Two Strikes for Eolas Plug-In Patent 190
theodp writes "The USPTO has handed Microsoft a second victory in a dispute over a browser plug-in patent that could roil the Web if upheld, rejecting arguments by Eolas and the University of California that technologies cited as prior art by Microsoft and its W3C allies that persuaded the USPTO to open a reexam were irrelevant. Separately, Microsoft is attacking Eolas and the UC on a second front, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn a $565 million judgment, this time based on prior art that's completely different than that which it urged the USPTO to consider and the W3C to stand behind."
I knew it... (Score:5, Funny)
And the winner is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And the winner is...Not Readability (Score:2)
Please please please please (Score:5, Interesting)
(If I wasn't in such a nice mood, I'd have written, "Take your head out of your ass, do what you have to do to completely reform how the USPTO reviews patents and then start reviewing and rejecting the huge lot of undeserved patents out there." But I'm in a good mood.)
If up held who really is infringing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:If up held who really is infringing? (Score:3, Insightful)
In cases like this, where the patent holder claims to be trying to help the open source cause, they should help the cause by making the patent open source. Otherwise, they're vigilantes. They can do what they want, but there won't be any sympathy from me when they lose.
Re:If up held who really is infringing? (Score:4, Interesting)
How do you propose to do such a thing?
You can't compile the patent. You can't modify the patent. Perhaps you meant simply "abandon the patent and go straight to public domain."
In that case, your comment displays an unenlightened understanding of the actual events and the concepts guiding them. You don't deserve "insightful."
Sorry.
Re:If up held who really is infringing? (Score:2)
It's that sort of distinction that has the FSF preferring the term "software libre", as merely having access to the source is not the same thing.
Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think thats necessarily true. If they were all forced to actually defend their patents, nothing would change. Microsoft is not going to sue IBM over it's patents just like IBM isn't going to sue Microsoft. As a result, the patents go away. I strongly support making patent enforcement mandatory. This idea that you can sit on patents until someone else is making millions on the same idea and then pounce on them is ridiculous. Use it or lose it.
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the "uniqueness" of an idea that makes it an investable item, though. It actually works great, except when it gets to software.
There needs to be a different system for software, with a much shorter duration, to allow the people who have the idea to cash in somewhat on their idea, but the system must be well funded in order to allow the PTO to hire the
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:3, Funny)
...and the cotton gin.
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2)
I think for patents it's more the "uniqueness" of the implementation. If Pfizer got a patent on "a drug that increases sexuality" there would be no room for all the copycat stuff that is out there. Pfizer has the rights to the specific chemical compound, not the concept. The same thing should happen for software, companies should be able to protect their implementation, but not the general concept.
Just my 2c
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2, Insightful)
This is already the case. It's called copyright.
Re:MOD parent up (Score:2)
The problem with that is already apparent. The algorithms will become generic and lock out competition. For example:
I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two dates and subtracts them, returning the difference.
I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two character arrays and returns a new concatenated character array.
I hereby paten
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2)
They will not necessarily sue, but they will just have the lawyers meet in a room and cross-license all their patents, thus giving legal support to each of them. I do however like the idea of making companies enforce their patents so we don't have RAMBUS type backhanded tactics.
Doctrine of Laches... (Score:3, Interesting)
This idea that you can sit on patents until someone else is making millions on the same idea and then pounce on them is ridiculous...
Yes, it is. And the law agrees with you. Of course, IANAL, though...
The Doctrine of Laches states that a plaintiff who unreasonably delays action to the detriment of the defendant loses the ability to collect damages due to the delay.
In the case of intentional delay, the plaintiff would not be able to collect royalties for past infringement. If the defendant cont
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:5, Informative)
Not true see http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/10304113.as
MS has been an awfully litigious company. They have sued dozens of companies for all kinds of stuff including trademarks, defamation, and yes even patent related stuff. There is no reason whatsoever to think that a company which has publicly stated it intends "vigorously defend our intellectual property" and has filed tons of lawsuits in the past will not sue over patent infringement.
For all the astro turfers here are the links to just some of the reading material you might run into when you google for microsoft lawsuits.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/13/are_you
http://www.mobiletechnews.c
http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/sout
http://trends.new
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2)
Not true see http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/10304113.as p
MS has been an awfully litigious company. They have sued dozens of companies for all kinds of stuff including trademarks, defamation, and yes even patent related stuff. There is no reason whatsoever to think that a company which has publicly stated it intends "vigorously defend our intellectual property" and has filed tons of
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2)
There's a huge difference between defending yourself from people trying to use their patent library against you, and using your patent library as a weapon - something that Microsoft has never done.
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:5, Interesting)
This would be a huge victory for the software industry in general, while forcing the patent holders to consider their patent enforcement (or even applications - why bother will bullshit patents if they represent such a potential liability - don't bother unless you're sure) very seriously.
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2)
It would save a lot more time, money, and effort to just have the USPTO do it right to begin with, as opposed to them approving a patent, then allowing lawyers and corporations with deep pockets to come along and easily blow it apart.
How would you like to have a patent, only to have a multi-billion dollar corporation basically say, "oh screw them let's just violate it, then use or deep pockets to blow it apart later".
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2)
I am not a lawyer, but I do read Groklaw
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:5, Insightful)
Incredibly bad idea.
Trademarks are of unlimited duriation. That's why you are required to defend it or lose it, because otherwise they would never expire -- people could buy up trademark rights from 200 years ago and start enforcing them.
Patents on the other hand automatically expire after 20 years. There's no need to have a "defend it or lose it" because they're going to lose it anyway. Be patient.
Also, keep in mind a trademark is just a name or a symbol as used in advertising. It might represent a few days of work by a graphic design person, or a couple of hours of brainstorming and focus groups. A patent can very well represent several years worth of someone's hard work.
I wouldn't want to be the person to tell an inventor that he just lost the right to 5 years worth of work because he lacked the money to immediately sue the large company who simply copied his published patent.
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2)
Simply put, patents on non-physical inventions should be abandoned entirely or have a drastically shorter, less extensible lifespan. While 17
A parable about patents... (Score:3, Interesting)
Polaroid knew that once these new fangled instant cameras came out that everyone and their cousin would try and copy it. They would patent their initial design and would patent it and release it. They would continue to work on it but not update the cameras and a year before the old patent expires, they take out
Re:A parable about patents... (Score:2)
Great market position that.
Re:A parable about patents... (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:5, Informative)
I believe you'll find you're wrong on several points. Many patent applicants are "garage" inventors. Small businesses create 13-14 times as many patents per employee as large ones, and those patents are twice as likely to be cited in other patents. http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.html [sba.gov]
Further, garage inventors can afford the fees. The patent office has special reduced rates for qualifing small businesses. First, you don't need a lawyer -- the patent office does allow an inventor to represent himself. Representing yourself, the cost to patent can be under $2,000 (plus a signifigant outlay of time). Even with a lawyer, an average design patent will run you about $10,000. It's not cheap, but it's hardly the sole domain of large corporations as you suggest http://www.patentlessons.com/what%20patents%20cos
As for not being enforced, that's where the current system is very effective. Since the inventor doesn't have to sue everybody who violates his rights to mantain his patent, he can choose to only go after companies with enough money to make a prosecution profitable. The inventor doesn't have to burn money to mantain his patent against a small startup company that will simply declare bankrupcy if they lose the case.
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:3, Interesting)
Not at all, it's a corralary. The first example shows what could happen if an inventor were forced to defend every incurson. The second shows how by not haveing to defend every incursion the inventor can restrict his fights to
Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law (Score:2)
Exactly, they're corralaries for my point of view--either the patents are worthless because they can't be enforced against large corporations, or they're worthless because they can ONLY be enforced on large corporations.
In any
What's a University doing involved in this shit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sad, I guess Universities are just like any other for-profit corporation these days.
Re:What's a University doing involved in this shit (Score:3, Insightful)
For $565 million they would probably buy into all sorts of stuff.
Re:What's a University doing involved in this shit (Score:2)
Re:What's a University doing involved in... (Score:5, Informative)
It's not uncommon for universities to spin off for-profit companies for research done on their campuses or to license patents they are assigned.
Re:You mean... (Score:2)
Uh, yes.
The sad part is, you say that as though it's laughable that they wouldn't. Time was, Universities were about providing a forum for dissemination and creation of knowledge, not making money.
Wait a second (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait a second (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait a second (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, you can tell they don't like you either in the way they just snatch the money.
Re:Wait a second (Score:2)
Consistency (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, who are we supposed to root for?
I believe the key in this situation is remembering that your belief in a right is perhaps best shown in whether you are willing to afford that right to an enemy.
Is the right to develop software free from the unneeded burden and litigation threat of software patents important to us?
I believe it is, and as such I cannot fully get behind the offensive use of software patents, even against an enemy such as Microsoft.
- Neil Wehneman
P.S. Have you donated to the EFF recently? [eff.org]
Re:Consistency (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. But I'd drop the adjective 'fully': Neither Microsoft nor any other company is the enemy, except when they are actively promoting software patentability. Companies are amoral entities at best and we shouldn't expect them to behave with any measure of philanthropy or social responsibility - the most we can demand is that they act lawfully. The real enemies are the corrupt, incompetent or short-sighted politicians and legislators who make and administrate the laws that enable such companies to behave immorally and unethically, yet perfectly legally.
Re:Consistency (Score:2)
Is that right of me? No, I don't think it is, and hopefully in time I'll be able to suppress this dangerously passionate hatred of the company that I have.
Reason should prevail over emotion in an issue such as this. The trick is ensuring that happens.
- Neil Wehneman
Re:Consistency (Score:3, Interesting)
In case of software patents, it has nothing to do with corrupt politicians and legislators. Software patents were introduced in the US (and Europe for now) without any political interventions whatsoever. It's the Patent Offices that grant such patents, and the courts that consider them valid. W
Re:Consistency (Score:2)
I'm well aware of what is going on in some apparently mismanaged corporations but even so, they are only playing the game and their asking and arguing comes under promoting software patentab
Re:Consistency (Score:2)
Re:Consistency (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the last time I checked, there were a hell of a lot more lawyers in Congress tha
Re:Consistency (Score:2)
They did so after the fact. Have a look at this chapter [nap.edu] from the NRC book "The Digital Dilemma" (search for legislative branch).
Re:Consistency (Score:2)
MS is always promotting software patentability and the legal protection if "IP".
Who do you think are funding these laws? That is right, these big companies. Microsoft has dumped millions USD into the hands of the politicians. MS helped create this broken US legal
Re:Consistency (Score:2)
Re:Consistency (Score:2)
You should probably reword that sentence to read "corporations are amoral entities at best". Sole Proprietorships and regular partnerships, for example, are not separate from the owner in the same way that corporations are, and therefore are in fact as moral or immoral as their owners.
Re:Consistency (Score:2)
Re:Consistency (Score:5, Insightful)
Generally I would agree with you. Anyone defending themself in a software patent lawsuit deserves to win because software patents are evil. However, Microsoft is one of the major forces keeping the current patent regime in place. They are currently pushing for software patents all over the world.
I am starting to believe that the only way that the current software patent mess is ever going to be cleaned up is for large and prosperous corporations like Microsoft (and IBM) to realize that it is in their best interest to do away with software patents. If IBM and Microsoft came out against software patents then the laws that support them would change fairly quickly.
Groups like Eolas aren't the slightest bit interested in Free Software. They sued Microsoft because Microsoft has piles of money, and they aren't going to sue Mozilla because Mozilla has nothing. If Eolas scores a big payday then thousands of other small companies with nothing to their name but some patents and attack lawyers are also likely to join in the feeding frenzy, and eventually Microsoft will realize that software patents aren't in their best interest. The beauty of this business model is that you don't have to go through all the hard work of actually writing software. You just have to come up with an idea, patent it, and wait for someone to violate your patent. If companies like Eolas start winning lawsuits then Microsoft will almost certainly have a change of heart regarding software patents.
Microsoft is hard at work creating roadblocks for Free Software with their growing portfolio of software patents. If Microsoft can't be made to feel the heat from these intellectual property companies then very soon it might become impossible for Free Software developers to write software.
Mike Doyle, was Re:Consistency (Score:2)
1) Mike Doyle's father considered himself an inventor and had several patents. Doyle also considers himself an inventor. That's probably why, unlike many programmers, his first instinct when he thinks of a clever way to solve a programming problem is to
Re:Mike Doyle, was Re:Consistency (Score:2)
Your post was very interesting, thank you very much. However, it sums up in a nutshell what is wrong with software patents. There are only two cases where it makes sense to create software patents. The first case is the case of the huge and successful software business that creates patents to keep competitors from entering into their software markets. Microsoft, for example, is excited about software patents because they know that they can afford to file them, and their smaller competitors can't. Micro
I don't consider any company my "enemy" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Consistency (Score:2)
A sane expression of the protection of ideas rather than the current system.
"enemy such as Microsoft."
Jesus. Slashdot can be so damned blinkered at times it's daft. Is your hatred of a corporate entity down to their business, their ubiquity or simply their alignment against der widdle penguin?
Good to hear (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good to hear (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Good to hear (Score:2)
In a hugely energetic explosion that is fatal to all caught within the blast?
Yeah, sounds like an apt analogy.
Re:Good to hear (Score:2)
Microsoft knows about 'prior art'.. (Score:2, Funny)
I am scared (Score:5, Insightful)
On the second front, Microsoft's allies in the software industry last fall persuaded the Patent Office to initiate a re-examination of the patent on the grounds that it was awarded improperly.
It's not that USTPO has realized that it has been granting bogus software patents, nor does it plan to change its attitude toward them.
After all, we all know that Microsoft is right now a big patent filler and that USTPO is paid by patent aplication.
Re:I am scared (Score:2)
This will further raise the cost of patents ensuring that only large firms will be able to afford to file them. You don't need a lawyer to file a patent but if you don't have one you have to bear all the responsibility, but hiring a lawyer to help you file a patent will cost a lot more and it will come out to the same thing - either way the people filing the patents have to pay for it.
Instead, we should make it easier to strike down patents.
This one is really odd (Score:5, Insightful)
Puzzling.
sPh
Re:This one is really odd (Score:2, Insightful)
What makes you think (besides slashdot groupthink) that filing patent lawsuits is any part of their business strategy?
Mixed Emotions (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mixed Emotions (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Mixed Emotions (Score:2)
Sue the USPTO if MS wins (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sue the USPTO if MS wins (Score:2)
Even if it worked it would take ten years to get the USPTO changed. How much more damage would they do in that time?
Re:Sue the USPTO if MS wins (Score:2)
Sadly, you cannot sue the federal government unless granted special dispensation to do so....such dispensation is available only from the federal government itself. strange but true.
Re:Sue the USPTO if MS wins (Score:2)
It's called "sovereign immunity" [lectlaw.com]. The Federal Tort Claims Act [lectlaw.com] makes allowances for suits based on federal employee negligence, but I doubt any federal court would consider anything the USPTO does negligent enough to qualify as a valid FTCA suit.
here's hoping... (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft: This patent is invalid.
UC: No it's not.
Patent Office: We agree with microsoft, it is invalid.
UC: They said our patent's invalid, fix it.
Microsoft: It is invalid.
Board of Patent Appeals: We agree with microsoft, it is invalid.
UC: They said our patent's invalid, fix it.
Microsoft: It is invalid.
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals: We agree with microsoft, it is invalid. Further more, it seems the USPTO really needs an overhaul in regards to software patenting to stop this happening again. I recomend an inquiry into USPTO and software patents.
Microsoft: doh
now that's a new one (Score:3, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Roil (Score:2, Informative)
adj : (of especially liquids) clouded as with sediment; "a cloudy liquid"; "muddy coffee"; "murky waters" [syn: cloudy, muddy, mirky, murky]
Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters.. (Score:5, Funny)
I think.
Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters.. (Score:2)
Yes, but Microsoft is one of the reasons why the current patent regime exists. In fact, Microsoft is hard at work trying to spread the U.S. patent system over the rest of the planet. The reason that Microsoft wants to spread the patent regime around the planet is because they want to raise the price of developing software. Microsoft is tired of competing against every small-time developer with an idea and a PC, and so they are using patents to guarantee that only large corporations with hordes of patent
Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters.. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters.. (Score:3, Insightful)
That will hopefully change in the future (I'm a long-term Netscape/Mozilla user, I've never used IE out of choice), but right now it's the reality. If you're creating a website for public use, you code to Mozilla/Opera/etc *and* IE, or to IE *only*. Even for private intra/extranet use, you at least code to IE as well, o
Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters.. (Score:2)
Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters.. (Score:2)
Re:Yay (Score:5, Funny)
The enemy of my enemy . . . is still my enemy but I'd rather they get shot at instead of us.
Re:Yay (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay (Score:5, Funny)
...and I was out-of-state (Score:2)
What the hell are you talking about? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Eolas patent they they have been sued over, and are attempting to have overturned on Prior Art grounds, claims to hold an exclusive patent on plug-in technology.
If Microsoft wins, they will have succeeded in getting a patent covering this method of plug-in interaction overturned.
Re:Power Play (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Power Play (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Power Play (Score:5, Informative)
by GoldenWolf (767107) on Wednesday August 18, @10:26PM (#10008809)
Yet another power play from Microsoft, once again aimed at the world in general. If this case goes through, it will add yet more lock-in to Microsoft's already locked in platform, while hurting the world in general. Does this mean we can no longer view Flash content from Linux or OS X?
Furthermore, most ad-blocking software is based on some sort of internet plugin. So does this mean that we have to get bombarded with popup ads just because we don't run IE?
Does this mean we have to pay some huge licensing fee to create a plugin for a browser -- or worse, have to pay a huge fee and have to use Microsoft's development software to create a browser plugin?
This could be the end of the 'Web as we know it. Internet Explorer and Windows country from here on, folks
This is what they call a severe case of RTFA. With a little of RTFT (Read the fucking Title) on top. There might even be some IST (Intentionally Stupid Trolling), but I think the chance is small.
Re:Totally OT: Time to hire a technical writer (Score:2)
There's really no problems in that article. Maybe you should hire a technical reader.