Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Eolas vs. Microsoft Verdict Stands, Despite ReExam

Posted by simoniker on from the big-webbing-deal dept.

theodp writes "A federal judge on Wednesday upheld a jury's $521 million verdict against Microsoft in the high-profile Web browser patent infringement lawsuit, denying Microsoft's motion to suspend a decision until the USPTO completes a reexamination of the patent. Eolas was also awarded prejudgment interest of $45 million. An injunction against future sales of IE that contain technology based on Eolas' patent was also granted, but put on hold pending an appeal."

55 comments

  1. wow by BlackIce_101 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    wouldn't it be crazy if this came up first?

    --
    The only certainty in life is death... and buffer overflows for some strange inexplicable reason...
  2. Bad for IE users by ObviousGuy · · Score: 1, Informative

    Now instead of working seamlessly, there will be a pop-up dialog to prompt the user to activate the desired control.

    Fuck you, Eolas.

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:Bad for IE users by MonTemplar · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded this as Flamebait probably isn't a website designer or coder.

      MT.

      --
      -MT.
    2. Re:Bad for IE users by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 3, Insightful


      Now instead of working seamlessly, there will be a pop-up dialog to prompt the user to activate the desired control.

      Or, stop using ActiveX. Use javascript instead; added benefit: Linux and Mac users can now use your site.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    3. Re:Bad for IE users by the+quick+brown+fox · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think designers will be most affected by this in relation to Flash. There's plenty you can do in Flash that would be inconvenient or impossible to do in js/DHTML. And Linux and Mac users can use Flash.

      This sucks.

    4. Re:Bad for IE users by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1
      There's plenty you can do in Flash that would be inconvenient or impossible to do in js/DHTML.

      But very little of that is things that should be done.

      If you want to server cartoons, by all means use Flash. If you want to serve information, use HTML.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    5. Re:Bad for IE users by aminorex · · Score: 1

      This applies to Java applets as well.

      Question: Can you
      work around it using signed javascript?

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    6. Re:Bad for IE users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to server cartoons, by all means use Flash. If you want to serve information, use HTML.

      That's likely one of the things to which the parent was referring. The Internet is far more than information -- it's also entertainment. For this, the patent sucks, regardless of how much you may despise Flash.

    7. Re:Bad for IE users by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, there's a tag that you can use to link Flash cartoons in your documents, and it's been around since the very beginning. What's more, it doesn't conflict with Eolas's patent.

      That tag?

      You guessed it: <a>.

    8. Re:Bad for IE users by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately, you can't control the size of the flash animation that way, or extend the browser's functionality with flash via javascript.

  3. Does this mean ... by craigmarshall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    An injunction against future sales of IE that contain technology based on Eolas' patent was also granted, but put on hold pending an appeal.

    Does this mean that distribution of IE (with ActiveX enabled) may be made illegal? Doesn't Windows Update, Flash, Java , Director, etc. need ActiveX to work?

    If this is the case, what if this patent-holding company decides to do the same to Mozilla, Konqueror, etc.? Are we screwed?

    Craig

    1. Re:Does this mean ... by chris_mahan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Facetious Flash:

      Eolas Sues Mozilla and get source code for free.

      In other news, the main sourceforge server and othe open source communities are moved to India, slightly out of reach of the US Courts.

      On a more serious note:
      If this happens, we can all go back to the good old days of well-formed html with linked media resources.

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    2. Re:Does this mean ... by zombieflesheater · · Score: 2, Informative

      The title of the patent in question (is: "Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document".

      Microsoft are proposing to change IE's behaviour to work around the patent. The new IE will prompt users before loading external embedded objects. This manual invocation circumvents the "automatic" specification in the patent, and thus IE no longer infringes.

      The fact that this change will irritate the bejezus out of users has not gone unnoticed. A further clever exploitation of the patent wording is suggested to get around this. From the above link:

      "You can prevent Internet Explorer from prompting the user by using Dynamic HTML (DHTML) to load ActiveX controls from script. " ... "The control is blocked if the script that creates the control is in the same file as the HTML for the Web page. For the control to load without user input, the script must be defined in a function defined outside of the HTML file."

      There's more detail, but I think the crux of it is that in order to not infringe, IE must avoid automatically loading external applications. A separate script file on the local server is not "external", so IE is compliant.

      The good news is that if Eolas turn their patent spotlight onto the browser projects you mention, the browsers won't have to change much, just like IE hasn't. The bad news is that the onus of work will shift onto site authors. Anyone maintaining a site using embedded objects will have to either re-code or suffer a changed "user experience".

      Here's hoping the patent will be proved invalid.

    3. Re:Does this mean ... by shadowxtc · · Score: 1

      Unless this gets overturned, we're screwed anyway. This type of blatent misuse of patent law (not to mention doing something that will interfere with millions of people) can't go on or we'll waste money being afraid.

    4. Re:Does this mean ... by rcpitt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It sounds to me like EOLAS has finally done what the DOJ and all the security experts in the world have wanted to do for years - remove IE from its tight integration into the OS and stop IE and all of the various things it is included into from executing insecure code without any user interaction. I expect my customer support load will go down :)

      --
      Been there, done that, paid for the T-shirt
      and didn't get it
    5. Re:Does this mean ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being a webmaster I dont care that EOLAS did what DOJ couldnt. This is a major pain in the rear period, and dont get so cocky, the one man company can easily go after mozilla and konqueror. No ones safe unless your running something like Lynx thats only text based. Ahh the good old days...

    6. Re:Does this mean ... by Joe+U · · Score: 1

      Not really, it just means that the push to .NET will happen faster. Read some of the fine print, the patent does not apply to programs actually integrated into the browser.

      So, Eolas wanted to break IE's hold on the Internet, instead, they break all third party apps (Flash, Java, etc..) while allowing Microsoft's latest technology to work flawlessly.

    7. Re:Does this mean ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "being a webmaster" pretty much makes you completely irrelevant to the rest of us REAL techies. Now go play with your crayola color swaths and *markup language* (ie. NOT real coding)

      Stupid mother fucking apes. You give them the ability to publish crap on the web and they suddenly believe that they can "code" a web site. All you are is a fucking glorified data entry/word processing goon. If you are doing CGI, maybe your step closer towards being a skript kiddie, but that's about the best you lot get. Now go the fuck away and let us REAL coders rejoice that this is yet another bomb thrown in the direction of that odious corporation: Micro$oft.

    8. Re:Does this mean ... by Isofarro · · Score: 1
      The bad news is that the onus of work will shift onto site authors. Anyone maintaining a site using embedded objects will have to either re-code or suffer a changed "user experience".

      Ahhh - that's useful. Since they are recoding, they now have the chance it make it accessible too. That would be beneficial for users.

  4. on a more serious note... by BlackIce_101 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    isn't it funny how microsoft is constantly in court, regularly the loser, and yet never seems to run out of ways to appeal, postpone, invalidate, and generally weasel out of every possible negative consequence to it's actions? Or maybe infuriating would be a better choice of words...

    --
    The only certainty in life is death... and buffer overflows for some strange inexplicable reason...
    1. Re:on a more serious note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's called "due process" and if you don't grant Microsoft that right, then who will grant it to you when you are in need of it?

    2. Re:on a more serious note... by torpor · · Score: 1

      Too right.

      What is important is for people to form their own opinions of the proceedings on the basis of their understanding of the issues involved. In fact, Court is for the public, but in my opinion rarely does the public ever really use it, or at least 'not until needed'.

      Alas, it is pretty clear that a lot of people ignore what goes on in their courts to their own peril ... because it seems that its fairly easy for big companies to obfuscate things in their favour, through legal and other means.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    3. Re:on a more serious note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure I'd be damn grateful for it if I ever needed it but then again, I don't have wads of cash to blow on a thousand lawyers filing a thousand motions stretching so called "due process" into virtual eternity in hopes that either the suit will no longer apply or that those filing it will collapse in a fit of debt and exhaustion and settle. My "due process" is governed entirely by my ethnic background, and how much of my savings I'm willing to blow. And no matter who I am, I will never have anything even remotely resembling the kind of "due process" that Microsoft enjoys.

    4. Re:on a more serious note... by MonTemplar · · Score: 1

      Well, with the mountain of cash they are sitting on, they obviously take the view that the easiest option is to keep throwing lawyers at these problems until they disappear.

      MT.

      --
      -MT.
    5. Re:on a more serious note... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Not surprising when you have a huge bankroll to pay lawyers.
      As long as the judges aren't bought, eventually some real justice may be served in spite of that bankroll.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    6. Re:on a more serious note... by aminorex · · Score: 1

      Judges don't grow in cabbage patches.
      Little lawyers become big judges. By that
      time the hope is that they've been bought
      by so many sides that the net effect is
      zero, but in fact the money is not evenly
      distributed, so that hope is illusory.

      --
      -I like my women like I like my tea: green-
    7. Re:on a more serious note... by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the amount of "due process" given to individual entities is directly proportional to their monetary delegation to the participation in the process. Does this sound fair to you?

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    8. Re:on a more serious note... by MrLint · · Score: 1

      too bad unless you are a corporation or blindingly wealth due process isnt a thing you can get.

    9. Re:on a more serious note... by sambira · · Score: 1

      But, why is it that my "due process" lasts days while MS lasts years?

  5. "Sales" by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Funny


    Where can I buy this 'internet explorer'?

    Does it run on plan 9?

    It will be interesting to see if they separate IE from Windows in a way they said was impossible!

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    1. Re:"Sales" by MonTemplar · · Score: 1

      My understanding of the use of the term "sales" is that they were referring to sales of products that have IE integrated into them, or that include it as part of the installation. Since this would account for 90%+ of all the current Microsoft product catalog, this could represent something of a problem for our friends in Redmond... :-)

      MT.

      --
      -MT.
  6. Wow. by Photar · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Thats almost .521 Billion.

    --
    He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
  7. This is extremely good news for us by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is almost ideal news for the typical Slashdotter.

    First, the existing patent system is widely complained about. This patent probably shouldn't have been granted in the first place. However, if Microsoft had won this case, all that would have happened is that this particular patent would have been invalidated. Now, a major tech company just took a half million dollar loss because the PTO is using silly rules. The tech industry now has serious reasons to argue for modification of tech patents. Microsoft's patent portfolio is doubtlessly valuable in terms of preventing newcomers from entering the market, but there's a significant question as to whether it's worth half a billion dollars (plus all the other copycats that are likely to run out and start suing large companies).

    Second, someone had to take a nasty hit to get business folks upset about the state of things. And who would we rather have take the financial hit than Microsoft?

    Best patent news I've heard in a long time.

    I hope Eolas leaves Mozilla alone (well, AOL).

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:This is extremely good news for us by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that, this sort of hiccup aside, the patent situation is exactly what the big players in the tech industry want. Yes, that's .5 billion Microsoft is now out of pocket, but the potential loss could be even more immense if patent laws were changed to be more accurate - microsoft patents are not just used to prevent newcomers, they are used in cross licening schemes and as a revenue source. If a substantial number of them were cancelled it could result in microsoft having to pay future and possible back licenses. And it wouldn't just be microsoft, a large number of big companies would suddenly find fairly significant holes where patents sit now.

      I'd actually like that to happen (I'm vicious that way) but the tech industry is one big Old Boys network, it isn't going to push for reform.

    2. Re:This is extremely good news for us by arkanes · · Score: 1
      You're largely correct about the roles that patents play in IT, but I should point out that MS has not, to date, used it's signifigant patent portfolio to shut projects down. They like to compete in all kinds of other (often unfair or underhanded) ways, but not with patents.

      Patent law being used like this on a large scale basis would be the doom of the IT industry - thats why all the big players cross license after all, they know they'd be screwing themselves in the long run if they try to play hardball.

    3. Re:This is extremely good news for us by perlchild · · Score: 1
      irst, the existing patent system is widely complained about. This patent probably shouldn't have been granted in the first place. However, if Microsoft had won this case, all that would have happened is that this particular patent would have been invalidated. Now, a major tech company just took a half million dollar loss because the PTO is using silly rules. The tech industry now has serious reasons to argue for modification of tech patents. Microsoft's patent portfolio is doubtlessly valuable in terms of preventing newcomers from entering the market, but there's a significant question as to whether it's worth half a billion dollars (plus all the other copycats that are likely to run out and start suing large companies).


      Yes, that LOOKS like it's a Geek's dream come true, but that's just an illusion. Even if everyone realizes how screwed up the system is, and how much change is required, there is no guarantee the change will be to any geek's benefit, because representation is not in our favor, nor are dollars. On top of that, most geek opinions I've seen favor radical changes to the system. The system itself's best interest is to mitigate the radicalness of all changes. Just because everyone is screwed equally doesn't mean we'll all agree to get unscrewed together. We're a lot more likely to get screwed again, and again, individually. The tech sector's interest is segmented, that means that someone throwing enough money and PR at the situation can make us say what they want us to say, by choosing the venue.
  8. Oh dear by Curtman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This patent is a carte blanche for Eolas to sue pretty much anyone they choose. I don't see how Mozilla's plugins, and extensions are any different from what they are suing Microsoft over.

    Someone please correct me, I sure hope I'm wrong.

    It causes me great pain to be on the side of Microsoft in this issue. Damn you Eolas.

    1. Re:Oh dear by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but where are the deep pockets with Mozilla? Going after Netscape would lead to AOL Time-Warner, but Mozilla?

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    2. Re:Oh dear by Nutria · · Score: 1
      IANAL, but where are the deep pockets with Mozilla?

      Eolas could/would file for a Cease And Desist order about developing and/or distributing the source code in each state/country it could get such an order issued.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    3. Re:Oh dear by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Eolas could/would file for a Cease And Desist order about developing and/or distributing the source code in each state/country it could get such an order issued.

      True enough, they could, but where's the benefit? They'll pay lawers for actions that they won't get any return from.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:Oh dear by sbszine · · Score: 1

      One possible benefit: reducing competition to browsers that licence their technology. Personally I don't think this will happen any time soon, as Eolas hasn't gone the SCO style licencing route. In future, though, Eolas or the patent may change hands. If Microsoft (for example) ended up owning Eolas or the patent, you can bet they'd use it against Mozilla.

      --

      Vino, gyno, and techno -Bruce Sterling

  9. Eolas In Patent Talks With Linux Community by theodp · · Score: 4, Informative

    Eolas is talking with members of the Linux and open-source community about the use of its Web browser patent, which is at the heart of its high-profile infringement case against Microsoft, the company's founder said on Wednesday. "We're in discussions with major players in Linux world and working on plan to resolve '906 patent issue with entire Linux community," Eolas Founder Michael Doyle told eWEEK.com, referring in short hand to the full patent's number. "The solution will be supportive of open-source community." Full story.

    1. Re:Eolas In Patent Talks With Linux Community by the_womble · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They have every reason to allow co-operate with open source deveopers. They can not make money from open source, so if they enforce the patent the result will be that developers will work around it, and the last thing they want is the emergence of alternative.

  10. Why not help it along? by cornice · · Score: 1

    I've asked this before but never received a very good answer.

    Why doesn't the FSF and other free software advocates attempt to corner the tech patent market? I know software patents are considered evil and against the basic philosophy of the FSF. I just wonder if the GPL could be modified to allow certain patents held in a FSF trust of some sort. Then there would be incentive to apply for patents and use them in free software with the ultimate goal being the elimination of software patents all together. Right now the big corporate players are locking free software out of certain areas while free software does nothing to lock out non-free software. I just don't see any incentive for the powers that be to reform. However, if the FSF or some other body held a patent portfolio strong enough to lock out one or more of the big guys from a market then maybe one or more of the big guys might begin to understand the benefits of patent reform.

    If this has already been discussed over and over then please forgive me. I just haven't stumbled upon it yet.

    1. Re:Why not help it along? by rifter · · Score: 1

      I've asked this before but never received a very good answer.

      Why doesn't the FSF and other free software advocates attempt to corner the tech patent market? I know software patents are considered evil and against the basic philosophy of the FSF. I just wonder if the GPL could be modified to allow certain patents held in a FSF trust of some sort. Then there would be incentive to apply for patents and use them in free software with the ultimate goal being the elimination of software patents all together. Right now the big corporate players are locking free software out of certain areas while free software does nothing to lock out non-free software. I just don't see any incentive for the powers that be to reform. However, if the FSF or some other body held a patent portfolio strong enough to lock out one or more of the big guys from a market then maybe one or more of the big guys might begin to understand the benefits of patent reform.

      If this has already been discussed over and over then please forgive me. I just haven't stumbled upon it yet.

      The GPL would not have to be modified for this to happen. Specifically:


      6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

      7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

      If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.

      It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.

      This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.

      So the idea is that if GPL software contains patented code, the holder of the patent must grant a royalty-free, GPL-compatable license of that patent to all recipients of the software.

      As for the idea of a patent pool, I had thought several people had advocated it and even that there were some pools in existence, but I was unable to find any real examples. There were some people who had declared on their websites that their patents were available royalty-free and there was the w3c effort, but nothing like what you describe. I guess it has not gottn off the ground yet, but I think it is probably the only answer now, so we can fight fire with fire.

  11. Now... by DeltaSigma · · Score: 1

    Now I just wait for all the businesses to evaluate their web designers and figure out that they don't have anyone that can write good, clean, cross-platform compatible, markup that doesn't rely on senseless bullshit.

    Only a matter of time before the job offers start pouring in for real web designers...

    (yeah, right...)

  12. Does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that since IE is in Windows 2000/XP/2003 that they will have to halt that product line until they either remove IE or come up with a different solution?

    1. Re:Does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In theory, yes. In reality Microsoft will release a patch that will disable plug-in functionality in IE before they allow an injunction to prevent them from selling their OS.

    2. Re:Does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they'll buy eolas first. They do have billions stacked up just for events like this.

  13. great news for california by theodicey · · Score: 1
    Gropernor Schwarzenegger's doing his best to destroy the UC system with incessant shortsighted cuts and fee hikes

    I just think of the lawsuit as a massive $50 million contribution from Microsoft to the university. We should probably name a computer lab, or maybe a e-toilet, after them...

    1. Re:great news for california by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you realize those cuts are related to the amount of increase the system is receiving.

      and not to mention, they have to much money anyways, look around next time you are at anything govt funded and see how much they WASTE... they have too much money as it is, the quality of education is a lame bullshit arguement.

  14. He's a TCL guy... by mantera · · Score: 1


    The Eolas CEO, and its only employee, is a TCL veteran who is well known on comp.lang.tcl. Maybe this will give us some indication about his attitude towards mozilla.

    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=lang_en &ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=author:mike%40doyles.com+

    http://wiki.tcl.tk/212

  15. How is this patentable - where's the technology? by konmaskisin · · Score: 1

    They describe a "method" for shipping data around and having it appear on a web page. This is an idea that glues together existing methods. They are patenting an idea that 200 other people had simultaneously or prior to them.

    Eolas criticizes the W3C for having a "public policy against software patents". What's to criticize? This is like having a policy against fraud, lying and deceit. Eolas has done no work to implement anything and has not advanced the Web or Internet in anyway. They want a free lunch from Microsoft.

    Hopefully this case will demonstrate why MS and Opensource need each other (Apple and IBM have already learned this).

  16. Darn by Anonymous+Chicken · · Score: 1

    I read it in the sidebar "Legolas vs. Microsoft ...", yeah yeah I know, I feel guilty for not going to the RotK in the first week...

    --
    This signature is intentionally left blank.