Microsoft Nailed by Software Patent 668
An anonymous reader writes "It was just announced that Microsoft lost the case where it was accused of violating Eolas' patent on embedded applications in the Internet Explorer browser. They have been fined $521 million in damages."
It's amazing.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Funny)
The '1 patents lays out a "way to rule a country comprised of dozens of states" and the '2 patent describes the taxation of citizens of a huge country.
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if the administration didn't change so significantly in 2000 (think: complete reversal), im sure M$ would have had a much more tough "justice" department to fend off.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Funny)
Besides, none of this matters, because software patents are EVIL! Yes, they are even more EVIL than Microsoft! And it doesn't matter that the victim is also EVIL, the patents themselves are still EVIL!
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Informative)
You can see some of the things thay have patented here [eolas.com].
I seem to recall a article [pbs.org] where the founder of Eolas was talking about a patent war against Microsoft, not because they wanted royalties but because they objected to the I.E.ization of the web.
Notice that Eolas is going after Microsoft, not Sun or Mozilla.
Standard practice for patent profolio companies is to prey on the weaker first. Eolas went after the main standard breaker with their lawsuit. I think this should give us some hope about Eolas's intentions.
Amazing grace indeed.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes this a rather ironical and humorous case though, is the target - behemot Microsoft. It'll probably be overruled in the next run, but nobody is safe with such laws. Who's going to risk developing stuff when you're sued left and right before you even know somebody filed a patent for it while you RDed? This can potentially kill off alot of inventing. Without somebody with lots of money backing you up, it's a risky business.. Which is what the big corporations want anyways, so maybe Microsoft will settle this one in the end..
It's not amazing at all really, it's Astounding.
Re:Amazing grace indeed.. (Score:5, Funny)
He was just trying to adjectival it.
-
Indeed (Score:4, Insightful)
Just you wait 'till companies like IBM with lots of IP starts sinking. The litigations-wars would leave a dry and barren wasteland of a formerly healthy IT-sector. Or they get bought up by somebody without scrouples. Then the former "intentions" are worth nothing.
Corporations are too big and have been given too much power.
Even when it's against someone "evil", like Microsoft. Which I don't believe for a second. Evilness doesn't exist, only ignorance.
I do however, also agree with you. I could have a different tone in my post. It's a way to get a message across I guess. Sorry. You're right, in a way, intentions are everything. If it goes wrong anyhow, it's usually because of bad luck or ignorance. However, don't take their word for their unproven "intentions". The Iraqi Information minister proved once and for all what people will say for the right incentive or beliefs. Believe me, all spokespersons have a little Iraqi Information Minister in them..
Do not give power to people with so-called "good intentions". Look at what they DO instead. Do they live what they preach? Most people don't, really. Then their word is worth nothing, because there is no experience behind it. It's empty without the experience and wisdom behind it.
It's an interesting paradox: Intention is everything, but don't count on it, it's also nothing.
Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is lots of evidence to the contrary. What do you have to support your proposition.
Hmmh. You call his 'bluff' ("back it up with facts"), while doing exactly the same: claiming patents do benefit society as whole via R'n D, without any pointers to anything to back it up. Just your opinion (and vaguely implying others agree). Gee, that's convincing argument there.
Notice that just because there has been lots of innovation in computers and related things is not a proof; without parallel universe to check, it's impossible to say how alternative would have worked out. Personally I think things would have been quite similar, actually; meaning that although I do consider patents in general (and as implemented in particular) harmful, I think there effect has fortunately been limited. But there's a possibility that may change, mostly because:
Finally, claiming big companies want relaxed patent (copyright, trademark) laws is patently absurd. Tbere are die-hard patent-loving propel-hat inventors, too; but the mix of opinions at individual level is MUCH wider than with corporations. Corporations arae pretty unified in their standing favouring strictly enforced patent laws. These are their weapons of choice, especially when things get tough. PHBs and their ilk like the idea of "new frontier" that "intellectual property" represents. There are just those pesky induhvidualist indians (actual inventors) to get rid of, and then the gold is theirs.
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Informative)
The truly important question is whether or not the company actually produces anything. If they do, then they're vulnerable to a countersuit involving patent infringement.
"IP" holding companies are some of the most dangerous creatures in the technological world today. The reason is simple: the traditional way the patent game is played is that most companies would collect patents for use as a defense against patent infringement suits. When the inevitable suit happened, they'd break out their own patent portfolio and, hopefully, find at least one that the company suing them was infringing. Both companies would agree to cross-license their patents and life is good again.
Companies that don't have a patent portfolio are at a disadvantage in that game, of course, but the upside is that patent infringement suits were relatively rare, so one could do development work in relative peace. Only if you were wildly successful as a result would you face an infringement suit, and at that point you'd generally have the ability to pay for a licensing arrangement -- unless the initiator of the suit was a competitor (as was the case in, e.g., Amazon vs. B&N). The overall system wasn't perfect, of course, but it worked well enough. Certainly free software was reasonably safe from such suits because there would be no money to be had from such a suit.
Enter the "IP" holding company. The problem with such a company is that there is no defense against them. The traditional method of cross-licensing doesn't work because such a company doesn't infringe on any patents. It can't, because the company itself doesn't actually make anything. As often (probably more, actually) as not, these "IP" holding companies don't even invent anything. Their sole purpose in life is to suck money out of companies that do invent and build things. That can include any company that does a lot of free software work, like IBM and RedHat.
I think these "IP" companies are among the greatest dangers our technology-driven world faces today, because there is no effective remedy against them, short of legislation. And we all know how likely it is that that will be of overall benefit.
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I think these "IP" companies are among the greatest dangers our technology-driven world faces today, because there is no effective remedy against them, short of legislation. And we all know how likely it is that that will be of overall benefit.
What if the system was changed so that once you have filed a patent and it is accepted by the U.S. patent office, you get a year (or some specific time period) to implement the patented concept in a product, or the patent expires? Would that not sufficiently defend the industry against patent portfolio sharks?
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
I know because I own a software company and we have had many patent issues come up in the past. They are insidious evil and retarted. Using defensive patents is the preferred action.
Take a look at Redhat's stance on software patents [redhat.com]. Redhat has a considerable number of patents; all of them used for defensive (i.e. Cross licensing) purposes.
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
The current way to avoid patent lawsuits is to patent in the USA (so you can sue people) but make nothing (so you can sue ibm and they cant nuke you), then sell rights to a "random" chinese or similar company to make them on a royalty and have a third "unrelated" grey import company ship zillions of them into the USA. If anything nasty occurs (patent lawsuit, class action, even safety) then the grey importer folds and everyone else gets to keep all the money.
Great for everyone who is rich and doesn't care about unemployment in the western world, or especially in the USA about health and safety issues given the lack of state/national health care.
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Informative)
Bzzt, wrong. It's trademarks you lose if you don't enforce them. Patents can be enforced as selectively as you care, likewise with copyright.
Re:It's amazing.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder if they feel like it was worth it. Billion is pocket change to MS but still it would have been cheaper to just license the patent.
Great! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)
Patent whores who just sit around and WAIT for someone to sue.....heaven FORBID they actuall DO anything with their patent.....no, just sit and wait...just like SCO....just like those creeps who screwed EBAY....THIS is the problem with the web today
Re:Laches (Score:4, Informative)
that the patent holder's delay was unreasonable and inexcusable (there is a presumption that 6 years is a sufficient delay for this purpose); and
The alleged infringer suffered materially prejudicial harm from the delay. For example, if the delay has meant that the claimed damages are significantly increased, then the doctrine of laches may prevent the plaintiff recovering that increase.
So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX (Score:5, Interesting)
I have my feelings against Microsoft, but this smells like being in the right place at the right time, and PTO's own trademarked brand of ignorance.
Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really sad -- the PTO appears to be set up to reward idiots who patent a really simple (but hard to implement) idea and then demand royalties from whoever does actually implement it. There needs to be a big overhaul.
Im so confused!!!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Patents = bad
So is this good? Must be some sort of paradox if so...
Re:Im so confused!!!!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Patents = bad
So is this good?
I forget where, but it has been said that two wrongs don't make a right, just even.
Well, then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Think about that for a while.
Then, moderate this post up as insightful.
Re:Well, then.... (Score:5, Funny)
hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
So I propose to file a patent on a two-click process, so we can go after B&N and Borders who are avoiding Amazon's patent. Then we should file a 3-click, and 4-click, and 42-click patent...
Hard to know what to feel. (Score:5, Insightful)
Software patents are vile. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is as stupid a patent as they come: what's a plugin or an applet? Fundamentally it is all in the same family of idea as of linked libraries-- bloody fundamental to every piece of software out there -- except that in this case the software is dynamically downloaded by a browser and then executed within the security context of the browser.
521 million? I'm all for roasting Microsoft when they deserve it, but this is nothing they should have to pay for. Next thing you know Mozilla will get into trouble for having downloadable theme plugins.
Re:Software patents are vile. (Score:3, Insightful)
And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
In other news, SCO has also sued Mozilla for the use of "HTML" and "JavaScript" which have made it possible to be used by more than one person...
Categories for this article explained... (Score:5, Funny)
Firstly, the Bill-Gates-As-Cyborg is representative of Microsoft being fucked.
Secondly, the IE icon with the broken halo is representative of Microsoft falling from grace.
Thirdly, the circuitboard was just misclick by Taco.
Fourthly, the patent pending icon is representative of Cyborg-Bill being stabbed in the back by a rusty spoon.
Fifthly, the hat on briefcase thing also represents Microsoft being fucked.
Sixthly, the internet thing represents my posting this on slashdot about Microsoft being fucked.
Lastly, the newspaper icon represents joe sixpack reading in weekly world news tomorrow that Microsoft is being fucked.
In Summary... (Score:5, Funny)
Boo: This patent is stupid!
Boo: Microsoft in general!
Yay: Microsoft has to pay money!
Boo: It's too little money!
Solution to this:
Yay: Mozilla!
Yay: Slashdot!
Extra links (Score:4, Informative)
EOLAS SUES MICROSOFT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT... [eolas.com]
The patent [164.195.100.11]
Before you start bitching about slashdot users... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not support this ruling, because I do not support patents in any way shape or form. That does not mean the Slashdot community as a whole feels the same.
In fact, it's very hard to determine just what it is the Slashdot community DOES believe, because more often than not it's the negativity that makes it through the ranking system more than anything else.
Some people will call this a great victory for Open Source. I don't. I think it's a travesty, but that's my opinion and mine alone. Other's may or may not agree, but please don't let one person's opinion spoil your view of the entire community.
Bryan
Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users. (Score:5, Interesting)
Patents or just software patents?
Software patents are bad because their lifetime is an eternity in the software world, giving them undue monopolistic power. This is exacerbated by the fact that most of the patent examiners don't seem to have the direct knowledge or the familiarity with computing history to differentiate between trivial ideas and really unique, innovative stuff.
(And then there's also the problem of idiots flooding the patent office with ridiculous patents.)
However, the patent system as originally envisioned by the U.S. forefathers was a pretty good idea. It gives inventors an incentive to fully disclose the workings of their inventions to the public in exchange for a limited-time monopoly.
Bad precedent (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to "capture and protect" innovation, companies register more and more patents each year [heise.de], often just to prevent others from suing them. But some companies register patents for the sole purpose of engaging in legal warfare -- a risky gamble with potentially huge prizes.
The biggest danger inherent in software patents is to free software. Megacorporations can easily collect thousands of patents on trivial processes to use against open source programmers who have little means to defend themselves. Wait for Microsoft and others to attack on this front -- that would be nice extra FUD fodder with all the SCO crap going on right now. To ignore software patents as Linus Torvalds does is the wrong approach. They must be eliminated entirely.
Re:Bad precedent (Score:3, Interesting)
And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art? (Score:5, Insightful)
- They were embedded in the "hypermedia" document
- They could communicate with the browser
- They could communicate with the server (at least by using sockets and datagrams)
- By doing this they were "providing the user of the client computer with interactive features and allowing the user to have access to greater computing power than may be available at the user's client computer."
Sorry, but I think MS should be in the clear here.Re:And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but Viola probably is. (Score:5, Informative)
My objection to most software patents stands. If you're doing something that an expert would consider to be an obvious extension to the current state of the art, you don't have something patentable.
Re:No, but Viola probably is. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm Confused (Score:3, Funny)
Stupid Microsoft! J00 G0+ 0W#3D! Thatt'll show you to write crappy code! Now you have to PAY. MUHAHAHAHAH.
$521 million? To MS? (Score:4, Funny)
I knew you could.
Link to patent (Score:5, Informative)
Link to the actual patent [uspto.gov].
I'm not much at reading patents but this looks like the usual silly IT patent that could apply to just about anything. Can't see this as a good thing at all.
So (Score:4, Interesting)
Just look at the political careers of all the *major* politicians that were invloved in the original MS anti-trust case. If they didn't politically stagnate then MS made them go away - quietly, and expensively.
Monopolies can not be brought down with small lawsuits anymore. It will take a vast reversal in public opinion, many brave and ambitious politicians, and some fierce competition. So far we have 1 out of 3.
Great News (Score:4, Interesting)
Why, you ask?
Because, my friends, Microsoft is now going to spends billions to kill the current patent system. They're going to buy every Congressman from Alaska to Puerto Rico to shut this scam down. Bill Gates is going to spend so much on politicians that they'll still be standing in line to give him blow jobs twenty years from now. After Microsoft is finished, the only debate will be whether to use the patent authority building for Total Information Awareness Headquarters or turn it into a Fritz Chip manufacturing plant.
Re:Great News (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they'll just pay to help put caps on jury-awards. That way they can still use the patent laws to bankrupt/stifle small companies/open source advocates who might be competition, but not worry about being put out of business because they ran roughshod over someone else's patent.
Re:Great News (Score:5, Interesting)
What in the world makes you think that? MS has a lot more to gain from patents then they do from them going away.
Sure MS isn't as big a patent player as some of the other companies, but if some of their recent patents hold up the Computer and Electronics world will be paying MS royalties for the next 20 years.
No MS isn't killing anything, especially the golden goose which is going to ensure they get paid.
Improvement in tech-patent news (Score:3, Informative)
I follow the patent stories here all the time, and I'm used to trying to take the scattered details of whatever news service we're linking to to find the actual patents. Just wanted to point out that it's refreshing to find a major information source using actual patent nos.
patent warchests (Score:5, Insightful)
mitomac
Re:patent warchests (Score:3, Insightful)
None, as far as I know. In a way, that's kind of the point of free software, and it appears to be Linus approach to the whole issue. Having said that, there may well be indivual developers and companies with secret stashes of IP fodder tucked quietly away.
It would be very cool if MS stomps this company on appeal, and hopefully the whole software patent concept with it. But I don't think they will do that - it's probably worth more to them to lose this battle, and have their own "IP" portfolio's worth vali
Isn't Free Software Vunerale as Well? (Score:5, Informative)
Also, from the article:
Isn't that irrelevant, and why software patents are 'evil'? It doesn't matter whether your work was completely independent. If it is patented, your stuffed.
Having said that though, check out the case Frearson v Loe, dated 1878 (google is your friend). I gather (in my naive IANAL way) that it is an often quoted precedent. The case determined that non-commercial experimentation is okay, even in the face of patents. Can writing free software be considered to be an experiment?
What if this happened to Mozilla and friends? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is a nice target for lawsuits: they're big, visible and have lots of money. However, what if an open source browser had a more significant market share? Wouldn't that same patent-portfolio group come demanding royalties?
This is a more general concern that scares me; it may be tested by the SCO-IBM case(s). Say a company patents some software technology. What if the developers working on that code go home at night and use the same concepts in some open source projects? I emphasize concepts because the developers are smart enough not to copy code, but a patent covers an idea, not a specific implementation.
A lot of this paranoia comes from my co-worker, who is pro-Microsoft and very much anti-open source. He is absolutely convinced that open source is communism, and that it clashes with capitalism. He loves to suggest the above scenario and predict that the GPL will ultimately fail in court...
Finally, back to Microsoft: don't they have over $40 billion in cash? So $500 million is 1/80th of $40 billion. That's like having $400 and being fined $5. Oh, that hurts. Is anyone here an accountant? How much of that gets written off in taxes? It's really a joke, in my mind.
Of course I don't know the details of the case, but $500 million seems weak. Microsoft has said that IE is now a critical part of Windows. Windows and Office are the only two sources of revenue for Microsoft... doesn't that somehow make IE a critical part of their income stream? And they only got fined five bucks for it?
This is very very bad (Score:5, Insightful)
They basically have a patent on any embedded technology in a browser. A lot of people have looked into this, and so far have come up with nothing. The earliest "application" in a browser technology I'm aware of is Vosaic, but I can't get ahold of anything that shows what date that was originally set up.
This screws Flash, Java applets, and all kinds of other things. Watch for more lawsuits in the future.
Re:This is very very bad (Score:5, Funny)
Man, this rocks!
This is no victory (Score:3, Insightful)
Cringely mentioned this case about a year ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
One interesting thing not mentioned in the Rueter's report but expounded upon in detail in the pre-decision Cringely article is that winning this lawsuit may allow Eolas to prevent Microsoft fom any infringing behavior through a court injunction -- ie. they can't use the technology covered under the patent upheld by the court at any price if Eolas decides to do that (since by holding the patent they are not required to license the right to use it to anyone). And they may decide to sell to someone other than Microsoft exclusively the rights to develop software including the patented methods.
This is one of the places software patents are really bad (though in Microsoft's case its a bit of being hoist by their own petard), the exclusivity without compulsory licensing allows Eolas (or any other company with a patented process/method/device) to use their patent as a club to force Microsoft (or anyone else) to do whatever Eolas wants if they need/want to license the patented technology.
This is wrong - forget who (Score:5, Insightful)
like Dennis Miller said, "Why hate someone (for something irrelevant) when, if you take the time to get to know them
be upset and angry at Microsoft for the things they do, not for those things that are not fair.
One can only dream... (Score:5, Insightful)
That being the case, and given the fact that they lost this lawsuit, there are a number of things that could happen:
The interesting question is: which of the above would represent the best thing for the free software community, and how likely is it to happen?
Things obviously don't get any better initially if they cave, though the long-term consequences might be of benefit (if they cave and just pay, then other patent-holding companies will be very much encouraged by that and we'll probably end up seeing many more such suits by such companies, and eventually the big corps will Do Something about the problem, though I suspect the end result will benefit only them and not us).
If Microsoft appeals to the Supreme Court, they can only do so if they have some sort of Constitutional argument. That's not as far-fetched as it sounds, because they can very legitimately question whether or not the patent in question and others like it meets the intent of the clause in the Constitution upon which patent law itself is based. If it weren't for the fact that Microsoft hates to lose and generally tries to win at all costs, I would totally dismiss this as a possibility.
If Microsoft pushes for some sort of legislation, the natural question is what that legislation would look like. My cynical outlook forces me to think that the resulting legislation would somehow raise the barrier of entry for either acquiring a patent or prosecuting a patent so high that only megacorps like Microsoft would be able to participate. Problem solved, along with the problems of these pesky little IP companies and free software types.
Finally, Microsoft could buy the company in question out, but that might be the same thing as IBM buying SCO out as far as end results go, with the end result being that every little upstart IP company will be suing the likes of Microsoft in order to get bought out. If Microsoft has a big enough patent portfolio, then they really don't need to do this and thus probably won't.
I'll bet Eolas is going to get lots of visits from the BSA from now on...
So is this good, or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course Microsoft fully deserves to go down for their illegal actions over the last two decades, but I think they need to go down for the right reasons.
Not because some schmuck wants to collect royalties he doesn't deserve.
Microsoft should wiggle out of this one... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm not a big fan of Microsoft, but I think they have plenty of room to wiggle out of this one on appeal.
Microsoft's ActiveX plug-in technology, or whatever it's called today, is pretty much a direct descendent of OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) which allowed applications to be embedded within Word, Excel and any other GUI application that cared to implement the correct APIs. I'm fairly certain OLE and the enabling COM technology predates 1993 in some form or another. Embedding mini-applications within the context of a web browser hypertext document seems a pretty straightforward and obvious extension of embedding mini-applications within the context of other GUI based applications such as Word and Excel.
Within the actual patent there seem to be descriptions about the embedded application within the browser viewing data created by a remote server with computational power exceeding what is available to the browser or media terminal. Perhaps this is what differentiates browser plug-ins from standard application plug-ins, but even this seems like a direct and obvious extension of thin-client/server computing reaching back to the days of X Window terminals or before.
What amazes me are the legal hacks that Microsoft must have hired to royally botch this case. I can only imagine they were arrogant SOBs the jury couldn't wait to stick-it to when it came time for deliberation.
Re:Microsoft should wiggle out of this one... (Score:3, Informative)
how rediculous.
Let me just make sure I've got all the rules... (Score:3, Funny)
2) Microsoft is bad
3) When a patent dispute goes against Microsoft, ignore rule #1
4) While(TRUE) SCO = evil
Another typical day at
What's that... (Score:3, Funny)
I can see it in court now..
Bill G.: Sorry.. How much was that?... Yeah sure.. just a sec.. *flip flip* there yeh go! Now run along and don't bother me again!
that's like what (Score:3, Interesting)
MBA on Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
- Making $1 is good.
- Making more is better.
- Losing $1 or more is bad.
Period.I'm not trying to shift discussion away from whether Microsoft's actions were ethical, whether patents are good, or any really relevant and interesting discussions.
However, everything else we discuss here is, at best, philosophy to a creature like Microsoft. When you are talking about $billions in revenue, and if you are trying to "get into Microsoft's head", you need to shift perspective a bit. I, personally, think patents have been abused in many ways in the last decade. However, a company like Microsoft only evaluates things like this on one basis - money. Think like that, and you'll practically be in Bill's head.
Re:MBA on Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
Bill's head, in my opinion has already left. He is looking for greener pastures. He had 651,749,300 shares of MSFT stock on or around November 1st, 2001. He currently has 172,612,893 shares as of 8/5/03. He knows that if he sells any faster, the media will catch on, as they did when Mr. Balmer unloaded around 12 million shares around the 5/30/03.
Follow the money. The smart money is leaving Microsoft.
link [quicken.com]
Bad data! Quicken web site has a BIG typo (Score:5, Informative)
Bill may be selling, but he hasn't sold 75% of his stock.
tkwww, prior art, and my dance with Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
During the litigation, lawyers from Microsoft contacted me about a program that I wrote in 1992 called tkwww which was an early web browser. The important thing about tkwww was that it rendered images by calling an external application xli.
This was sufficiently close to what microsoft was looking for that a lawyer (who was named Vlad of all things) talked to me about what I did. I stupidly gave him a pointer to a URL through which they downloaded everything, and even more stupidly did not bill them anything at the time.
When I finally came around to sending them an invoice I got some stupid excuse about them might needing me as a witness so that they couldn't pay me anything. I never heard from them again.
The reason I didn't mention this earlier was because I thought that the Eolas patent was silly and I didn't want to say anything that would help them. Now that they won the case against Microsoft, I'd like to let everyone know about this prior art, in case Eolas decided to go against other people.
Same Old Story (Score:4, Insightful)
MS Appeals
Case drags on
MS Settles for $100M
Everyone forgets
Here's how it went... (Score:4, Funny)
Gates: Sure, let me get my wallet!
Re:Another Reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another Reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Another Reason? (Score:3, Funny)
What about the obligitory "PLUG IT IN PLUG IT IN!"
IMO this is just getting rediculous... this is almost as bad as the whole "buy it now" patent.
Umm...hang on a sec... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sounds like they were doing commercial work without a commerical licensee to the code. The code to NCSA was freely distributable, but to do commercial work with it, it had to be licensed.
Re:Another Reason? (Score:5, Funny)
If I were looking to up my karma, then yes.
Re:Another Reason? (Score:3, Insightful)
If they violate the patent, then no.
Re:Another Reason? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Another Reason? (Score:4, Insightful)
No it is not - it is integrated with one of the OS'es. And to get IE you have to buy that OS.
Re:Another Reason? (Score:4, Interesting)
David v. Goliath (Score:4, Insightful)
The two best ways to profit from a bogus patent is to either go for small amounts from small companies that will settle before defending, or to go after the largest companies that jealous lawyers will perceive as having too much money. The courts are desparate to show that they are "for the people" and that bogus patents defend the people.
This is the problem with the current patch work of patent laws, they tend to be more about politics than any thing else.
This ruling is just like the case against eBay that hit last week. The courts want the world to think that patents are helping the little guy, when in fact they are just feeding the legal beast.
Re:Peanuts (Score:5, Interesting)
Like someone else said, that's more than the Justice Department was able to do in 5 years.
Re:Peanuts (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Peanuts (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, half a billion isn't a "drop in the bucket" even for M$. M$ has quarterly revenues of roughly US$12 Billion.
That's 4 percent of their quarterly revenue which is not an insignificant number for the corporate accounting types.
But then again, M$ does have ~US$48 Billion in cash reserves. So I guess it is just a drop.
Quarterly PROFIT vs. REVENUE (Score:4, Interesting)
Their quarterly PROFIT is around $1.5 billion. They just lost 1/3rd of their quarterly profit in one fell swoop. Think that might affect them coming in below estimates this quarter??
Re:Let me save everyone some time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: A Half Billion: (Score:3, Funny)
> The dream of a lifetime for you and me, pretty near statistically insignificant for Microsoft.
Yeah, they probably 'lose' more than that due to rounding errors when they run up their reports.
Re:A Half Billion: (Score:5, Informative)
Although this news is great, there is still quite a fight ahead. An appellate judge will decide in the upcoming weeks if the appeal has merrit. If so, it could drag on for years. In that case, Microsoft will likely settle for much less. The one thing I noticed about the trial that might give MS grounds for appeal is the trial judge instructed the jury not to weigh testimony from Pei Wei, a fellow who claims to have prior art. If the judge handled that innapropriately, MS could have grounds for appeal.
It could go either way for MS, though and they may get spanked harder than you think. This is only one of several cases. Eolas is also filing separate suits against MS for Windows sales between 2001 and present day and sales before the scope of the current trial. Also, other makers of browsers and plug-ins may find themselves involved in litigation with Eolas very soon!
Re:A Half Billion: (Score:5, Interesting)
This is exactly what I'm afraid of. If Microsoft's fortunes in this matter don't change it may be a little embarassing and a bit painful to pay damages and license fees to Eolas, but it will surely be fatal to any other unfortunate victim caught in this sinister patent trap.
Also, if Microsoft does ultimately lose the appeal, one can be certain Microsoft will do everything in their power to be sure the heads of other infringers are served on a silver platter to Eolas with garnish on the side.
What's really sad is by losing the infringement case, Microsoft still wins big time. All other current and future browser competitors would be instantly eliminated as viable alternatives. Furthermore, the vast majority of the public wouldn't even notice or care thanks to the Microsoft monopoly on browsers.
Re:Whoa... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Damnit! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Jury of their peers" is dead (Score:3, Informative)