Microsoft Nailed by Software Patent

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."

Comments

It's amazing..

[Plix]

A little patent-portfolio company did in one suit what the Fed couldn't in 5 years.

Re:It's amazing..

[dago]

you mean get rich and retire ?

Re:It's amazing..

[realdpk]

Which of the Fed's patents did Microsoft violate, exactly? I was under the impression it was an anti-trust case.

Re:It's amazing..

[ar32h]

Eolas is not a patent profolio company by a long shot, they are a pure R&D company.
You can see some of the things thay have patented here.
I seem to recall a article 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.

Re:It's amazing..

[Anonymous Coward]

Eolas isn't doing that to ward off IE. Doyle has a history of claiming title to things he didn't invent, and this is one of them.

They haven't gone after Sun or Mozilla.....yet. You can bet they will.

Re:It's amazing..

[Malcontent]

What is interesting to me is that MS already settled with AOL for over 700 million for what they did to netscape. If this verdict stands (and god knows MS can drag it out forever and has friends in very high places) it will have cost MS over a billion dollars to gain dominance over the web.

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.

Re:It's amazing..

[rsborg]

He means f*ck them up the ass in a court of law, not the other way around. His whole point had nothing to do with patent law. You are truly obtuse.

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:It's amazing..

[danheskett]

Don't forget, GWBush campaigned on the promise of ending the MS trial as soon as possible.

Suprisingly, a politican followed through.

Re:It's amazing..

[kcbrown]

Eolas is not a patent profolio company by a long shot, they are a pure R&D company.

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..

[Feztaa]

Hello? This is Microsoft we're talking about. $500 million dollars is pocket change. If Billy happened to find $500 million dollars lying on the ground, he probably wouldn't bother to pick it up.

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..

[EJB]

I believe they claimed Microsoft violated US patents # 000.000,000,001 (the '1 patent) and # 000,000,000,002 (the '2 patent).

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..

[BobTheLawyer]

this is a very odd view of patent law. By far the most common way to defend against a patent infringement action is to claim that the patent is invalid, e.g. because there is prior art or because it is insufficiently novel.

Re:It's amazing..

[spongman]

Isn't the federal government supposed to own exclusive rights to be an oversized behemoth that takes everyone's money and does nothing of any use to anybody?

Re:It's amazing..

[Halo1]

Certainly free software was reasonably safe from such suits because there would be no money to be had from such a suit.

And now that big companies like IBM and Red Hat are playing the Free software game, that will probably change soon enough.

Re:It's amazing..

[Ilmari]

First: If you don't enforce a patent, you lose it. If they get through with MSFT, they have to go after all other browsers.

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..

[file-exists-p]

There is no hope to get from a verdict stating that one can patent technology for "plug-ins" and "applets". Every single case like this is one more argument to be used by the bad guys in the future. This is on more sad day in the infamous world of IP.

Re:It's amazing..

[Halo1]

A cross licensing deal is often much cheaper than going to court to try to invalidate a patent, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is often tried before deciding to invalidate a patent. Of course, I'm not a lawyer, but these people are and they advise more or less the same if it's a viable option in the light of the litigated company's strategy (i.e., if they're mainly interested in being able to continue their business).

Re:It's amazing..

[RajivSLK]

It's not an odd view at all. It's reality. I know on slashdot everyone pulls prior out of their ass but that's not how things happen in real life.

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 has a considerable number of patents; all of them used for defensive (i.e. Cross licensing) purposes.

Re:It's amazing..

[Alan Cox]

I disagree. The usual way to respond to a patent suit is to contersue. Its more like nuclear wargaming than law (and indeed an all out software patent war in the USA would do the same to the economy as a nuclear war)

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..

[aggieben]

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.

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..

[WWWWolf]

The '1 patents lays out a "way to rule a country comprised of dozens of states"

...with a system consisting of traction wheels...

and the '2 patent describes the taxation of citizens of a huge country.

...using a wool manufacturing widget (which probably implies the citizens are Sheep who are to be sheared for taxation).

Don't blame me, this is what the USPTO patent search says =)

Re:It's amazing..

[md65536]

Don't be retarded. Bill would pick up a single dollar if he happened to find it on the ground. If he didn't, someone else might get it.

MS isn't the victim of anything in this case. They made a ton of cash on other peoples' work, why stand up for them when they have to give some of it away?

Re:Another Reason?

[weeeee]

Don't almost all browsers use plug-ins? This could be bad for Mozilla as well.

Great!

[freeze128]

This means there will probably just be another IE service pack that breaks more web pages....

Re:Great!

[Mr. Troll]

Yeah, just some other no name company sitting on a patent waiting for someone to do something with it......then skimming profits.....this is the kind of things that killlllls delelopment

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:Great!

[EzInKy]

sorry, a little off topic, but i think it fits with the above mentioned problem with the web today, plus, it's fresh in my mind, cause i'm dealing w/ a PITA type of guy right now.

Tell you what...why don't you offer the "PITA" a deal? You give up claim to all the "IP"" you own, and he gives up claim to all the "IP" he owns?

So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[pr0ntab]

I don't think so. Have you seen the invocation of some embedded applets in IE? Nothing like Netscape.

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

[shird]

If you have a read of the patent, youll agree it is one of those broad catch all going to try milk this later type of patents.... I also think that if they could get money out of MS, then Netscape, shockwave, ICQ, and many others are all to come.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[Greeneland]

There is an interesting paragraph in the cnet article about this case, pasted below: Additionally, the judge in the district court case will hear evidence in the coming weeks on a counterclaim from Microsoft. The software giant said that Eolas' patents are invalid and that an inventor name Pei Wei, who worked at O'Reilly and Associates, came up with similar technology, but at an earlier time. A Microsoft representative said that Eolas knew of his work, which makes their lawsuit inequitable. A quick google groups search shows a number of interesting posts involving Pei Wei.. such as http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Pei+Wei&hl=en&lr =&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=r&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12 &as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=11&as_maxm=8&as_ma xy=1994&selm=93020.102722RBNTJC%40rohvm1.rohmhaas. com&rnum=5

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[Greeneland]

Take a look at this PRIOR ART Here on google

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[mrseigen]

This is definitely one of these patents invented by marketing/business weasels in order to try and grab as much revenue as possible.

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.

Re:So Eolas invented COM and ActiveX

[nalfeshnee]

Dudes, make the friggin link shorter, will ya?

http://www.makeashorterlink.com

Thanx,

Nalfy

A Half Billion:

[Farley Mullet]

The dream of a lifetime for you and me, pretty near statistically insignificant for Microsoft.

Re: A Half Billion:

[Black Parrot]

> 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:

[graveyhead]

The dream of a lifetime for you and me, pretty near statistically insignificant for Microsoft.

Funny you should mention that, my mother-in-law is one of the 100 private Eolas investors :P

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:

[mpthompson]

Also, other makers of browsers and plug-ins may find themselves involved in litigation with Eolas very soon!

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:A Half Billion:

[AllUsernamesAreGone]

Hold on a minute - not only are you related to a shareholder of a company engaged in /. reader's 2nd most despised activity in the universe, you then come onto /., own up to that fact and then make thinly veiled threats about other browsers.

Either you have a death wish for your servers or you are monumentally short-sighted.

Im so confused!!!!!!

[slash-tard]

Microsoft = bad

Patents = bad

So is this good? Must be some sort of paradox if so...

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[mpthompson]

Microsoft = bad
Patents = bad

So is this good?

I forget where, but it has been said that two wrongs don't make a right, just even.

Re:Im so confused!!!!!!

[GreatOgre]

two wrongs don't make a right

No, but three rights make a left :)

Re:Another Reason?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Isn't this just one more reason to use MozillaFirebird?"

If I were looking to up my karma, then yes.

Re:Peanuts

[letxa2000]

That's half a billion dollars. I think Microsoft has, what, 40 billion? You can argue they still have 39.5, but losing about 1.3% of their reserves on a podunk little company with a silly 'ol lawsuit is still an important message.

Like someone else said, that's more than the Justice Department was able to do in 5 years.

hmmm

[Coneasfast]

Patents on the simple idea of plug-ins and applets? This seems almost as ridiculous as the amazon patent on one click purchasing.

Re:hmmm

[Thing 1]

The amazon one-click patent really bugged me. I mean, what is the least energy you can expend on purchasing something? Without the computer being able to read your mind, it's ... one click. It should be obvious to anyone who knows the subject area.

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...

Re:Let me save everyone some time...

[zinkem]

Microsoft supports patents, if they get bit in the ass by some patent laws why should anyone care? You reap what you sow :)

Hard to know what to feel.

[MikeFM]

I dislike Microsoft but I still don't see that this helps the development community or users at all. Software patents are stupid and a bad idea.. even when being used against that monopoly we love to hate. Anyone with an interest in the freedom of developers to develop what they want and the freedom of users to choose the best product for their needs can't see this as anything but a loss.

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[Manic Ken]

Hear hear!!
Second that! I listened to RMS in india (the recording, not me...but that would have been cool), and The Man is brilliant. It is also funny, especially the idiots that doesn't get it...lol, anyhow, here is a link I found with the speech in ogg.

Re:Hard to know what to feel.

[div_2n]

You could argue it a number of ways but consider drug companies. They make drugs and patent them so they can charge a huge fee to recover R&D costs and make a nice profit. This greatly encourages them to pour countless resources into development because they KNOW that if they make that super great drug (like Viagra) then they will make a killing. If you remove their patent protection that will NOT be the case since any company with reasonable resources could sit and wait for them to develop the compound and then reproduce it and sell it cheaper (no R&D, testing, etc).

Sure there would still be advancements in science/technology without patent protection. You can bet your life that certain sectors will be hit harder than others.

The resources required to spur development in different industries is not the same. The equipment required to produce new medicines is MUCH more expensive than the software industry with the exception of super computers.

The fact that the entry barrier is lower does not and should not mean that a crafty inventor of software should be treated differently than the crafty inventor of hardware.

I am not sure of the original purpose but I know one current benefit of patents. The little guy or company can enjoy protection from the big guy. I don't see how you can argue that idea as bad. Until you can make the food on my table free and the roof over my head free I will not work for free. Neither will those that their job is to develop new ideas and processes.

I wish you luck in your project :)

And in other news...

[Scalli0n]

From the article: "Eolas had argued that the technology for "plug-ins" and "applets" made it possible for Microsoft to compete against the Netscape Navigator browser."

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...

Re:Peanuts

[chunkwhite86]

Unfortunately that much money's a drop in the bucket for microsoft

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.

Categories for this article explained...

[pHatidic]

You may have noticed that this article seemingly falls into 7 different categories. Let me break them down for you so you can see for yourself how each one applies to this insightful article.

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...

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo: Overbroad Patents!
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!

Re:Whoa...

[kevinz]

Ummmmmm. No. Microsoft has lost a numeber of similiar suits. In the end it hasn't made any difference. Remember Stac and their disk compression software? Seems like someone called Spyglass also won a lawsuit alleging M$ infringement on their web tech. And of course there is always the DR Dos / Novell / Caldera suit that was settled last year. Microsoft loses all the time, but with multiple monopolies they can afford to lose from time to time. Half a billion. That's what, .5% of their current cash reserves (after they just paid out 10 Billion to stockholders)?

Extra links

[shird]

Some karma whoring links others might find interesting.

EOLAS SUES MICROSOFT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT...

The patent

Re:Sounds familiar

[Poofat]

Obviously, you were rejected because you rounded the 520.6 million down instead of up.

Before you start bitching about slashdot users...

[Dalroth]

Before you start bitching about Slashdot user's being hypocrites, keep in mind that Slashdot is a community filled with 1000's of a users who all have very different opinions on everything.

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

Bad precedent

[Eloquence]

Software patents being enforced are always a bad precedent, no matter against whom. Hopefully, big corporations will wake up to the patent scam, which primarily benefits lawyers and idea pirates. Innovation does not come from patents, according to Cisco's VP of "Intellectual Property". He stated in an interview:

Patents don't stimulate innovation, they capture and protect innovation. My experience at Cisco is that the ability to get patents is not what inspires new developments. Instead, competition has been the major stimulus of innovation at Cisco. Our engineering teams are motivated by the desire to quickly turn their ideas into products and services that customers want, solutions that will help our customers improve their productivity. They don't ask "can we patent this?" before deciding whether to create new solutions.

In order to "capture and protect" innovation, companies register more and more patents each year, 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

[servoled]

Congratulations on the best out of context quote I have seen today. Read the question right before it:

Why are patents important for continued innovation at Cisco?

Robert Barr: Cisco is recognized worldwide for helping create the Internet as it exists today and changing the way people communicate. There's no doubt that Cisco is a highly innovative company. By innovative, I mean that Cisco excels at transforming new ideas into services and products that customers need to improve the productivity of their businesses. Patents help protect the right to innovate at Cisco. By capturing and patenting new ideas that emerge, Cisco has more freedom to develop new technologies that can be transformed into value-added products for customers.

The reason that Cisco's engineering teams don't question whether or not something is patentable before researching it is because they aren't paid to do that, they are paid to do research. Cisco has a legal team which takes care of the wondering whether or not something can be patented.

About the free software/patent issue you said:

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.

There is plenty the free software community can do to protect themselves. All they have to do is publish their work before any of the "megacoporations" go out and file their patents. The problem is that as far as I have seen the free software community doesn't care much about actual innovation, all they want is a free version of the products that every other company sells. If the free software community would stop trying to copy everything that Apple/Microsoft/Sun and countless others have made they wouldn't have to worry about nearly as much about patents.

Re:Bad precedent

[Steeltoe]

There is plenty the free software community can do to protect themselves. All they have to do is publish their work before any of the "megacoporations" go out and file their patents. The problem is that as far as I have seen the free software community doesn't care much about actual innovation, all they want is a free version of the products that every other company sells. If the free software community would stop trying to copy everything that Apple/Microsoft/Sun and countless others have made they wouldn't have to worry about nearly as much about patents.

Yet, Apple/Microsoft/Sun has done excactly as the Free Software community - copied technology. If you understand programming economics, it's the most economical thing to do: Copy and Extend/Innovate. To build from scratch is very, very, Very hard. And alot of work on top of that. You should try it. People will hate your software because it is "unusual". Most projects fail horribly.. What one needs then is a very strong theoretical foundation, coupled together with commercial ingenuity and a bunch of luck. Frankly, very few on this planet have all that. Programming's still a very new technology, and hardly a science yet. To make it science, you need to share innovation - catch 22. You don't have proprietary bridges by corporation XXX YYY, you have standards and companies doing real service.

There is alot of innovation going on in Free Software/Open Source. You're just looking at all the big glossy projects, which have had some catching up to do. There are myriads of small projects. Some very innovative, others just another editor. It's the way inventing always has been, and it's vibrant community.

Anyways, innovation is in the human creativity. To argue about creativity-differences in commercial/Free Software is pointless. All creativity comes from humans, and we should do everything we can to stop big corporations to highjack that and take the fun out of life.

And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art?

[notAyank]

Can somebody explain this to me? How can this patent exist when in 1998 there were applets / plugins running inside Netscape Navigator doing all the things the patented method does:

1. They were embedded in the "hypermedia" document
2. They could communicate with the browser
3. They could communicate with the server (at least by using sockets and datagrams)
4. 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.

I'm Confused

[Drakonian]

Monday is Microsoft hating day. But Tuesday is patent-hating day. Well, since it was posted at 11:58 EST I guess I'll stick with Microsoft hating.

Stupid Microsoft! J00 G0+ 0W#3D! Thatt'll show you to write crappy code! Now you have to PAY. MUHAHAHAHAH.

$521 million? To MS?

[Tumbleweed]

Can you say, 'Rounding Error'?

I knew you could.

Link to patent

[dze]

Link to the actual patent.

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

[mao che minh]

$521,000,000 USD isn't much to Microsoft. They probably have 8 times this amount saved up for legal issues anyways. In the end, Microsoft is going to pull an IBM on this company and make them sorry for ever suing them. Whoever had the balls to do this to Microsoft probably won't be around much longer.

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.

Re:So

[prostoalex]

$521,000,000 USD isn't much to Microsoft. They probably have 8 times this amount saved up for legal issues anyways.

How about 100 times as much? Microsoft has near 50 billion of good ole cash in the bank.

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[j1mmy]

Your post is completely and utterly worthless. Mine is of similar caliber.

Re:And Java applets in Navigator are not prior art

[Chris Parrinello]

Umm... the patent was filed in 1994 before Mosaic or event Netscape had plugins?

Great News

[Henry V .009]

This is the best news that I've heard for a while.

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

[mOdQuArK!]

Because, my friends, Microsoft is now going to spends billions to kill the current patent system.

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

[bogie]

"Microsoft is now going to spends billions to kill the current patent system."

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

[dpille]

The patent in question is U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906, granted in 1998.

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.

Re:Peanuts

[TopShelf]

I'm assuming this is a troll, but I'll bite anyway - layoffs occur when structural changes are made to a business. Nobody sees a tangible difference in how Microsoft would do business as a result of this. They'll probably just tie this up in appeals for the next several years anyway, ensuring happy employment for lots of hard-working, blue collar lawyer types...

patent warchests

[mitomac]

IBM, Microsoft, Apple all have giant patent portfolios. When a small company like Eolas can nail microsoft for a patent violation it does not bode well for linux. If IBM can b*tch slap SCO with patent violations regarding hierarchial graphical menus. What is to stop them or any other patent hoarder from making the same claim against linux? Currently, these companies refrain from suing each other because they know the other company likely has patents they are violating...But what ace in the hole patents does linux have up its sleeve?

mitomac

Re:patent warchests

[BiggerIsBetter]

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 validated. If that's the way it goes, look out world because there's gonna be one huge bun fight with every opportunistic company pulling out their dodgy patent claims.

Well, then....

[SubjunctiveSam]

I don't know if this helps at all, but according to the transitive property of equality, that means we can conclude that Microsoft = Patents!

Think about that for a while.

Then, moderate this post up as insightful.

Re:Well, then....

[BobTheJanitor]

More accurately, microsoft is a subset of evil, and patents is a subset of evil. The most that can be said is "Because some evil is microsoft, and some evil is patents, some microsoft may be patents."

Isn't Free Software Vunerale as Well?

[femto]

What's to stop the company from going after Mozilla authors as well, or authors of any other free software program that uses plugins?

Also, from the article:

"We believe the evidence will ultimately show that there was no infringement of any kind, and that the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology."

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?

Re:Damnit!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not doing so well today are you?

What if this happened to Mozilla and friends?

[raw-sewage]

As much as I like to see Microsoft get slammed, it scares me to think what might happen if these patent-enforcement lawsuits were directed at the open source community. I didn't bother to actually research the details of that patent referenced in this case, but what if Mozilla or Konqueror or another open source browser infringes on the same patent?

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...

...because it blocks someone's right to profit. Not only can you not get anything for free in the U.S., but it's getting to the point where you can't give anything away!

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?

Re:What if this happened to Mozilla and friends?

[ciroknight]

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?

Truth be it told, $5 is better than $0. It's time Microsoft learned a lesson, but this is a crude and unusal way of getting a lesson across. Hopefully Eolas will be honest to it's intentions and not attack netscape/mozilla. They said in the article that they only sued Microsoft because of the way IE seemed to take over the internet, and I'm holding them to their word on this one. Eolas gives me no reason to believe they are bad people.. they are good people with good intentions.. but power corrupts, and I hope they don't get corrupted by the hordes of cash they just raked in...

I truthfully stand behind Eolas on this one, but I'm weary of the double edged sword they wield...

This is very very bad

[deanj]

I've been following the Eolas lawsuit for a long time now, and this is bad folks.

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

[Hatta]

This screws Flash, Java applets, and all kinds of other things.

Man, this rocks!

Re:Another Reason?

[child_of_mercy]

I'm sure you meant "IE is available free of charge".

No, but Viola probably is.

[chathamhouse]

In 1991, Pei Wei created Viola. It supported extensible plugins prior to 1994.

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.

[Waffle Iron]

The whole patent obviousness issue is in need of a serious overhaul. I've got a few patents courtesy of a big corporation I worked for many years ago. Every once and a while they would send patent attorneys to troll through the engineering groups looking for random things to patent. They would come in and tell us: "Don't worry if you think your ideas seem obvious. What's obvious to you isn't necessarily obvious to the patent examiner. The legal standards for 'obvious' are very low." From what I could tell, almost no idea was considered "obvious", and things have gotten much worse since then.

Here's what's obvious to me in this case: Assume you went back to 1994 and gathered up a random group of 50 competent software developers. Give them the problem of having a server present interactive content to users of hypertext clients. I guarantee that 80% of them would have independently come up with plug-in based architectures very similar to what we see in all browsers today.

We need some way to incorporate such common sense notions of obviousness into the patent screening process.

Re:Another Reason?

[cshark]

Right, but it would affect the mozilla foundation as well. Much as I hate Microsoft these days, this kind of broad patent is just stupid. This is also consecutive loss number two for microsoft this year. The first being the extremely broad data storage patent that applied to SQL server. Considering that Microsoft is one of the richest companies in the world, you would think they would have better legal defense. It almost seems like they can't win these days. I can't wait to see how the Xbox and Trusted Computing patent infringement case goes.

Re:Another Reason?

[deanj]

This is bad for anything that supports embedded applications. Flash. Java applets. Anything like that. That's what they got a patent on.

bummer

[sdibb]

In a statement, Microsoft said, "We believe the evidence will ultimately show that there was no infringement of any kind, and that the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology."

It's a shame they don't step up to the bat and actually speak out against stupid IP patents, and how they can be harmful to the developer's community. It would certainly look good for them, and if there's anyone who can sway opinion with the government, it's Microsoft.

This is no victory

[flacco]

It might be an annoyance to MS, but successful enforcement of software patents is, overall, a loss to Free/OSS.

Re:Another Reason?

[NanoGator]

"Isn't this just one more reason to use MozillaFirebird?"

If they violate the patent, then no.

Re:Another Reason?

[Rooked_One]

I plug my lamp into sockets... Is that considered a plug-in?

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.

Cringely mentioned this case about a year ago...

[puppet10]

In this article.

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

[gsfprez]

I don't care if its Microsoft, SCO, or Linus "Himself" - software patents are bad. Micro Soft is wrong in a great many things... but they should not have to defend themselves against "(obvious idea) over the internet" patents or any other silly patents. No one should.

like Dennis Miller said, "Why hate someone (for something irrelevant) when, if you take the time to get to know them ..., you can find so many other things to hate them for?"

be upset and angry at Microsoft for the things they do, not for those things that are not fair.

Umm...hang on a sec...

[deanj]

Did anyone else notice that Eolas did all this work in Mosaic, yet they're not listed on any licensee list for Spyglass or NCSA?

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.

One can only dream...

[kcbrown]

As far as I know, Microsoft hasn't ever actually started a patent infringement suit against anyone (examples to the contrary welcome, of course).

That being the case, and given the fact that they lost this lawsuit, there are a number of things that could happen:

1. Microsoft could just pay up and otherwise leave things alone, chalking this up to the cost of "doing business".
2. Microsoft could appeal this all the way to the Supreme Court.
3. Microsoft could push for some type of legislation to reduce the risk of a repeat performance.
4. Microsoft could buy the company that hit them with this suit, along with other similar companies, and then start suing others through their newly-acquired companies.

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...

Re:One can only dream...

[le duf]

If Microsoft appeals to the Supreme Court, they can only do so if they have some sort of Constitutional argument.

Uh, no. The Supremes can take any damn case they want (and it only takes four votes to do so). They get to decide what the "compelling reasons" are. Granted, most cases people know about (and that have a big impact) are constitutional in nature, but you can easily find examples of cases that are not, such as United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co.

Re:"Jury of their peers" is dead

[servoled]

1998 is the date that the patent was issued and has nothing to do with the date required for prior art. The patent was filed on October 17, 1994, this is the date that you have to consider when looking at prior art. Lets check the math:

1994 less than 1995 = TRUE

Looks like the Java applets don't count and the jury was in fact smarter than you, sorry.

So is this good, or...

[Trogre]

After thinking a bit, this has to be bad. Microsoft is being sued for infringing on a trivial patent that shoud never have been granted in the first place.

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.

Software patents are vile.

[Vicegrip]

Microsoft getting fined this way doesn't turn my crank at all. Also, I'm beginning to wonder why they allow jury trials for issues that are as technically complexe as this, nevermind allowing patents on processes and software in the first place...

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.

[MikeFM]

All data is software. An image file is nothing but a program that tells the computer how to order pixels in a defined size. Running a plugin or applet (which I mostly dislike) is no different than loading an image. It's all inline programs. The app loads the webpage inside itself, the webpage loads other apps inside itself, etc. *sighs* It semms to often most people don't recognize that all digitized data that follows a format is software.

Patents = Small developers locked out

[Cryptimus]

This is yet another victory for the software giants. Heck, even when Mickeysoft loses, it wins.

The problem with the patent office - as most readers will well know - is that they award software patents for methods that are intuitive, obvious (to practitioners of the art), a logical outgrowth of an existing system or something that clearly has prior art.

The effect of all this is that large entities with extensive patent portfolios cross-licence to avoid patent infringement.

What are small developers supposed to do?

Why, we're not supposed to play. Patents are the mechanism by which big business is locking out competition from smaller more nimble startups.

The US patent office is criminally liable for egregiously granting the most bizarre series of competition-stifling patents in history.

Would you like to put a cursor on your screen sir? Patented. Use hypertext links? Patented. Embed access to applications into your browser? Patented.

You think open source is safe? Think again. The list of absurd software patents is so extensive, it's impossible for anyone to develop anything of reasonable utility without infringing someone's patent somewhere.

The fact that there exist companies whose sole mode of business is to scan patents in other jurisdictions and then lodge those same patents in the US is testament to the sheer corruption of the system.

Where I come from we call that theft. Theft of intellectual property. The fact that this can be done in the USA is damning evidence that the Patent Office's intention is not to support the small inventor, but to aid US companies in claiming inventors rights for inventions which are clearly not theirs.

None of the large companies will ever fight this battle in court. They have two much to gain by locking out their smaller competition. Essentially the existing scheme of software patents provides a stunning barrier to entry whose sole purpose is to prevent upstarts from upsetting the main players.

Microsoft should wiggle out of this one...

[mpthompson]

"We believe the evidence will ultimately show that there was no infringement of any kind, and that the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology."

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...

[Greeneland]

This article at nytimes.com mentions that microsoft tried to argue that there was prior art, but the judge ruled the jury could not consider it in determining if microsoft violated the patent...

how rediculous.

Re:Before you start bitching about slashdot users.

[stickb0y]

I do not support this ruling, because I do not support patents in any way shape or form.

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.

Let me just make sure I've got all the rules...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Patents are bad
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...

[euxneks]

What's that money to them... Bill Gate's Pocket Cash?

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

[b17bmbr]

30 minutes interest on gates' portfolio?

Amazing grace indeed..

[Steeltoe]

IT DOESN'T MATTER what their "intentions" are.. This case clearly shows how silly software patent-laws are. With guns and sanctions they dictate who can use what technology, because someone were "first". Come on! Most of us stopped such silliness in the kindergarden.

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..

[Alsee]

Ironic is aready an adjective: there is no need to add -al to it.

He was just trying to adjectival it.

-

Re:Amazing grace indeed..

[Deven]

With guns and sanctions they dictate who can use what technology, because someone were "first". Come on! Most of us stopped such silliness in the kindergarden.

We need educational reform to stem the rampant use of guns and sanctions in kindergarten!

MBA on Microsoft

[mbakaitis]

Having read Slashdot for awhile, and having an MBA in my back pocket, I thought it might be good to point out a few things from a strictly-business point-of-view. (This obviously doesn't invalidate anybody's personal opinion...but it may be considered as an extra data point.)

1. $500+ million is a huge amount of money. People who talk about how this is some "percentage" of Microsoft's quarterly revenues, income, or "war chest" just don't get it. In the end, successful corporations are such because:
   • Making $1 is good.
   • Making more is better.
   • Losing $1 or more is bad.
   Period.
2. Software companies like patents because for two reasons. First, they make it harder for new entrants to threaten them. Second, it protects a position based upon functionality (in many cases) rather than pure technical merit. In each case, it protects a company against its (up-to-now) worst enemies -- other companies.
3. Microsoft would amaze me if they decided to try to weaken patents. Doing so would weaken the vast portfolio of patents they have created or purchased. It would also weaken their ability to use these things, like a club (see #2), against competitors in the future.

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

[Tingler]

Think like that, and you'll practically be in Bill's head.

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

Now I understand why they did pay SCO

[livingboy]

There was no conspiracy there, they are currently just so unlucky, that they lose in IP disputes and courts, don't believe me ?

Well check last months MS submissions in Slashdot:

Microsoft's Patent Problem July 23rd 712 comments

Microsoft Settles With Immersion over Haptic Patent July 29th only 28 comments

Microsoft nailed by Software Patent August 11th

So their ass has been kicked, of course they like that the competition will be kicked as well and if paying SCO saved potentially their money plus allowed competitions ass kicked as well it was really brilliant deal.

(the bucket, a drop in) | (perspective)

[MegaFur]

Okay, so MS currently has nearly $50 billion.

50,000,000,000 / 521,000,000 ~= 95.969289

So... if this happened to MS like maybe 50 or 60 more times, they'd be hurting. yeah.

whimper/sigh.

tkwww, prior art, and my dance with Microsoft

[chenyu]

I didn't mention this earlier because I didn't want Eolas to win, but I guess there is no harm in mentioning it now.

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.

Quarterly PROFIT vs. REVENUE

[AvantLegion]

Sure, their quarterly revenue is around $12 billion. But a lot of that turns around and gets spent.

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??

We should take the opportunity...

[ultrabot]

... to underline how big a supporter/MSFT has been for software patents. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

At least this frivolous lawsuit will get a lots of publicity. Now everyone with a trivial patent up their sleeves can go about suing everyone.

I assume the SW patent thing has not yet been ratified by the EU? This might be something to show your MEP...

Glad the editors sat on the story to let it cook..

[afabbro]

2003-08-12 00:11:35 Jury Orders Microsoft to Pay $520 Million (articles,microsoft) (rejected)

Microsoft on side of patent reform?

[Dominic_Mazzoni]

IANAL, but I wonder if this could be a potential victory for everyone opposed to software patents.

Note the wording of Microsoft's official statement: "the accused feature in our browser technology was developed by our own engineers based on preexisting Microsoft technology." From what I understand of patent law, whether the technology was developed independently by Microsoft's engineers was irrelevant.

If Microsoft wins on appeal, that could set a precedent in favor of everyone who gets hit with a patent lawsuit when they developed the technology independently. This could help to weaken software patents.

Then again, if Microsoft ultimately loses its appeal, they could end up helping to reform patent law. I may get modded down for this, but I honestly don't think Microsoft is evil - just greedy. And $521 Million is a serious chunk of change, even for Microsoft. They may be better off convincing a few congresscritters to invalidate stupid software patents, and that's good for all of us.

Re:Microsoft on side of patent reform?

[The Master Control P]

"but I honestly don't think Microsoft is evil - just greedy."

*WOPR voice* What's The Difference, Dr. Falken?

David v. Goliath

[yintercept]

The problem is that courts fall for the David v. Goliath bit.

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:David v. Goliath

[EzInKy]

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.

That would make the answer obvious then, wouldn't it? Just have Microsoft demonstrate to the court how they stand up against corporate greed to further the rights of the "little man" and they are in like flint B-).

Re:Peanuts

[AvitarX]

Actually they did,

But the judge was deamed unclean to rule due to comments he made on the record during the trial, that came out aftwards.

Re:Another Reason?

[xyvimur]

``I'm sure you meant "IE is available free of charge".''

No it is not - it is integrated with one of the OS'es. And to get IE you have to buy that OS.

the patent text

[rassie]

The actual patent text is at uspto.gov.

It seems that IE is not the only browser that would be susceptible to a lawsuit.

From the abstract: ...(allowing a browser) to access and execute an embedded program object

Re:the patent text

[SagSaw]

From the abstract:

Remember that the abstact is mostly meaningless. If you want to post something, post the relavent claim(s).

For example:

1. A method for running an application program in a computer network environment, comprising:
providing at least one client workstation and one network server coupled to said network environment, wherein said network environment is a distributed hypermedia environment;
executing, at said client workstation, a browser application, that parses a first distributed hypermedia document to identify text formats included in said distributed hypermedia document and for responding to predetermined text formats to initiate processing specified by said text formats; utilizing said browser to display, on said client workstation, at least a portion of a first hypermedia document received over said network from said server, wherein the portion of said first hypermedia document is displayed within a first browser-controlled window on said client workstation, wherein said first distributed hypermedia document includes an embed text format, located at a first location in said first distributed hypermedia document, that specifies the location of at least a portion of an object external to the first distributed hypermedia document, wherein said object has type information associated with it utilized by said browser to identify and locate an executable application external to the first distributed hypermedia document, and wherein said embed text format is parsed by said browser to automatically invoke said executable application to execute on said client workstation in order to display said object and enable interactive processing of said object within a display area created at said first location within the portion of said first distributed hypermedia document being displayed in said first browser-controlled window.

What happened???

[Comatose51]

I was reading a law book on patents a few days ago and one of the conditions for granting a patent is that it must be nonobvious. Did they decide to drop this requirement since my law book was published? Or is computer and Internet related technology so overwhelming for the people in the patent office that anything related to either one is automatically granted a patent? Or perhaps patent lawyers and applicants have gotten better at BSing their way into a patent? Talk about a digital divide! I wonder what the requirements are for people in the patent office.

Patent Ignorance

[harriet nyborg]

you kill what you fear and you fear what you do not understand.

what if this were YOUR invention?

should Microsoft be allowed to make profits from the unlicensed and unauthorized use of your inventions?

how is it fair that Bill Gates become richer from your invention while you receive nothing?

remember Lotus 1-2-3, WordPerfect, the Apple II? all of these were groundbreaking products stolen from their inventors (first by Lotus, Corel, and Apple) and then by Microsoft.

where are they now? the technology is dominated by Xcel, Word, and XP.

why? because copyright law was too weak to prevent MS from squashing little people who threaten them - which is what giants do.

software patents are the only tools which exist which enable you to protect YOUR inventions against the giants.

it is irrational that programmers see software patents as a threat and completely fail to see them for the opportunity that they present.

"burn her, she's a witch."

MS lost because they were arrogant. they - like open source developers - refuse to pay for the technology they use and prefer just to take it from the good people who created it.

good for Eolas - like Stac Electronics who sued Microsoft for infringing their stacker technology - it's nice to see the little guy win once and a while.

one day, the little guy may be YOU.

Microsoft Sued... By Stupid Patent Abusers

[dupper]

Does Not Compute - Slashbot Overloa....... (no carrier)

Re:Laches

[BobTheLawyer]

the defence laches is slightly more difficult to use than this. You need to show:

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.

Re:Peanuts

[16K Ram Pack]

Is this $48 billion cash reserve some kind of an accountant figure, or is there a numbered bank account sitting there with $48 billion which can be drawn on?

I only ask, because sometimes, things are described by accounting in such a way that it leads people to think one way rather than another.

Same Old Story

[blunte]

MS Loses Lawsuit

MS Appeals

Case drags on

MS Settles for $100M

Everyone forgets

Indeed

[Steeltoe]

It was a rebuttal. Definately. I'll back it up a bit more here to make it clearer. I disagree with his view on intentions, because I don't see how you can defend the best intentions when you're doing wrong. And claiming monopoly on ideas is wrong/perversion in my book. Plain and simple.

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:Indeed

[B'Trey]

Even when it's against someone "evil", like Microsoft. Which I don't believe for a second. Evilness doesn't exist, only ignorance.

I'll agree that Evil doesn't exist, in the sense of a disembodied force or being. However, evil certainly does exist. Microsoft isn't ignorant. They are well aware of what they are doing - it's a deliberate strategy. Microsoft wants to rule the IT market, and could care less about the free market or fair trade. I call that "evil." I call it that because of it's effect. You can call it something else, if you like, but then we're merely arguing semantics.

Evil, (one of) thy name(s) is Microsoft. For the moment. In a past life, it was called IBM (now one of the good guys.) In the future, it'll be something else. But evil does exist.

Flaw in Eolas' case

[BenjyD]

>"...Microsoft has made extensive use of Eolas'
>technology to make its Internet Explorer the
>best-of-breed browser"

Best of breed? I thought perjury was a serious crime in US courts.

Here's how it went...

[Anita Coney]

Judge: Mr. Gates, your company owes Eolas $521 million in damages.

Gates: Sure, let me get my wallet!

Hang on this can't be right...

[shades66]

I thought Microsoft, like SCO, respected other peoples IP !?!?

How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[werdna]

This case clearly shows how silly software patent-laws are. With guns and sanctions they dictate who can use what technology, because someone were "first". Come on! Most of us stopped such silliness in the kindergarden.

In what way does it manifest silliness? It would seem to me to be a case entirely free from vapid claims of validity (microsoft hit with a full court press, and lost) or infringement (likewise, microsoft threw full guns at it, and lost).

To the contrary, the case shows the seriousness of these law and their claims when properly applied.

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?

Everybody. The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years.

This can potentially kill off alot of inventing.

There is lots of evidence to the contrary. What do you have to support your proposition.

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.

If you say so. Odd how many inidividual inventors seem to make the biggest political push for stronger patent laws, with large companies tending to push for more relaxed "patent harmonization" approaches.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[PyromanFO]

In what way does it manifest silliness? It would seem to me to be a case entirely free from vapid claims of validity (microsoft hit with a full court press, and lost) or infringement (likewise, microsoft threw full guns at it, and lost).

To the contrary, the case shows the seriousness of these law and their claims when properly applied.

It shows silliness because of the content of the patent. This isn't something non-obvious or hard to research. It's plugins! It's like patenting vulcanization and then suing every tire manufacturer after they've been doing it for years. That is the silliness.

Everybody. The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years.

Nobody said all patents were a bad idea, please pay attention. This is a software patent. There has been every indication that software patents have actually hurt the computing industry in this country and slowed innovation. Then, of course, the fact that we are talking about a specific class of frivolous patents that have prior art but were granted anyway.

There is lots of evidence to the contrary. What do you have to support your proposition.

Again, we are talking about a specific set of frivolous patents, so yes there is alot of evidence that they hurt innovation.

If you say so. Odd how many inidividual inventors seem to make the biggest political push for stronger patent laws, with large companies tending to push for more relaxed "patent harmonization" approaches.

Talk about presenting evidence to backup your claims ....

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[Ugot2BkidNme]

I Have to Toally Agree with your post this patent is utter crap If you read the patent here It basically states any Object viewed in a browser thats a very broad spectrum.
This is kin to Amazon.com and all there stupid patents. Next thing you know someone is going to sue for a patent of using English on a Computer.
I had a little more faith in Slashdot users this is a greater abuse then even what SCO is doing. Yet because its against Microsoft most of you are all happy. Blind Bias is crap I don't care who you are if you are wronged then your wronged. This is a bullshit lawsuit.
This company now has Leverage so now any company that makes a browser and does not pay them will then be liable. So Opera, Apple and any other company out there making a browser that has any kind of Money will be a target if they haven't bought a licsence to use there patent. Not to Mention they might Sue Sun for even making Applets.

Re:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[Doomdark]

Everybody. The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years.

• This can potentially kill off alot of inventing.

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:

• Industry "maturing", small companies either die or grow big; and big companies tend to both not remember their origins (small innovative company) and lose their technically oriented leaders (to be replaced by legally and/or fiscally oriented successors).
• More lawyers getting involved, consider fabricated concept ("intellectual property") having become generally accepted and thus actual property... and where there's property, there are disputes, and thus lawyers making killing.

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:How, exactly, does it show silliness?

[ink]

The patent system has driven R&D in the United States for more than two hundred years.

Excuse me, but the patent system has always been used with real objects and not abstract concepts. It makes sense in that light.

Patents have not been used with "intellectual properties" over the past 200 years. The analog would be an author who patents the idea of a murder mystery, and then sues anyone who actually writes anything that even remotely has anything to do with a 'murder' or a 'mystery'. The same idea, more often than not, is upheld in the software arena for some reason ("1-click checkout", "Embedding code in a browser").

Unless, of course, you're one of those who think we should be paying Einstien's estate for the privilege to talk about the theory of relativity in a magazine article.

Odd how many inidividual inventors seem to make the biggest political push for stronger patent laws, with large companies tending to push for more relaxed "patent harmonization" approaches.

That is a lie. "Patent harmonization" always refers to making patent law as strong as copyright; in other words, patents should last for 100 years. The "inventor" of the murder mystery's great-grand-children would just love you.

Re:hello are you foreign?

[pohl]

Just for the sake of correctness, "ironical" is a word...

From WordNet (r) 1.7.1 (July 2002) [wn]: ironical adj 1: characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is; "madness, an ironic fate for such a clear thinker"; "it was ironical that the well-planned scheme failed so completely" [syn: {ironic}] 2: humorously sarcastic or mocking; "dry humor"; "an ironic remark often conveys an intended meaning obliquely"; "an ironic novel"; "an ironical smile"; "with a wry Scottish wit" [syn: {dry}, {ironic}, {wry}]

Bad data! Quicken web site has a BIG typo

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

The quicken web site lists that he has only 172,612,893 shares as of 8/5/03. However, on 2/5/03, he had 609,749,300 shares, and on 2/18/03, he had 217,498,600 with no transaction in the meantime. Note the share price also went from $48 to $24. Answer: the stock split on 2/14/03. The quicken web site should be showing that he had 1,217,498,600 shares, and he is currently holding 1,172,612,893 shares.

Bill may be selling, but he hasn't sold 75% of his stock.

Re:Software patents are bad, even if MS has to pay

[saddino]

What is next - patents on physical laws

If people created physical laws, then yes, that would follow.

I really don't see why the Slashdot party line seems to be that "software patents are bad." Yes, software is just algorithmic expression, but certainly it is creative algorthmic expression -- and unique software inventions should be patentable.

All sorts of metal clothes fasteners existed before the zipper, yet it was clearly a unique invention.

If "Acme Clothing Connectors" had used the same method, after it had been patented, then they would have infringed.

All sorts of plugin technologies existed before Eolas created a unique method for allowing plugins/applets to run inside IE.

If MS used the same method (which appears to be the case), after it had been patented, then it infringed.

Why is this "idiocy?"

not everything that is creative should be patented

[jopet]

take art, for instance: pieces of art are copyrighted, but not patentable. You (luckily!) cannot patent the way you painted the shadow of the nose - this might be highly creative, but to make it patentable will have the same desastrous effect as making writing algorithms patentable has. I won't go into all of the reasons here, because they have been repeated over and over again. To come up with an algorithm or even just a purpose for an algorithm can be highly creative - but so can coming up with the formula for a physical law. There is not that much difference really, because in both situations there is a creative act, no matter if you write an algorithm to convert integers into a hex string or write down a physical law (or model) that describes the connection between certain measurable variables of a system. Maybe the core problems really is that creating algorithms is what programmers do all the time - many of them reinventing the same algorithms for the 1000's time, simply because this is faster than looking up a solution. If you make software patentable it is hard to see what would NOT be patentable - any function or piece of code is a candidate. Software is different from zippers and technical machines. Very different.