Slashdot Mirror

I don't know if it ever made it to the market, but a wristwatch powered by temperature variations of the air would be really cool. (Its inventor, Steven Phillips, died in March, 2004, and I can no longer find his shop, the Budapest Watch Company of Guilford, Connecticut, on the web.)

Patent: 5,579,517
Title: Common name space for long and short filenames
Filed: 24 April 1995

An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.

Patent: 5,758,352
Title: Common name space for long and short filenames
Filed: 5 September 1996

An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.

Patent: 6,286,013
Title: Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system
Filed: 28 January 1997

An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.

Patent: 5,579,517
Title: Common name space for long and short filenames
Filed: 24 April 1995

An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.

Patent: 5,758,352
Title: Common name space for long and short filenames
Filed: 5 September 1996

An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.

Patent: 6,286,013
Title: Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system
Filed: 28 January 1997

An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.

Patent: 5,579,517
Title: Common name space for long and short filenames
Filed: 24 April 1995

An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.

Patent: 5,758,352
Title: Common name space for long and short filenames
Filed: 5 September 1996

An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.

Patent: 6,286,013
Title: Method and system for providing a common name space for long and short file names in an operating system
Filed: 28 January 1997

An operating system provides a common name space for both long filenames and short filenames. In this common namespace, a long filename and a short filename are provided for each file. Each file has a short filename directory entry and may have at least one long filename directory entry associated with it. The number of long filename directory entries that are associated with a file depends on the number of characters in the long filename of the file. The long filename directory entries are configured to minimize compatibility problems with existing installed program bases.

The NES "lockout chip"

Patent 1

Patent 2
Disabling the chip

The NES "lockout chip"

Patent 1

Patent 2
Disabling the chip

It was patented in 1999 (the keyboard idea). here.

These people have set up the experiments so that their claims will either be supported by facts or not.

A quick search on the Net shows that the experiments themselves may not have been set up correctly, that the experimenters choose their data to fit the facts, seem to skew results, have a patent that presupposes their results and that plenty of bona fide quacks treat this as "truth" which always gets skeptics (like me, who do not take such publicity at face value) jumping all over gullible posters.

You objection seems to be that such a system is obvious. I wholeheartedly agree with you there. There are rules against patenting the obvious, and things like this seem to be slipping through. However, then you say:

Software patents are just pathetic.

It's not clear how the former justifies the latter statement. The patent on 1-Click appears to violate the existing rules for patents on obviousness. There are also plenty of non-software patents that violate such rules (playing with a cat using a laser pointer, the combover, etc.). So how does any of this show that software patents in particular are pathetic? Or was it a non-sequitor?

Examples of where "software" patents have been, or can be, harmful is not an argument that they are inherently bad. There are also bad "device" patents even outside software, such as the combover and using a laser pointer to play with a cat. It also doesn't show that all software patents are harmful.

The harm caused by some software patents isn't because algorithms and methods are patentable, it's because simple obvious ones are being approved as valid patents. Think about it. If the algorithm is not trivial or simple, nobody would come up with it by chance anyway and so it isn't stopping them from doing anything. For example, there are a multitude of machine vision algorithms such as facial recognition or object recognition. You can't accidently stumble on the same approach, they are complicated an non-obvious. Patenting these harms nobody. If they weren't patentable, many of these intelligent algorithms would not get published and would be kept secret, so we'd never learn how they worked and couldn't improve from them. Conversely, as in the typical examples given, if someone can inadvertantly implement a patented algorithm, it must be somewhat obvious to people in the industry (and hence shouldn't be patentable).

As far as the "it's just math" argument, I go back again to machine vision. Yes, it can be written as math. But we're not talking about fundamental math derivable from first principles, we're talking about procedures that involve math as a basic building block. This is akin to developing physical devices in which physical laws are the basic building blocks. Often a physical design is optimized by math, the same as an algorithm.

In short, so far the arguments against software patents in general don't hold water. Yes, there absolutely has to be patent reform, but that includes all forms of patents. But that doesn't mean that one has to throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are non-harmful algorithms (and I would argue these are the majority of algorithms) and it is in the public's interest to provide some protection to the inventor, otherwise these algorithms will be kept secret.

With such an obviously invalid patent, the case is so ridiculously clean cut it will never ever stand up in court

and

I mean, the patent office is not perfect as the people inside are not perfect.

You seem to recognize that the ideology of a perfect patent system isn't realistic, but you claim this isn't a problem because of your ideological belief in the court system. There are several flaws with your claims.

First, civil courts rarely just "throw things out". Usually they'll hear the whole case before deciding on whether or not it has merit. In civil cases this often takes years and costs millions.

Second, even when courts throw things out it is usually after Discovery in which the parties exchange all of their evidence. Discovery is expensive and can take years as well. Just witness SCO vs IBM. SCO doesn't a lick of evidence against IBM for the claims they are making and yet they are still at it.

Third, courts generally only throw things out when they see them as frivalous, completely without merit. In a patent case, the plaintiff here (e.g., Sun or Microsoft) would have a valid patent (in the eyes of the law) and the defendant would have clearly violated that patent. Such a case would not be frivalous. The defense would challenge the validity of the patent which would probably require expert testimony, which would generally be entered into cout during the case, well after Discovery. (Expert analysis also comes at a cost.)

Fourth, even if the case would be thrown out, and I doubt it given the points above, if the defending company is small they will often cave to legal pressure of the larger plaintiff company simply because of the financial risk. For example, you should read Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig where he provides explicit examples of the de facto removal of fair use rights because the "little guy" can't risk a copyright lawsuit when a large corporation threatens him. The same is true for patent lawsuits.

Fifth, if the offending (defending?) company is a corporation controlled by investors, it will often be forced to cave because the lawsuit and risk will often drop the share values, especially when investors see that the company is violating a legally valid patent.

In short, it is quite naive to think that an obviously invalid, yet granted, patent is nothing to worry about. It does have a chilling effect on innovation and implementation of the process.

I also disagree on several other points, such as that "software patents" should be abolished. (I know, heresy on Slashdot.) There really is not such thing as "software patents", they are patents on methods (algorithms) that can be implemented in software. Yes, there's an explosion of such patents that are invalid and harmful, but the same is true of patents in general. For example, someone patented "playing with a cat using a laser pointer and the combover. But that doesn't mean there are ingenious or innovative algorithms that wouldn't exist without the protection of patents. The double-click patent fails the obviousness test (and in the case of Microsoft, the prior art test). But what about some ingenious facial recognition algorithm, for example. There can easily be as much innovation and ingenuity in that as any mechani

Magnetic Ring, Chiu 5,989,178

November 23, 1999

A magnetic ring adapted to be worn on the little finger of the hand. The magnetic ring includes a ring and a pair of permanent magnets that extend from the ring. When the magnetic ring is worn on the little finger of the right hand, the pair of permanent magnets are oriented on the top and bottom, respectively, of the little finger, with the South pole of the magnet that is oriented on the top of the little finger generally contacting the top of the little finger, with the North pole of the magnet that is oriented on the top of the little finger in opposition thereto, with the North pole of the magnet that is oriented on the bottom of the little finger generally contacting the bottom of the little finger, and with the South pole of the magnet that is oriented on the bottom of the little finger in opposition thereto. When the magnetic ring is worn on the little finger of the left hand, the position of the polarities of the pair of permanent magnets are reversed from that of the right hand. The magnetic ring can also be made to fit around all the fingers of the hand and all the toes of the foot.

My pet peeve patent is 6,137,498 on PhotoMosaics. The first few claims are neither non-obvious nor novel. People were doing claims 1 and 2 in early 1994, over three years before the file date (the code uses a lookup table to build the output, but the generation of the lookup table uses the technique claimed in 1 and 2). Claims 3 and beyond they can keep, as they're all either naive or over-specified and easily avoidable.

Also, claim 1 is a bit ambiguous. Does "distinct" mean "unique" or "disjoint"? Yes, this matters.

Take for example IBM. They have patented everything related to object oriented operating systems under their Taligent/San Francisco project.

They could sue Sun (J2EE) or Microsoft (.NET), and just anybody using things like Object-oriented window area display system, pat. no. 6,750,858, Object-oriented event notification system with listener registration of both interests and methods, pat. no. 6,424,354 or Distributed object networking service, pat. no. 6,223,217, just to name a few.

Crazy. We have to figure out a better patent system which stills protect intelectual property but also protects us from this nonsense.

At first, erroneously, I thought the parent meant revealing the patent. As patents are public domain, I found the following: one on pagerank and a second.

Then I realized he meant that the patent rights should be released. I think for that, as nice as Google is on some points, we'll have to wait till 2021 when these patents begin to expire.

At first, erroneously, I thought the parent meant revealing the patent. As patents are public domain, I found the following: one on pagerank and a second.

Then I realized he meant that the patent rights should be released. I think for that, as nice as Google is on some points, we'll have to wait till 2021 when these patents begin to expire.

I remembered about something like that advertised a few years ago. After a couple Google searchs, I found it again: HSV Technologies Inc. - looks like the site is no longer updated... Just wonder if they are still working at it. They even claimed a US Patent as early as 1997!

Someone should tell Amazon! about this!

• 1
• 2
• 3

• 1
• 2
• 3

• 1
• 2
• 3

I would like to see a patent license in addition to coverage of the actual source under copyright and an existing open source license.

If the patent isn't necessary, why has Red Hat done it? Also, the Eolas browser plug-in patent was issued Nov. 17, 1998; I'm quite sure Microsoft had implemented IE before then, yet Eolas still won at least the first round of battle. (See also news.com reporting on the issue.)

Finally, you're saying that defending a patent infringement lawsuit is cheaper than filing a patent? I still find that hard to believe.

Here's a quote:
When a patent is first filed, the key hurdles are novelty and obviousness; i.e., does this idea really represent something new, and is it informed by a particular creativity? Eighty percent of patent applications are rejected for failing to meet those first hurdles.

Someone please tell the writer about some of the "novel" patents issued by the USPTO.

I think you're basically right. The Patent Office has whole art units who examine secret applications. It has been a while since I worked at the PTO, but from what I remember, they examine a case for as long as they can in secret and then stop. I think this would be up to allowance and just before issue, the issuance of the patent waiting for the classified status to be lifted. As I recall, allowed applications are classified for 1 year at a time, and this status can be renewed indefinitely.

There was an amazing case some 4 years ago, probably. It was likely discussed on /. as well. It was a guy's patent which finally had been made public - some 65 years later.

Just found the patents (there are two). The inventor was William Friedman. His patent Cryptographs was filed in 1936 and issued in 2000. His patent Cryptographic system was filed in 1933 and issued in 2000.

On the other hand, the government sometimes screws up, it seems. Around 1965 or so, IIRC, the CIA was developing a dart gun. The 'bullet' was a needle-shaped item made from powderized metals held together with a water soluable bonding agent and was also impregnated with poison. It was made with a center of gravity off to one end so that it flew stably without needing to spin. When it entered a person, the 'bullet' dissolved, leaving little or no evidence and the person died of the poison. For some reason, the CIA filed for a patent on the gun, and it issued. From an article I once read, the CIA was a bit worried over the potential exposure.

Applications filed with the PTO are subject to being classified for security purposes. However, this has been successfully fought in court in some cases, though. I recall that a man succeeded in this for an invention which I believe enabled communication by modulating phase angles.

I think you're basically right. The Patent Office has whole art units who examine secret applications. It has been a while since I worked at the PTO, but from what I remember, they examine a case for as long as they can in secret and then stop. I think this would be up to allowance and just before issue, the issuance of the patent waiting for the classified status to be lifted. As I recall, allowed applications are classified for 1 year at a time, and this status can be renewed indefinitely.

There was an amazing case some 4 years ago, probably. It was likely discussed on /. as well. It was a guy's patent which finally had been made public - some 65 years later.

Just found the patents (there are two). The inventor was William Friedman. His patent Cryptographs was filed in 1936 and issued in 2000. His patent Cryptographic system was filed in 1933 and issued in 2000.

On the other hand, the government sometimes screws up, it seems. Around 1965 or so, IIRC, the CIA was developing a dart gun. The 'bullet' was a needle-shaped item made from powderized metals held together with a water soluable bonding agent and was also impregnated with poison. It was made with a center of gravity off to one end so that it flew stably without needing to spin. When it entered a person, the 'bullet' dissolved, leaving little or no evidence and the person died of the poison. For some reason, the CIA filed for a patent on the gun, and it issued. From an article I once read, the CIA was a bit worried over the potential exposure.

Applications filed with the PTO are subject to being classified for security purposes. However, this has been successfully fought in court in some cases, though. I recall that a man succeeded in this for an invention which I believe enabled communication by modulating phase angles.

US Patent 5838906

"But the key thing is that Netscape's error reporting only occurred in the case of a fatal crash, whereas Microsoft's patent covers non-fatal program failures as well."

*Lol* Urrgh!

Probably like EOLAS's time stamp patent, their key invention: The private key is deleted after submission. It's already granted in the USA.

So please support FFII.org, Europe is our last hope to get rid of a world wide trivial software patent regime.

Yeah, right. Ozzie's really anti-patent:

Method and apparatus for activity-based collaboration by a computer system equipped with a dynamics manager

and

Method and apparatus for establishing a protected channel between a user and a computer system

Yeah, right. Ozzie's really anti-patent:

Method and apparatus for activity-based collaboration by a computer system equipped with a dynamics manager

and

Method and apparatus for establishing a protected channel between a user and a computer system

Read the patent claims -- although it's obviously talking about a web browser, the words "web browser" or "(D)HTML" aren't mentioned. Instead it covers "distributed hypermedia ".

Notes actually is very similar to a HTML browser, except with RTF markup rather than HTML, and a RPC rather than HTTP. "Hypermedia" might not have been a hot word when Notes was written back in the 80s, but it certainly qualifies.

The patent will be more specific than that, and will typically cover one or more specific implementations.

What planet are you from? A patent covering "a specific implementation"? Whoever heard of such a thing!

If your attorney draws up a patent that's not vague enough to cover any competing products, it's time for a new attorney. Even I know to paste the magic boilerplate: "The specifications are to be considered as illustrations rather than restrictions, and alternative embodiments shall not be considered as outside present scope"

You almost sound like you expect the patent sytem to make sense!

(Seriously, read the patent itself. It is NOT more specific)

You're not wrong. I didn't intend the phrasing to imply that Opera is Open Source, just mentioned it as one of the possibly affected browsers. Actually all graphic browsers may be affected by this, since they all implement the allegedly infringing seamless execution of plugins behaviour.

You can take a look at the patent here.

If you look at claim 1 of the patent (5838906) , the key seems to be a combination of 4 things: a browser, hypermedia (text with "clickable" links), a client-server architecture over a network, and dowloadable program code, executed on the client, that communicates both with the browser and bi-directionally with the server. The Eolas technology page claims the first public demonstration in 1993. Was there anyone else who had all 4 components in one thing in 1993?

Michael D. Doyle was the guy who initiated this apparently for the purposes of remote medical imaging applications which is his field. Yes, there was a prototype, and yes the patent holder is indeed selling systems. He appears to be capitalizing on HIPAA right now as well by selling systems based on a patented trivial extension to public key cryptography. He also seems to be offering quite a few other services based on his website. Overall, he seems like a jackass to me.

Here is a link to the patent

Personally I think software patents are evil, as I'm sure many here do. Computer Science means learning from the work of others and advancing the field. Someone save us from the USPTO.

BTW, Does anyone know if Eolas got their $521 Million?

Some karma whoring links others might find interesting.

EOLAS SUES MICROSOFT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT...

The patent

I just had a look at Patent 5,845,265. The bit covering online auctions says:

At the auction date, perspective participants log onto the consignment node auction mode locally or through the consignment node network and await the first good to be auctioned. It is understood that in the best mode of the invention the participant will have a data terminal with a digital to analog converter such as a "sound blaster" and speaker, the digital to analog capability may be used in the auction mode to bring the aural excitement of an auction, e.g., the call of the heckler, the caller and bidders, home to the auction participant. This is discussed in more detail below.

The consignment node takes the first item to be auctioned and posts the image of the good and the good's text record to the participants. The consignment node then posts the opening bid. It is understood that the bid postings may be in a protocol that invokes the generation of an auctioneer's voice at the participant terminals. The participants may then respond with a higher bid. The consignment node mode scans electronically the participants for bids and accepts the highest bid. If bids are tied the consignment node may take the first highest bid by the participants log on order. A particular bidding participant receives a special acknowledgment from the consignment node that her bid was accepted. The consignment node then posts the higher bid to all the electronic auction participants. The consignment node repeats this process until no higher bid is received for a predetermined amount of time and closes the auctioning of that particular good.

Doesn't sound anything like Ebay to me. If the patent is meant to cover every single conveivable form of "competerized auction house" why don't they just say so? If they were really honest they could say "Joe bloggs has thought of something to do with auctions and computers. He isn't going to do anything with it, but has provided enough techno-babble to convince non-technical people that he could do something with it. Therefore, if anyone else tries to do something remotely similar they must give him money."

While as an examiner, I reviewed a patent application on a similar idea. As I recall, there was a fair amount of prior art on the subject. It probably never issued as a patent.

Another examiner I knew issued this: Shapira - Introduction system for locating compatible persons. In trying to find that patent, I just ran across this which is kindof funny: Wertheim - Method for requesting a date with a driver of a vehicle spotted, via the license plate number of the vehicle.

While as an examiner, I reviewed a patent application on a similar idea. As I recall, there was a fair amount of prior art on the subject. It probably never issued as a patent.

Another examiner I knew issued this: Shapira - Introduction system for locating compatible persons. In trying to find that patent, I just ran across this which is kindof funny: Wertheim - Method for requesting a date with a driver of a vehicle spotted, via the license plate number of the vehicle.

Can you, in lets say a day, read and understand any given patent (in your field of expertise) and all of its references, search for prior art (which you can prove was created before the application date and is significantly in common with the patent idea to classify as prior art), and prove to a quality acceptable in a court of law that the patent's idea is not original?

I just had a look at Patent 5,845,265. The bit covering online auctions says

At the auction date, perspective participants log onto the consignment node auction mode locally or through the consignment node network and await the first good to be auctioned. It is understood that in the best mode of the invention the participant will have a data terminal with a digital to analog converter such as a "sound blaster" and speaker, the digital to analog capability may be used in the auction mode to bring the aural excitement of an auction, e.g., the call of the heckler, the caller and bidders, home to the auction participant. This is discussed in more detail below.

The consignment node takes the first item to be auctioned and posts the image of the good and the good's text record to the participants. The consignment node then posts the opening bid. It is understood that the bid postings may be in a protocol that invokes the generation of an auctioneer's voice at the participant terminals. The participants may then respond with a higher bid. The consignment node mode scans electronically the participants for bids and accepts the highest bid. If bids are tied the consignment node may take the first highest bid by the participants log on order. A particular bidding participant receives a special acknowledgment from the consignment node that her bid was accepted. The consignment node then posts the higher bid to all the electronic auction participants. The consignment node repeats this process until no higher bid is received for a predetermined amount of time and closes the auctioning of that particular good.

Doesn't sound anything like Ebay to me. If the patent is meant to cover every single conveivable form of "competerized auction house" why don't they just say so? If they were really honest they could say "Joe bloggs has thought of something to do with auctions and computers. He isn't going to do anything with it, but has provided enough techno-babble to convince non-technical people that he could do something with it. Therefore, if anyone else tries to do something remotely similar they must give him money."

i guess to your defense you could argue that /. doesn't actually link to the patent. however, you really should know better than think the /. posting perfectly describes the patent.

anyway, the abstract is obviously not the actual patent, just a quick overview of it. what actually was patented was more a way on how to manage a action site. its stuff like having bar codes at the product your storing, and being able get pictures and a description of it. true, still seems completly obvious, but not quite as bad. then again, if you read the whole patent, you'll also notice that it isn't just for the internet.

You can see his patents relating to ultrasonic speakers here

Because they dismissed this product as more of the same before actually evaluating it does not make it snake oil.

It is the tone of the marketing, combined with the reality of the product that earns it the "Snake Oil" label

If you look at the abstract of their patent you see that the foundation of their math games is a one time pad

4 ... specifying a computer file of arbitrary size commonly available to both the first user and the second user.

They use a "Specific Transaction Key" to scramble the common key to "reduce the insecurities" of reusing the one time pad.

The program posted on sci.crypt negates both the "Targeted Delivery System" and the "Date Limiting Algorithm".

sanjayahuja - 02:39pm Mar 30, 2002 EST (#755 of 762)

It's exactly the sort of thing Microsoft tries to set up

AFAIK, MSFT is not too aggressive about pursuing patent violations. In as much polls, seem to be under discussion, MSFT owns the patent on web polls. See US patent below:

MSFT's web poll patent

They would be well within their rights in demanding that george pay them a royalty for the polls he ruins, or in the alternative shut him down. Teeheehee!

yuk. i mean yikes

This company actually seems to be developing the very technology, or very similar, in the patent posted in the story. At This page on the Lumeloid website, they list the technology coming from Alvin Marks, the same person listed in the patent.

In the patent claim

1. A self winding timepiece which includes a casing, a movement, a main spring for driving said movement and a winding mechanism for said main spring in said casing, an energy source for driving said winding mechanism which comprises an element subject to angular deflection in response to changes in temperature and means coupled to said element for converting angular deflection of said element to motion for driving said winding mechanism. ...more weired English to go...

I cannot understand this claim...

The Washington Post is reporting on an apparently credible project to create a simple life form in a petri dish. The goal is two-fold: 1) to actually create a unique life form essentially from scratch and (more importantly) 2) to extensively analyze and model the entire biology of this critter.

Just great - I wonder how long it will be before this:

3) Patent the life form

If corporations can apply for and get patents on human genes (in stark denial of a few million years worth of prior art), why wouldn't the patent office grant this one. Harvard has already got a patent on a mouse after all...

Oops! I almost forgot the obligatory reference:

4) ???
5) Profit

From the patent office's link to the patent the assignee is "The Regents of the University of California (Oakland, CA)".

Hmmm... They say in their about page that they were spun off of the university, but it doesn't look like they officially changed ownership of the patent.

I can't see the University of California turning down a $1 billion dollar donation any more than Sun would.

Assuming this research outfit has unrestricted ownership of the patent, I think they would have a hard time turning down a number that had as many zeros in it as a billion. Then where would we be? Microsoft would have a more difficult time exploiting a purchase of this patent because of their obvious monopoly problems, but there are a couple of things they could probably do to attack open source software.

Lets say that Microsoft purchases this patent and agrees to license this "fairly" to all comers as long as all users respect their digital rights management initiatives or place some other speed bump to open source browsers or browsers on open source platforms.

Eolas's thought exercise of not allowing IE to use their "technology" is probably just posturing for a better settlement and the judgment will come down to money in the end... Something that Microsoft has plenty of.

The best case could be that the patent is overturned and drops into the public domain. Then there will not be a private interest that would control what is becoming an important part of the browser experience.

Reminds me of a lame patent claim, 4,387,297 in which Symbol Technologies claimed a trigger that activated a laser.

They patented a switch to turn on an electrical device.

Good thing the patent expires next year so that Logitech won't get sued...