W3C Requests Eolas Patent Re-Examination

x0n writes "Verbatim from W3: Acting on the advice of the W3C HTML Patent Advisory Group, W3C has presented the United States Patent and Trademark Office with prior art establishing that US Patent No. 5,838,906 (the '906 patent) is invalid. W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee has written an unprecedented request to U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property James E. Rogan to take action to remove the patent to allow operation of the Web. Read the briefing." techsoldaten adds a link to this New York Times story on the move, and bgalbs points out the W3C's detailed filing describing prior art provided to the USPTO Director's office, "along with a letter from Tim Berners-Lee asking that the so-called Eolas patent be revoked," writing "Here's hoping it does some good; between this and the Lotus Notes prior art, perhaps there's hope this will all go away."

Comments

This is absurd

[Arker]

There should be no need for prior art. The very idea that you can patent the idea of putting something that used to appear in a new window embedded in the original window instead is just absurd beyond belief. A wonderful example of what nonsense the entire idea of 'intellectual property' is.

Re:so ?

[thegrommit]

> 2 stories ago, we wished Microsoft would be punished for firing a blogger, no we wish they'd stop being sued by Eolas...

Insightful? Another fine example of slashdot moderating...

The patent has implications for ALL browsers. If Eolas thought they could extract money from the Mozilla foundation, you can be sure their lawyers would advising them to take such action.

Lets show our support for this

[arvindn]

Is there an official forum through which we can show our support for W3C's action? Just like "if you don't believe in free speech for you enemies, you don't believe in it at all", the real test of whether we believe that software patents shouldn't exist is when it affects not us but those whom we despise (in this case MS).

For example, the mozilla foundation in its official statement on the issue says nothing to condemn the Eolas patent, but instead has some content free statements like "The Eolas matter highlights the degree to which web browser software is critical to the user experience of the web.". I don't think this is the right thing to do. Getting all up in arms about say the gif patent and pretending you didn't notice when MS is hit is not good. So let us speak with one voice, and show our support for W3C.

How is Eolas evil?

[TheConfusedOne]

While the patent in question is questionable at best, how is Eolas evil? They filed for and were given a patent. They have now successfully defended that patent against an infringer.

The fact that said infringer is huge and has decided to unilaterally shaft the Web in order to avoid paying licensing fees has nothing to do with the inherent goodness or evilness of Eolas.

BTW, Eolas is privately owned with only one employee. MS can't buy it unless Eolas agrees to being bought. Also, if MS were to buy Eolas you think they'd just suddenly go and license that patent to everyone out of the goodness of their heart?

Re:Ridiculous

[Arker]

Without "intellectual property," friend, you'd be reading this article on a soot-darkened cave wall.

Nonsense. 'Intellectual property' is a very, very recent invention. It was a radical new idea in the 1700s, ignored by most nations, including many of the more prosperous ones, and where it did exist it had a much milder form than today. What we call 'IP' today really hasn't existed until just a few years ago. I suppose we were all cave dwellers before that? Bull.

Re:What else happened in the 1700's?

[Arker]

Gee, coinciding with the *Industrial Revolution* I bet. So you wouldn't be living in a cave without IP, you'd be living in a straw-roofed shack without electricity, plumbing, and certainly without the internet.

You're assuming that technological progress would have stopped at that point, all over the world, just because the handful of countries that introduced relatively mild copyright and patent laws at this time did otherwise? That's a huge an unwarranted assumption, and/or a a circular argument.

If anything, the bulk affect of these laws is to stifle progress, not to help it. Particularly with the current 'modern' implementations of these ideas.

So without patents, we'd all have polio, we'd all still be using antibiotics for which bacteria are immune, we wouldn't have any painkillers, no TV, no internet, no computers...do I need to keep going?

No, you need to back up and figure out where you got lost. The notion that human inventiveness would suddenly cease if people couldn't lay legal claim to ideas is absolutely absurd.