Company Files Motion to Stop IE Distribution

RobHornick writes "According to CNET News, Eolas Technologies, a company that's already won a patent infringement judgement against Microsoft regarding Internet Explorer, has filed a motion to stop Microsoft from distributing its IE software until they remove Eolas' patented technology for running plug-ins, or pay up for a license."

Comments

From Das Article

[Evil Adrian]

The Redmond, Wash., software giant asked for the new trial, citing several factors, including the unusual proportions of the jury's judgment and the court's refusal to allow discussion of some prior art or similar technology that Microsoft believes predated the Eolas patent and should therefore invalidate it.

Microsoft mentioned one piece of prior art in particular, the Viola browser, invented by Perry Pei-Yuan Wei, an artist, software engineer and then a student at the University of California at Berkeley. That browser dates back to 1991 and its plug-in capabilities to 1992, nearly two years before Eolas filed for its patent.

Once again, prior art popping up. So, this whole thing will probably get turned on its head after about 3 more years of litigation.

Sigh.

Re:Seriously, guys...

[fermion]

I agree with you. This patent thing is getting out of hand. I disagree that a world without IE would be good. However, if a patent is granted, then the courts should go with the laws. This isn't a issue of constitutional rights, or state rights, or human rights, or anticompetitive behavior.

I haven't read much about this case, but i have seen two key facts. One is that MS was given the opportunity to license the technology ten years ago and they did not. The second is that the case of prior art presented by MS was a process that was developed contemporaneously with the process under question. It is not clear that one predates the other, and the other process was not patented. There are many examples of simultaneous developments throughout history, and the person who get the credit is often random. Therefore the judge reasonable ruled that no prior art could be specified.

The other two adjoining issues is that MS firmly believes in IP and in particular patents. It would be hypocritical to allow them to hold onto those beliefs only when it is convenient for them. That is what we call inappropriate consequences and is like a bully complaining that a kid who he has been beating up every day for the past year is now aiming a gun at his head. The second is that the browser/plug in model is part of the OS, a situation unique to MS.

I certainly hope that this mess will make the PHB realize that patenting these things is bad. I think at this point they see it as a game. Who can rack up the most frivolous patents, similar to who can screw the most secretaries, or have the youngest spouse. But it has serious consequences. Under the current rules, Eolas Technologies may have the power to stop the distribution of Windows, and god knows what else. That is scary.

Re:That silly

[lpontiac]

Microsoft, however, has never been on the other side of the fence. They have only ever used patents in a defensive manner.

Microsoft used patents to kill ASF support in VirtualDub. See here.

Start Reading...

[pballsim]

Apparently nobody pays attention or does any research.

First off Eolas has filed the same patent three times (been rejected) and has been narrowing it down.

Basically the patent states:

Any inlining function that renders on the client that gets information from another server. However javascript is not affected, but activex and other plugins are, but the question is the img tag linking to another webpage affected? I know a few places will not allow their sites to have img tags to point to a different server.

This is a stupid patent and should be thrown out. And in fact if we wanted to get into the nitty/gritty details Microsoft could sit there and attack StarOffice/OpenOffice with some of their patents and copyright information and get them out of business.