Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts News

Retrial Slated for Microsoft v. Eolas 111

Posted by Zonk from the back-on-the-wheel dept.
wwphx writes "Back to trial they go. Microsoft won a decision stating that evidence of a prior browser, Viola, was excluded from the previous trial." From the article: "It had also suggested that Mike Doyle, Eolas' founder and a former UC researcher, had intentionally concealed his knowledge of Viola when filing the patent claim." Commentary also available from Forbes and ZDNet.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Retrial Slated for Microsoft v. Eolas More

Retrial Slated for Microsoft v. Eolas

Comments Filter:

  • Repost scheduled for Slashdot (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @05:35PM (#11848217)
    Appeals Court Sends Eolas Case Back For New Trial [slashdot.org]

  • Again? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by anocelot ( 657966 )
    Wait... WHO decided it would be a good idea to retry Micro$oft during the Bush administration?!?
    • As much as I despise M$, in this case they are correct and there is prior art, the patent should've never been issued.

      • the patent should've never been issued.

        Boy... If we had a nickel for everytime we've heard that, well, we'd certainly have lots of nickels...

        But your point is still there. Although, I guess if it wasn't, well, this article may not have appeared on slashdot, as the appeals court at least must have seen it the same way. Then again, see my reply to one of the posts before yours.

        • Well yeah, about 90% of the software patents out there should've never been issued, probably including most of M$'s.

          If you could patent things the real world the way they do with software, I could probably patent something like:

          'A tissue membrane that takes in an Oxygen/Nitogen mix, filters out the 0xygen and disperses it to complex system of small tubes that bond the oxygen into a plasma compund. The oxygen is then develived via this plama conduit.'

          And then sue everyone with functioning lungs, red bloo

          • 'A tissue membrane that takes in an Oxygen/Nitogen mix, filters out the 0xygen and disperses it to complex system of small tubes that bond the oxygen into a plasma compund. The oxygen is then develived via this plama conduit.'

            Binkly: On behalf of the human race, I'd like to appologize for this little faux pas.

            Hodge-Podge: Oh my. Certainly.

            Binkly: If it's not too much trouble, could you stop breathing until, oh say, 17 years?

  • http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/21 5205&tid=123&tid=113&tid=155&tid=17
    • Uncanny how you can replicate your own post [slashdot.org] down to the letter, hmmm? You're just trolling for karma (complete with "M$" references, which never fail) and you posted "DUPE" because someone figured you out.

      Just your luck I happened to load this article, eh?

  • You know... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by zoloto ( 586738 )

    The company had suggested the existence of "prior art" - the technical term used when there is evidence that someone else came up with an application of the patented idea first.

    Microsoft had wanted to show the court another browser called Viola, designed by a student at UC a year before the patent was filed in 1994.

    As much as the slashbots here may hate Microsoft, I really do want them to beat Eolas. Don't patents become invalid if you don't defend them after a certian time period?

    • Re:You know... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No, you're thinking of trademarks.
      • Thank you for the clarification. But still, I think this company did this on purpose which could be considered preditory - and I'm against those actions completely. No matter how small or big the company is. It's just wrong. Not sure if that's illegal or not, but /. ... oh well.

    • No, only trademarks (Score:5, Informative)

      by JoeBuck ( 7947 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @05:43PM (#11848305) Homepage
      Copyrights and patents don't become invalid due to non-enforcement. Trademarks, however, can be lost if the trademarked term passes into common use and the owner doesn't do anything about it.
      • Exception: entrapment clause. You can't neglect to enforce a patent just so that people adopt it and then sue the pants off of everyone. That is entrapment, and is very much a no-no.
        • Actually, it's "laches," not entrapment, but the idea is correct...

    • Clueless journalists ("prior art") (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Doomdark ( 136619 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @06:37PM (#11848776) Homepage Journal
      "The company had suggested the existence of "prior art" - the technical term used when there is evidence that someone else came up with an application of the patented idea first."

      Geez. Not only are most Slashdotters ignorant, but so are journalists (yeah yeah, big news?). Although doing the exact thing(s) patent covers is (part of) prior art, the reverse is not necessarily true: prior art is a loose term referring to things done in same domain, related things; past inventions, well-known techniques and so on. Prior art means anything relevant to the patent that has already been done; not just things patent itself if covers.

      Patent applications usually list tons of prior art, and for a good reason: it gives the impression that the applicant (applicant's lawyers) have done some research regarding novelty of the patented invention, and where it stands with respect to the current state of the art in the field (ok ok; or that's the idea, probably not the reality though).

    • If you hate patents then you should hope Eolas does win. The more damage software patents cause, the more likely it is that reforms will happen.
    • I actually thought for a moment there that you were going to join the "dup" hordes attached to this story...
    • I wouldn't want to be characterized as a cheer-
      leader for MSFT in any case, including Eolas.

      Imagine, MSFT is using the case of "prior art"
      to fight a software patent that might cause them
      financial harm! All of this boils down to is a
      battle between one group of lawyers and another.
      The general rule in such cases is "The litigant
      with the deepest pockets wins".

      The ideal solution to this lawsuit is for the
      appeals process to wind its way up to the US
      Supreme Court, where the entire notion of
      software patents can
    • Don't patents become invalid if you don't defend them after a certian time period?

      Yep, twenty years. The same as if you do defend them...
  • This is the second major victory for Microsoft in two days. Slashdot didn't pick up the story but yesterday M$ won a pretty large appeal in the 9th circuit which dealt with patent and license issues having to do with ActiveX. While we all know ActiveX is terrible and its usuage has created one of the larger security holes known to man the victory is still a bad one because of the message that it sends to the lower courts. That issues involved a plug in developers access to APIs and whether they were allowed
    • Even when they're right? Come on, i hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but they're right this time. They deserve to win, and, let's face it, patent-free plugins is great for everyone.
      • Amen to that. And until fairly recently, Microsoft was fairly good with regards to patents; they also did NOT play the patent hoarding game (that seems to have changed recently, though).
        • To be fair, if I was in Microsoft's shoes, I would play the patent hoarding game as much as I could even if it was only to prevent another Eolas... then again, if I was in Microsoft's shoes I would go shopping first and do the patent hoarding later.. :)
    • You posted this same comment the other day

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141180&cid=118 28350 [slashdot.org]

      So I'll post my same response...

      I'll admit I'm not the biggest MS fan in the world. However, if the situation were reversed, and MS was claiming to own the patent, I think a lot of peoples' tones would be different (i.e. hoping that MS wasn't granted the patent). I hate to say it, but I sort of hope MS wins, but with the outcome being that no one is awarded the patent. That way no browser will be (or
    • no no no, we want microsoft to WIN this time. why this time? good question. *blank stare*
      • no no no, we want microsoft to WIN this time. why this time?

        Because in the end, Microsoft will inevitably lose to open source.

        Functionally, is Windows XP radically different from Windows 95? Hardly. The WIMP interface hasn't changed much, Word isn't radically different from a few years ago, and so on. Meanwhile, Linux and open source are relentlessly improving, constantly narrowing the gap in those things people like better in Windows than in Linux, and patents that might hinder Linux et al constantly

    • Re:Another Big Victory for MS (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      While we all know ActiveX is terrible

      Once again, don't hate the standard. Didn't I just do this yesterday with Flash? That's like saying you hate guns because they kill people, but I bet you'd be strongly opposed to removing guns from our police and military forces.

      God you people are senseless clods.

      • Once again, don't hate the [ActiveX] standard. Didn't I just do this yesterday with Flash?

        I don't hate the standard; I just hate its use across the Internet because ActiveX objects run with full privileges of the local user. If the standard were to specify that ActiveX objects run in the sandbox of the guest user account, I would not hate the standard even for use across the Internet. SWF is fundamentally different because as far as I know, it doesn't automatically grant the right to read and write loc

    • The bottom line is that M$ is on a winning streak and we need to cross our fingers in the hopes that some judge is brave enough to step up against them.

      Err... perhaps they really had good grounds for winning?

      Your argument seems to imply that everything MS does is bad/evil and that they shouldn't be allowed to win any case.

      The idea is that justice is fair -- if MS had a fair argument, they win. As simple as that. It's not a question of "bravery", it is a question of whether they had fair grounds for winn
    • Before you cross your fingers for a judge that is 'brave enough to stand up to MS', you may want to look into the issues discussed. Eola's patent is ridiculous, and generic functionality patents like these should be eliminated, not enforced -- even if the 'victim' is Microsoft.

      http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/aboutEolasM icrosoft.html [berkeley.edu]
    • For another perspective on this, please see this informative post [slashdot.org].

  • From viola (Score:5, Informative)

    by Virtual Karma ( 862416 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @05:46PM (#11848334) Homepage
    Welcome to the home of the Viola world wide web hypermedia toolkit. The original Xwindows, independent, experimental, scriptable, object oriented, alternative, etc, web browser. ViolaWWW is an extensible World Wide Web hypermedia browser. Based on and drawing from the Viola scripting language and toolkit, ViolaWWW provides a way to build relatively complex hypermedia applications that are beyond the provisions of the current HTML 3.0 standard. The Viola browser was the very first web browser to support interactive embedded objects, and other features such as tables, input forms, stylesheet. Source: viola homepage: http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/violaHome.h tml

  • hmm (Score:5, Informative)

    by mattyrobinson69 ( 751521 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @05:48PM (#11848354)
    im not sure if this has been suggested before, but who thinks patents should be (like trademarks) valid on a 'use it or lose it' basis, to prevent submarine patents, like this one?

    • Agreed. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by game kid ( 805301 )
      Sign me on that petition. I read Slashdot and I hear about a "new" (old) patent like this almost every month. It makes me frightened just to write my own code...but then that's probably what Eolas wants. I hope not.

    • Re:hmm (Score:2)

      by Gerad ( 86818 )
      The obvious danger to that is that it might prompt untold numbers of corporations to start filing suit on open-source developers, simply to preserve their own patents. Do we really want that?
      • or they could grant free licenses to opensource developers. (although this isn't likely for some companies).

        Because of the current state of patents it would result in a complete mess for a few years, but after that it wouldn't be so bad.

        maybe its not such a good idea after all.
    • This already exists in one form: Patents (actually patent law) already have the severe problem of forcing the patent holder to fight anything that might be related to his patent because not doing so can be proof of abandoning it. This can lead to losing your patent when challenged. Granted, this is not the same thing, but it works with the same kind of reasoning "if someone is going to patent something then they'll probably take it seriously because of the penalties they are putting themselves at risk to"

      N

  • The Viola story (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @05:53PM (#11848402)
    The author Pei Wei tells his story [berkeley.edu] of the Eolas patent here and how prior art was suppressed.

    Maybe if knowingly withholding prior art was a federal crime this would not have happenned.
    • "Maybe if knowingly withholding prior art was a federal crime this would not have happenned."

      Well, it's not a federal crime, but it is "inequitable conduct," and it can result in any number of things, chief of which are that the patent itself will likely be found to either be invalid or unenforceable, and that the patent agent or attorney who prosecuted the patent could find himself or herself without a license to practice before the USPTO...
    • Microsoft owes this Viola guy an Xbox, a Tablet PC, an MSDN subscription for life, some Microsoft Press books, an all expenses paid trip to the Redmond campus, an audience with Sir Bill, etc. etc.!

  • Viola's creator's comments on the trial (Score:4, Informative)

    by xswl0931 ( 562013 ) on Friday March 04, 2005 @05:58PM (#11848432)
    http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/aboutEolasM icrosoft.html

  • News for lawyers, stuff that matters (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 04, 2005 @06:14PM (#11848549)

    Slashdot is depressing. Look at the front page:

    • Your Rights Online: Retrial Slated for Microsoft v. Eolas
    • IT: Interview With The SpamAssassin
    • Your Rights Online: UK Record Industry Starts Suing Filesharers
    • Games: Views on Violence in Video Games
    • Your Rights Online: FCC Fines Company for Blocking Access to VoIP
    • Your Rights Online: EU Patents Won't Stay Dead
    • NYPL Digital Gallery Open to Public
    • IT: Tracking a Specific Machine Anywhere On The Net
    • Linux: Open Source Advocacy The Right Way
    • Your Rights Online: Datamining the NSA
    • Developers: Part 2 of Ruby on Rails Tutorial Online
    • Apple: Judge Finds For Apple in ThinkSecret Case
    • Your Rights Online: Phishers Face Jail Time Under New U.S. Bill
    • British Government Considers Tax on Computers
    • Your Rights Online: Rambus Patent Claims Dismissed

    That's a lot of ligitation nonsense for one day. I'm not blaming the editors since this stuff is the news. But it's disheartening nonetheless. You'd almost forget that this stuff can be fun some of the time.

    • Slashdot used to post a lot of really great scientific and technical articles. In the past five years, it has taken a political advocacy slant, and the stories have become much less technical, to the point that the majority of readers don't even click the links and instead just post away. These days, it's non-stop "YRO" nonsense, pro-piracy articles, and another "Linus said this" dupe.

      I paint a grim picture, but for those of us who started coming here in the 90s, there's been an incredible downhill slide
      • It was never full of great scientific and technical articles. Seven years ago, it was full of libertarian advocacy, praising various dotcoms and anti-DIVX commentary. Basically, slashdot pionereed blogging six years before the concept had a name.

        That said, I do miss the inflammitory remarks to the editor by folks like shoeboy.

        --
        "Posting anonymously to preserve my karma."

    • I was wondering why slashdot was so empty today. I block YRO and Ask Slashdot from my front page and I came in here because I was bored, but it looks like more than half the recent front-page stories have been posted in this section.

      I'm glad I block it.

  • Don't you mean Eolas v. Microsoft?
  • Hopefully the retrial will show what a scumbag Eolas is, and fine the living tar out of them for filing applications when he knew of prior art and didn't submit it.

    Then, hopefully, they'll investigate every other patent Eolas holds, charge the owner the research costs, and toss a few more out.

    Idiots.
  • about the claimed violation of U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906 [uspto.gov] may be read from the PDF at this address [findlaw.com]. I'm kind of curious why, since Microsoft, in Washington State, and the University of California, whose location is left as an exercise to the reader, are both located in the 9th Circuit, that the case was originally tried in Illinois, the 7th Circuit. Probably that's where Eolas is located.
    • Eolas was originally spun off by a group of University of Cal. employees, and still enjoys close legal ties to the university. The corporation also lists as business associates the Lawrence Livermore Labs, and the University of Illinois.
      Eolas has been described as a one man band, with only one actual employee - in this case the man is:

      "Founder Dr Mike Doyle was formerly director of the Academic Computer Center at UCSF and is an adjunct professor at two other universities."
      (From The Register - March 4, 20
  • If Perry Pei-Yuan Wei is fully correct, we are simply talking about old fashioned patent fraud.

  • I read the title as (Score:3, Funny)

    by wideBlueSkies ( 618979 ) * on Friday March 04, 2005 @11:53PM (#11850575) Journal
    Microsoft v. Ebola.

    And I thought to myself "whoever wins, we lose".

    wbs.

  • is it the patent submitter's obligation... (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Is it the patent submitter's obligation to research prior art ? If this goes through the way it's writte n above (no I didn't RTFA), then it could mean all patent submitters are liable if prior art is found.

    Not that it's a bad idea, might slow down the craze a bit.
  • Microsoft getting away with a fine because of prior art?!?!?!! Does that mean we'll get away with our patent infringments on things like Virtual Desktops??? [uspto.gov].

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close