Slashdot Log In
Eolas vs. Microsoft Lawsuit Settled and Sealed
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Aug 31, 2007 08:35 AM
from the another-biggie-comes-to-a-close dept.
from the another-biggie-comes-to-a-close dept.
theodp writes "The Seattle P-I's Todd Bishop reports that Microsoft has settled its 8-year-old web browser plug-in patent dispute with Eolas. The spat begat the click-to-activate Web after Microsoft was slapped with a $500+ million patent infringement judgement. Neither Eolas nor Microsoft will be disclosing terms of the deal, although Eolas told investors to expect a dividend (PDF). Microsoft didn't say whether or how the settlement would affect its approach to the underlying technology in IE or other programs. Just last month, the USPTO issued a non-final rejection of the patent's claims, citing the work of Pei-Yuan Wei as prior art."
Related Stories
[+]
USPTO Examiner Rejected 1-Click Claims As "Obvious" 195 comments
theodp writes "Faced with a duly unimpressed USPTO examiner who rejected its new 1-Click patent claims as 'obvious' and 'old and well known,' Amazon has taken the unusual step of requesting an Oral Appeal to plead its case. And in what might be interpreted by some as an old-fashioned stalling tactic, the e-tailer has also canceled and refiled its 1-Click claims in a continuation application. As it touted the novelty of 1-Click to Congress last spring, Amazon kept the examiner's rejection under its hat, insisting that 'still no [1-Click] prior art has surfaced.' The Judiciary Committee hearing this testimony included Rick Boucher (VA) and Howard Berman (CA), both recipients of campaign contributions from a PAC funded by 1-Click inventor Jeff Bezos, other Amazon execs, and their families."
[+]
'Eolas' Browser Plug-in Patent Case Rises Again 107 comments
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."
[+]
Linux: Ballmer Suggests Linux Distros Will Soon Have to Pay Up 520 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Via Groklaw comes comments from Microsoft's Steve Ballmer at a UK event, in which the company once again threatens Linux distributions that haven't signed up with their program. '"People who use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to compensate us," Ballmer said last week ... Ballmer praised Novell at the UK event for valuing intellectual property, and suggested that open source vendors will be forced to strike similar deals with other patent holders. He predicted that firms like Eolas will soon come after open source vendors or users. Microsoft paid $521m to settle a patent claim by Eolas in August.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Excellent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Flash where it shouldn't be (Score:2, Interesting)
The world isn't fair...
what????? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:what????? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So no disclosure from Eolas. It remains to be seen how effectively ms can hide the terms and dollar amount in their quarterly reports.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Last quarter Microsoft's gross revenues were somewhere north of $14 billion. If they paid 500 million to Eolas (and presumably it was less than that, given the verdict of $521 million and the fact of a pending reexam that might kill the patent), that's way less than 5% of their revenues for one quarter. Most securities experts would say that isn't material.
And the other terms of the agreement probably amount to sayin
Change in law (Score:2, Interesting)
There's one thing (another story) with suing over a frivolous patent if you make the product, but this company only exists to take money off another and give it to people who've done no work whatsoever.
Simple. Freeze the shares of a company who files an IP suit over a patent they're not using. If a
Re:Change in law (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Hurry!! (Score:4, Funny)
Eolas privately held (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
For the layman (Score:3, Funny)
And Microsoft couldn't find any prior art for a toggle switch?
Re:For the layman (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
It's worse... (Score:3, Funny)
Why sealed? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The question really hinges on whether the patent remains valid given that Microsoft chose to settle, I hope someone better versed in US patent law could give us some sort of answer.
(although uninformed speculation may be more fun...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Click twice pain... (Score:4, Insightful)
The process to invalidate the patent was clearly initiated, surely it is in the public interest to remove invalid patents, regardless of the outcome of any particular case. Its not like the settlement would establish any sort of precedent, never mind the fact that Microsoft or Eolas's statements on the matter shouldn't have any bearing on whether the patent is valid or not, especially since there is an established method for testing the validity of patents.
I may be being naive of course.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)