on IE by default. Sure it won't be allowed to 'cripple' them, "no one said we had to use them by default". A half a billion to MS is nothing, sure it's worth saving, but for what?, to use that half billion to find a newer method of skirting the issue?
    • Maybe I'm missing something.. why is it bad news if a wonderful feature of IE gets to live on?
      • It's bad news for Microsoft because they'd surely love it if, for instance, Quicktime were crippled, forcing users to use only Windows Media.

  • Microsoft's Response (Score:5, Informative)

    by Liselle ( 684663 ) * <slashdot@NoSPAm.liselle.net> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:40AM (#8484843) Journal
    Remember back when this story first broke, and Microsoft was set to add pop-up confirmation to IE in order to get around the EOLAS issue? That was supposed to happen earlier this year, but there was an update [microsoft.com] posted at the end of January for those of you who might have missed it.

    • Developer IE6 lead to multiple installed versions (Score:5, Informative)

      by starvingartist12 ( 464372 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @02:21PM (#8485829) Homepage

      This update was big news for the web design community, for other reasons. The developer's edition of IE6 (which was a modified version that contained the pop-up) revealed that Windows was able to run multiple Internet Explorer versions simultaneously [insert-title.com] by merely adding a blank text file!.

      For the longest time, people thought it was impossible to run multiple versions of IE on the same machine to do testing on various browsers. It was a huge pain, and it also meant that developers were forced to use the IE version that came with the OS and not downgrade, while Netscape 4.xx to Mozilla installed fine. But now, it's possible to run IE3, IE4, IE5.01, IE5.5 SP2 and IE6 side-by-side (screenshot) [insert-title.com].

  • IE changes already there (Score:3, Interesting)

    by PhrostyMcByte ( 589271 ) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:41AM (#8484848) Homepage
    In SP2 they changed their plugin interface a bit (now they are Add-Ons?). Wasn't that done to avoid this issue?

  • Microsoft and those politicians (Score:5, Informative)

    by segment ( 695309 ) <sil&politrix,org> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:41AM (#8484856) Homepage Journal
    I guess it does pay to lobby...
    Judge Kollar-Kotelly heard that total donations to political donations from Microsoft and its employees to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 2000 election cycle amounted to more than $6.1 million. During this period, Microsoft and its executives accounted for $2.3 million in soft money contributions, compared to $1.55 million by Enron and its executives for the same period. Soft money is the term generally given to unregulated corporate and individual contributions that cannot go directly to candidates, but which typically goes to political parties. USA: Microsoft's Lobbying Efforts Eclipse Enron [corpwatch.org]

    If anyone really thinks these kinds of issues don't affect the outcome of things, I seriously think you need to do your research. Of course it's unethical, but you name one business that hasn't done something unethical for the sake of their company.

    • Microsoft was politically agnostic and never contributed to political campaigns until the US government brought the anti-trust suit against them. They've been one of the number one contributors ever since. Bush pretty much put the anti-trust trial on ice as soon as he walked into office. Microsoft, a relatively young company, learned what most other big companies already know - political contributions are a necessary cost of doing business in the US. They could have saved themselves the cost of ever having

    • Re:Microsoft and those politicians (Score:4, Informative)

      by thewiz ( 24994 ) * on Saturday March 06, 2004 @01:53PM (#8485611)
      If anyone really thinks these kinds of issues don't affect the outcome of things, I seriously think you need to do your research. Of course it's unethical, but you name one business that hasn't done something unethical for the sake of their company.

      There's one that immediately comes to mind: Malden Mills, the company that invented Polartec. Here's a little snippet about the president and owner from their website:
      After a devastating fire destroyed the mill in December 1995, Aaron Feuerstein, president and owner of Malden Mills(R) and grandson of the founder, garnered international acclaim and awards for his decision to rebuild a state-of-the-art, environmentally friendly facility in the same location. In a display of commitment to the community and employees, Mr. Feuerstein continued to compensate his staff during the rebuilding process.

      Had a chance to meet this gentleman and he is a very down-to-earth guy. Honest, truthful, caring - all the things I'd like in a boss.

  • I'm siding with Microsoft ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by d00ber ( 707098 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:42AM (#8484859) Journal

    ... on this one.

    ...Agghhhh... Can't breathe... ..

    This patent for browser plugins should have been shot down. All browsers (and many other apps) use this idea in some form and even though Eolas seemed to have a soft side for Free browsers it still sets a bad precedent to have bad patents unchallenged.

    • I am also on Microsoft's side on this one. I have reservations about software patents. I do not like patents getting awarded so easily. The patent office should do a better job of screening for prior art. The patent office should also do a better job of figuring out if the invention is obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art.

      It sure hurts to take Microsoft's side on an issue but sometimes they are right!

  • bittersweet? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sylvius ( 670730 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:43AM (#8484868)
    As exciting as it is that the patent office has done this, I can't help but be suspicious that it has a heck of a lot to do with MS's lobbying power and less to do with some sudden fundamental gain of basic common sense in the patent office.

    Time will tell whether the patent office will be willing to look reasonably at other ridiculous patents, or just ones that could cost behemoths like microsoft some money.

  • The irony... (Score:5, Funny)

    by blorg ( 726186 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:44AM (#8484873)
    From the USPTO help section [uspto.gov]:

    If you want to download the full pages of a patent from the USPTO, "you must install and use a browser plug-in..."

  • And (Score:3, Funny)

    by cubicledrone ( 681598 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:45AM (#8484875)
    a cheer is heard from millions of Macromedia Flash developers everywhere

  • all you need to invalidate a patent... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by braddock ( 78796 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:47AM (#8484887)
    Wow, so if you're a multi-billion dollar corporation in a half-billion dollar lawsuit, then after a few million dollars in lawyer fees and several years and god knows what type of political influence you can actually get a patent seriously reviewed and invalidated by the USPTO?!?! So there's hope!

    For only about the vested interest of the entire GNP we should be able to get the other four million patents since '88 reviewed. One down, four million to go...

    braddock gaskill

  • We don't have to implement a hokey work around to get around the letter of the ruling. Anyone running Flash, Real Media Player or Windows Media Player would have had to update every page with these plug ins. Not bad if you have a handful, but any large site operator would need to spend a LOT of time to find/update/test each one... A huge amount of unproductive effort.

  • Figure the odds (Score:4, Funny)

    by instantkarma1 ( 234104 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:50AM (#8484908)
    While I'm glad they have invalidated such a bogus patent, I really hate the fact that they have decided to come to Jesus in just the nick of time for Microsoft.

  • When will we get (Score:3, Funny)

    by News for nerds ( 448130 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:51AM (#8484918) Homepage
    free WMV plugin?

    Tetris grandmaster [planning24h.jp]

    Super Mario Bros 3 in 11 minutes [planning24h.jp]

  • Not that great... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeffmock ( 188913 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:51AM (#8484919)
    Let's face it, this is really just another example of how that patent system is now geared to protect bigger coprporte interests and not the smaller inventors the patent system was origianally intended to protect.

    The patent office went back to review this patent because of the dollar-size of the potential damage and less to do with the legitamacy of the patent. A small company would likely never see such a consideration from the patent office.

    Instead, a smaller guy is most likely to face a crappy patent that is presumed valid until you spend $2-3M and 12-months to get to a markman ruling in a fedral lawsuit before a judge can even consider a summary judgement against a clearly bogus patent.

    Even though the odds are about 50/50 for winning if you take a patent to court, the barrier to entry is so great for a little guy that it's not usually not possible to contest a patent.

    jeff

    • Well... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bsd4me ( 759597 )
      Well, the article made no mention of why the patent was overturned. We should assume that is because of one or more pieces of prior art were deemed to be applicable and invalidate the patents claims, and not corporate conspiracy.

  • Best government that money can buy. (Score:4, Funny)

    by praksys ( 246544 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:52AM (#8484922)
    I guess the only surprising thing about this is that sometimes money does actually buy good government.

  • Head is going to explode! (Score:5, Funny)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:53AM (#8484924) Homepage
    Ahhh...what to do, what to do?....This is good, for software patents are bad. But this is bad, for it is good for Microsoft. But it is good, for it saves the rest of us from this patent. But this is bad-- (HEAD EXPLODES)

  • Not just IE (Score:5, Insightful)

    by codefungus ( 463647 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:54AM (#8484928) Homepage Journal
    While MS may have been the target, this would have eventually affected all of us.

  • I'm... I'm.. so confused (Score:3, Funny)

    by halo8 ( 445515 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:55AM (#8484932)
    M$ = Bad
    Software Patents = Bad

    software patents that cost M$ $,$$$,$$$ = ???

  • almost (Score:4, Informative)

    by jdkane ( 588293 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:58AM (#8484953)
    This Info World article [infoworld.com] explains that "The patent office's decision, issued Feb. 25, may be good news for Microsoft, but it is common for claims to be rejected at this stage of patent review" ... so in other words we shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch.

  • Hint for the idiots at the patent office (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:07PM (#8484999) Homepage
    Your hint for the day: It's a hell of a lot easier to not grant these stupid patents in the first place than to be forced to go back and invalidate them.

    Pull your heads out of your asses and quit handing out patents like candy. You're ruining the tech industry.
    • I'm not sure where I read it (it must have been on /. :) ), but it said that the USPTO accepts almost all software patents because they do not have the ressources nor the knowledge to determine if a software patent is valid. Thus, unless they are allocated more funds, they will accept all patents, and wait for the court to rule if it is valid.

      • Re:Hint for the idiots at the patent office (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gclef ( 96311 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:48PM (#8485192)
        Patent examiners are also now being evaluated based on how "efficient" they are. Which means how many applications they process in a particular time cycle. So, while it's easy to bounce it back the first time (and most do), by the second or third try it actually takes more time to figure out if they're full of it than to just grant the patent, so most folks just grant the patent on the second or third time through.
    • wow, I guess you are very familiar with the patent system.

      I guess you have never read an examiner's statement for reasons of allowance?

      If you had you would have known that an examiner has to search and cite art, then say how that art differs from the applicant's invention, and in particular what aspect of the applicant's invention is not found in the art, or is non-obvious.

  • What happens next? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 1ucius ( 697592 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:10PM (#8485017)
    Right now, we have a federal district court saying the patent is valid and the USPTO saying it's invalid. Presumably, both decisions are based on the same art. Normally, the federal court's opinion trumps the USPTO's.

    So, does this decision have any legal effect? Or does MS still have to win an appeal/reconsideration (which is presumably made easier by this decision)?
    • Its not the courts position to say if the patent is valid or invalid, its the courts position to validate the lawsuit. This is what they did, they looked at the evidence on both sides and ruled that under the circumstances at the time, MS was in the wrong. The USPTO invalidated the patent which _should_ invalidate the courts ruling, because the circumstance at the time was invalid. This post has far too many valid or invalid uses of the 'valid' family of words.
  • Why would they suddenly invalidate a patent when there's so much at stake? I'm sure something fishy is going on.
    • Sounds perfectly normal to me. If I ran a patent office, it would work like this:

      [boss comes in to office]
      Boss: I hear there's a high profile patent infringement case going down at the moment. Can you check to see if we really should have issued the patent, or if we screwed it up like we seem to do so often?

      [Office Juniour looks at a few bits of paper from a filing cabinet]
      OJ: Doh!

  • This is a *good* thing!!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by borgheron ( 172546 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:18PM (#8485056) Homepage Journal
    Despite the fact that this is a victory for MS, it is a victory for all of us. This patent was dangerous and shouldn't have been issued in the first place.

    GJC

  • It makes me wonder... (Score:3, Funny)

    by JamesP ( 688957 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:22PM (#8485082)
    about the other 150 invaidated patents...

    P No. 1234567 A machine that does nothing

  • I hate to side with Microsoft, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rben ( 542324 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:30PM (#8485109) Homepage

    When I first read this, my reaction was to side with Eolas against M$, because of Microsoft's long history of shady business practices. It also seems mighty convenient that this patent is being overturned at Microsoft's request. After reading more about it, however, I have come to the conclusion that the patent should not have been issued in the first place, especially with the W3C presenting evidence of proir art.

    The problem here is first that the patent was awarded when there was plenty of prior art that should have invalidated. We were all badly served by that decision of the USPTO.

    What is even worse, is that I doubt this patent would have been invalidated if I had challenged it, or if any small or medium-sized business had challenged it. The patent would have stayed in force until some giant corporation found it to be a nuisence.

    Lately, trying to gain control over Internet related technology has been pursued with the same kind of irresponsible single minded fervor as was demonstrated by the miners during the gold rush. Everyone is racing to stake claims on everything they can lay their hands on. It's sad that our government hasn't seen fit to review how these patents are being awarded and make the needed changes at the USPTO to insure that the patents that are given out are deserved and unlikely to be overturned in the future.

    • I think it is corrupt and sad that many hundreds of thousands of patents that have no business being granted(one-click shopping is in NO way an original unique idea, it is a friggin cookie!) to corporations and businesses of all sizes. What is worse, that these shady patents can only be overturned, not on their merit, but by some suggestion from a megacorp.

  • So . . . (Score:4, Interesting)

    by base3 ( 539820 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:42PM (#8485149)
    . . . does this show us that the USPTO actually cares about bad patents, or that it can be induced to care about them for a megacorporation who has given sufficient campaign contributions?

  • Eolas should now sue the Patent Office (Score:4, Insightful)

    by prash_n_rao ( 465747 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @12:57PM (#8485268) Homepage
    Lest I get trolled down, let me make it clear I am neither on Microsoft's side nor on Eolas' side. I am simply against the idiots in the USPTO.

    This is the case Eolas can make: If the grant for the patent was a vaild one, the USPTO has no right to reject the patent. The point I am making is: what's the point of registering a patent if you know that by some arbitrary decesion of the USPTO the patent can be recalled? Doesn't the USPTO know what is worthy of patenting and what is not? If it doesn't, it has no right to exist.

    I don't know if one has to pay extra if the patent is accepted, I mean in addition to the patent application charges. But if one does have to pay extra after the patent has been accepted, Eolas should ask for a refund (and maybe punitive damages).

    If the USPTO is not made accountable for its actions, it will continue to make arbitrary grants of patents. Hey, what have they got to lose?

    Oh, by the way, I did not RTFA. I am on slashdot, right? ;-)

    • Re:Eolas should now sue the Patent Office (Score:5, Interesting)

      by His name cannot be s ( 16831 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @01:34PM (#8485503) Journal
      If the grant for the patent was a vaild one, the USPTO has no right to reject the patent

      Ahh. The Crux of the matter.

      Having followed this for quite some time, it was clear that the patent infringed upon prior art.

      The putz at Eolas was quite aware of the prior art too.

      Look here [berkeley.edu] for information about the prior art :p

    • Re:Eolas should now sue the Patent Office (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rollingcalf ( 605357 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @02:39PM (#8485925)
      "The point I am making is: what's the point of registering a patent if you know that by some arbitrary decesion of the USPTO the patent can be recalled? Doesn't the USPTO know what is worthy of patenting and what is not? If it doesn't, it has no right to exist."

      Patents are presumed valid when applied for, and are granted unless blatant prior art is found during the few hours the examiner takes to review the patent. In essence, they rubber-stamp patents and leave it up to the courts or re-examination procedures to make a real determination of validity.

      You're correct; with this mode of operation they have no right to exist.

  • Eolas claims this isn't over (Score:4, Interesting)

    by enosys ( 705759 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @01:03PM (#8485306) Homepage
    From the article:

    Martin Lueck, the lawyer who represented Eolas, said it was not uncommon for the patent office to invalidate a claim as the first step of a review process, but said he was confident that the patent office would ultimately uphold Eolas' claim on the Web technology.

    That makes it seem as if this is far from over. I don't know much about the process. How much of a chance does Eolas really have still?

    • The lawyer is correct in that when you initially submit a patent, the examiner quite often just invalidates some or all of the claims and then you have to work with them to show why they are valid. As I understand it, they sometimes do that just to reduce their workload.

      But it seems that revoking a patent is a pretty serious matter (since it has only been done in 151 patents), that has no relation to the standard process. So what the lawyer is saying is essentially nonsense. Given the prior art is so

  • Why I'm gonna... (Score:2, Informative)

    by Paleomacus ( 666999 )
    ...apply for a patent on toilet seats. I'm sure it has a good chance at slipping through the cracks. Then I can sue all the end users and manufacturers. Maybe even the technicians(plumbers, construction contracters).
    • Why don't you rather apply for a patent on patenting? I think some guy allready was granted a patent for that, but you might get it if you call it
      "A process and tools for granting monopolies on the use of inventions as well as one-click-shopping and other obvious stuff on the Internet."

  • Sue US PTO for ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kindofblue ( 308225 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @01:36PM (#8485513)
    Sue the PTO for incompetence?, negligence? dereliction of duty? How about restraint of trade? Criminal neglect? There's got to be something legalistic way to get the patent reviewers fired or jailed.

    Hell, if Martha goes to jail for trying to cover her tracks to save less than 100K, then surely lots of heads should roll at the PTO. Their incompetence costs the high tech industries probably billions of dollars in unnecessary licensing for trivial patents and for legal fees.

    A number of posts have suggested suing the PTO. But my question is for what and how?

  • Watch out Acacia.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by FightThePatent ( 714418 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @01:59PM (#8485671) Homepage
    Now isn't this interesting.. Microsoft's attorneys couldn't invalidate the patent, but the W3C and its supporters seemingly came up with the prior art to invalidate the patent on their re-exam petition.

    The current defendants against Acacia's DMT patent (which covers the process of downloading audio/video from a web server) will most likely get a non-infringing verdict, since it's faster and cheaper than trying to invalidate the patent in their current litigation.

    When this happens, it means that the patent doesn't apply to the internet. Cable companies would be left to deal with the DMT patent, and would most likely need to file a re-exam of their own and provide prior art to the USPTO to invalidate the DMT patent.

    FightThePatent.com [fightthepatent.com] provides free prior art found by volunteer searchers to defense patent attorneys.

    Patent abuse cases in the audio/video realm (Acacia, SightSound, USA Video) are being tracked on the website.

  • If Eolas was SCO (Score:5, Funny)

    by MojoRilla ( 591502 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @02:19PM (#8485818)
    Don't get me wrong. I think Eolas is scum. The idea was trivial, and only extended the natural trend that things like mime types and gopher were doing. Plus plug-ins being used in much other software.

    But, if Eolas was SCO, they would be suing end users for infringing on their browser technology. They would claim you would owe them $6.99 every time you accessed a page with a plugin. They would be saying that the mozilla developers were theives, and that javascript plugin detection code is unconstitutional.

    So it could be a whole lot worse.

  • This can only be a positive thing (Score:4, Interesting)

    by brucmack ( 572780 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @02:27PM (#8485865)
    Yes, this is mainly benefiting MS right now, but I see this as only a positive thing.

    Suppose the patent was upheld and MS had to make changes to IE and pay damages. What was to stop the guy from going after the other browsers once he felt his bank account was getting a bit too low? If Microsoft weren't able to stop the patent, how would some of the other browser makers put up a fight?

    The other thing is that this wasn't just MS fighting this patent, the W3C was involved as well, and all of the major players met to discuss the issue last year. I look at this as a victory for sensible thinking, not as a victory for Microsoft.

  • The bigger story (Score:3, Insightful)

    by XenonOfArcticus ( 53312 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @08:59PM (#8488309) Homepage
    I've followed this story carefully for some time, and the cynical interpretation among Slashdotters is actually not the case. While the article talks about Microsoft, the evidence submitted to the USPTO was submitted by the W3C, who wants to see this overturned just as much as Microsoft. I doubt Eolas has a soft side for free software, they just realize that they needed to bag a big prize early on to fund bringing everyone else into line.

    The 906 patent was a farce, and was contradicted by numerous pieces of prior art. It's a Good Thing for everyone (except perhaps, Eolas) that this turd is thrown out.

    If MS could have bought their way out of this problem, they'd have done it a long time ago. They've lost decision after decision up to this point, and were basically SOL. This was essentially the last thing that could have saved their bacon. It is very convenient for the W3C and the web as a whole that the legal might of Microsoft happened to be aligned with their purposes.

    Microsoft isn't lilly white themselves -- they already have a number of dubious web-related patents of their own. But I'm still glad to see them win in this case.

Slashdot Top Deals

UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker

Close