'Eolas' Browser Plug-in Patent Case Rises Again 107
eldavojohn writes "A legal battle that has been around since 1999 and seemingly ended in 2005 now rears its head again. In a confusing move, the USPTO 'reissued a Microsoft patent last week covering the same concepts outlined in the Eolas patent and with wording mirroring that of the Eolas patent. With both companies holding identical patents, the USPTO will now play King Solomon and decide which parent gets custody of the baby.' Both the Microsoft & Eolas patents are available online."
I'm glad a read the article (Score:5, Informative)
It is also why there are forms of invention protection you can use when shopping around for investors.
Keep tabs on patent reform here (Score:5, Informative)
How do you spell 'broken'? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Any chance in hell they'll both get revoked... (Score:4, Informative)
There is a lot more to it than just the concepts of a software plug-in. There is even more to it than the very general description that gets bandied around here at Slashdot.
It's pretty standard here to take the title or first paragraph or so of the patent description and jump to the assumption that this is all they have. But this is almost always wrong.
Re:I'm glad a read the article (Score:2, Informative)
Inventors: Doyle; Michael D. (Wheaton, IL)
Assignee: Eolas Technologies, Inc. (Wheaton, IL)
Appl. No.: 09/481,984
Filed: January 11, 2000
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
This application is a continuation of and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/115,502, filed Jan. 11, 1999, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.
Inventors: Beezer; John L (Redmond, WA), Silver; David M (Redmond, WA), Zeman; Pavel (Kirkland, WA)
Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
Appl. No.: 10/870,472
Filed: June 18, 2004
This application is a continuation of and claims priority from application Ser. No. 09/465,081, filed Dec. 16, 1999, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,826,725, issued Nov. 30, 2004, the content of which is herein incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Thus, Eolas is entitled to a filing date of Jan. 11, 1999 and Microsoft is entitled to a filing date of Dec. 16, 1999. Thus Microsoft filed about 11 months later, but before any Eolas patent issued. Microsoft would be the Junior Party in an interference, and would have the burden of proof of prior invention.
Prior art from 1997: The applet tag! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32/ [w3.org]