Feds Reject Eolas Browser Plug-In Patent
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:33 AM
from the surprise-turn-of-events dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 269 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://pyile.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday December 19 2006, @01:33PM)
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)
Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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.
Where patents are invalidated (Score:5, Informative)
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-
Now for more (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.redune.com/)
No, more likely (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, more likely (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No, more likely (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://darkagents.blogspot.com/)
(*) 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)
(http://dotfuturemanifesto.blogspot.com/)
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.
Re:Your Sig (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.kabewm.com/)
If George Bush is complaining the sex in his marriage is always the same, the answer is not changing the constitution.
George Bush has been complaining about same sex marriages, the parent poster took this to mean marriages where the sex is always the same, a pun as it were.
Thus 'If George Bush is complaining the sex in his marriage is always the same,
He then continues with '... the answer is not changing the constitution." because George Bush has been mouthing off to anyone who will listen about how he intends on banning "same sex marriages"
Personally I am glad that we have a president who has solved so many of our major problems like the economy, terrorism and high taxes that he can now worry on trivial shit like same sex marriages. (For those humor-less anonymous cowards, yes I am being sarcastic)
Re:No, more likely (Score:4, Interesting)
I looked at the supplied patent, and it appears to me (though i'm not an expert) to only cover streaming ASF audio, and the algorithm for handling that (specifically using error correction and sliding windows, along with a few other features).
For the life of me, I can't figure out how this patent could be claimed to a patent on a file format. It seems to be a patent on the process of streaming data.
Re:Now for more (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Now for more (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://cyborch.com/blog | Last Journal: Thursday March 04 2004, @07:19AM)
Finally... (Score:3, Funny)
(http://clifgriffin.com/)
I'll be the first.
*clap*
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.cyberarmy.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 13 2007, @01:10AM)
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)
(http://homepage.mac.com/jimothy)
[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)
(http://helvick.blogspot.com/)
so far not so good (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.infiltrated.net/ | Last Journal: Monday February 16 2004, @01:07AM)
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?
Microsoft's Response (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday May 30 2004, @09:35AM)
Developer IE6 lead to multiple installed versions (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.stanleysy.com/)
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)
(http://www.int64.org/)
Microsoft and those politicians (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.infiltrated.net/ | Last Journal: Monday February 16 2004, @01:07AM)
Re:Microsoft and those politicians (Score:4, Informative)
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:
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)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 13 2003, @10:45PM)
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.
bittersweet? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
all you need to invalidate a patent... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
This is great news for anyone running a website (Score:2, Informative)
Figure the odds (Score:4, Funny)
When will we get (Score:3, Funny)
(http://zzz.zggg.com/)
Tetris grandmaster [planning24h.jp]
Super Mario Bros 3 in 11 minutes [planning24h.jp]
Not that great... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 $2-3M and 12-months to get to a markman ruling in a fedral lawsuit before a judge can even consider a summary judgement against a clearly bogus patent.
Even though the odds are about 50/50 for winning if you take a patent to court, the barrier to entry is so great for a little guy that it's not usually not possible to contest a patent.
jeff
Best government that money can buy. (Score:4, Funny)
(http://insidetheasylum.blogsome.com/)
Head is going to explode! (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.funwithheadlines.net/)
Not just IE (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.quickiemart.net/ | Last Journal: Thursday June 26 2003, @07:08AM)
I'm... I'm.. so confused (Score:3, Funny)
Software Patents = Bad
software patents that cost M$ $,$$$,$$$ = ???
Just when I'd lost faith (Score:1, Redundant)
(http://slashdot.org/~LittleLebowskiUrbanA/journal/ | Last Journal: Thursday March 30 2006, @06:26PM)
almost (Score:4, Informative)
Patents protect folks with money - any questions? (Score:2, Interesting)
I smell a campaigne contribution coming.... (Score:1)
Hint for the idiots at the patent office (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.michaelchaney.com/)
Pull your heads out of your asses and quit handing out patents like candy. You're ruining the tech industry.
Re:Hint for the idiots at the patent office (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens next? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)?
Corruption? (Score:2)
This is a *good* thing!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://heronsperch.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 01 2005, @09:00PM)
GJC
What plugin interface? (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Friday September 02 2005, @12:57AM)
It makes me wonder... (Score:3, Funny)
P No. 1234567 A machine that does nothing
I hate to side with Microsoft, but ... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.raybenjamin.com/)
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.
Hugh Heffner's bio browser plug-in (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Monday April 04 2005, @11:34AM)
So . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Eolas should now sue the Patent Office (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://prash-n-rao.stumbleupon.com/)
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)
(Last Journal: Saturday April 16 2005, @12:17PM)
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
Re:Eolas should now sue the Patent Office (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
(http://dreamlayers.blogspot.com/)
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?
Why I'm gonna... (Score:2, Informative)
Oh well... (Score:1)
(http://david.artoo.net/)
Sue US PTO for ... (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
(http://www.fightthepatent.com/)
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)
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)
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.
Dyslexic (Score:1, Funny)
how EBOLA could spread itself with a plugin......
Doing it cause at least someone has to (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Friday October 24 2003, @12:44PM)
Cause yaknow, Microsoft does a pretty good job cripping it themselves every time they update IE, didnt need another company frocing them to do it.
ok got it out of the way.... go back to real discussion as to why Microsoft was right for once.
Here's how this happens . . . (Score:2)
(http://www.lawhacker.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday July 26 2003, @09:14AM)
Now, the petition basically asks the examiner to consider whether new prior art (not yet examined) raises a substantial new question of patentability (SNQP) and is not merely cumulative of stuff already considered. If the examiner finds SNQP, the petition is granted and the patent "case" is reopened.
The examiner then issues an office action in view of the new art, citing the relevant elements and rejecting those claims that are impacted thereby. This is JUST LIKE the first office action in a patent application, which routinely rejects all the claims in view of a search.
The applicant responds, either amending the claims to avoid the prior art, or arguing that the examiner was wrong, or both. The examiner then decides whether or not she buys the new arguments and either issues a notice of allowability, or a new office action (usually FINAL, which means that a new application fee must be filed or that the rejection must be appealed). Sometimes, a new, non-final rejection is issued, and the process repeats.
At the end, either every claim (possibly as amended) will be allowed (including new claims which can be filed), or every claim will be rejected, in which case the patent dies.
The news report is unsurprising. It would be very odd, almost nonsensical, for the USPTO to grant a petition finding a new question of patentability was raised by the prior art, and then to simply allow all the claims. Of COURSE there was an initial office action rejecting all or most of the claims -- they granted the petition.
The bigger story (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.arcticus.com/)
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.
Re:Well Duh . . . (Score:2)
(http://www.everyone-wins.net/)
Re:Well Duh . . . (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Well Duh . . . (Score:1)
Re:Well Duh . . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well Duh . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because Microsoft has money, and this patent has initially been rejected (though the finality of that rejection remains to be seen), does not mean that Microsoft's money had anything to do with that rejection.
Plus, even under your analogy, both you and the parent poster have failed to show any track record of this type of ruling happening in the past which has been effected by the amount of money the winning party had availible.
So, I ask again: What evidence is this conclusion based on?
Re:Timeline with the real story (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 22 2003, @03:09AM)
Re:fp (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Thursday May 06 2004, @04:42PM)