Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Whose Prior Art Filing Triggered Eolas Reexam?

Posted by timothy on from the mysterious-ways dept.

theodp writes "The Eolas patent case history shows another prior art filing was quietly made ten days before the widely-publicized W3C filing and two weeks before Tim Berner-Lee's reexam request. Now Ray Ozzie speculates the earlier filing was one being floated at the time that was jointly signed by a number of other parties who supported W3C member Dave Raggett's prior art, which Microsoft unsuccessfully tried to use in the $521 million Eolas lawsuit. Ozzie also notes that those involved argued for all to stand solidly behind the Raggett prior art and not cite anything else. So who are these other parties, and was it their filing and lobbying that triggered the Eolas reexam?"

10 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. I think... by Anonytroll · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think that those were a few of Microsoft's competitors or "partners" that don't want to appear on the screen for whatever reasons so it does not look like they were helping Microsoft. I suspect it would mean bad pr for those if Microsoft decided to spin that in some direction.

    On the other hand, maybe that was the ever so famous shadow government. Can't have a thread without conspiracy, can we? ;^)

  2. Shows the importance of publicity by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Whoever did it, they were probably influenced by the publicity about the case and calls for prior art. Haven't we seen a number of patent cases discussed on /. where someone asks for prior art examples and people respond with examples? All it took was for the issue to be exposed. If you know about prior art, but you don't hear about a patent violating it, you can't speak up. It's the publicity that helps.

    We all know how poorly the U.S. Patent Office has handled tech patent requests. What can you or I do to help the bad situation? Spread the word. In the Net universe, even the most famous tech god is only an email away.

    1. Re:Shows the importance of publicity by Anonytroll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not neccessarily publicity. Maybe those are people who have a lot to loose if the browsers and the net are to be as crippled as Eolas wants IE to be.

      Maybe, just maybe, those are some companie involved with FLOSS that will be in trouble financially if Eolas attacks Mozilla and them (as they have distributed it and thusly violated the patent).

  3. precisely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This A.C. has got a good point. Many readers will have no idea what this story is about at all. Editors, when someone submits a cryptic story such as this, please give a little explaination at the end of what on earth it is about. EOALIS somethingorrather, I've got no idea.

  4. Re:Serious Question for L's and IANAL's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A patent and lawyer's fees (to make sure the patent covers all necessary bases) is large enough to impede the small inventor, while being small enough to be trivial to a corporation or a patent lawyer building a portfolio for himself.

  5. The value of a patent by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the link:
    It's getting to the point where I'm starting to think it would be better to just outlaw patents. The abuses are getting ridiculous, and the Patent Office is not doing its job.

    Posted by: Jim on February 9, 2004 12:43 PM

    I think it's getting to the point where a U.S. patent is losing its value. When I hear about some IP being patented, it no longer means what it once meant. So, for example, when someone says "We have several patents on this" I yawn--even when the patents are non-software related.

    BTM

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  6. Re:Why only the Raggett citation? by Elektroschock · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In short word: Patents and the patent system are not designed for service industries like software. software is well protected by copyright, patents cause legal incertainty.

    I don't understand why Microsoft does not support FFII in Europe to get rid off patent legislation. Patents on software are so harmful. Nobody needs them except the patent attorneys who want to make profit.

  7. Re:Serious Question for L's and IANAL's by psykocrime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is something that irks me. I can understand why filing a patent costs a lot of money.

    Really? Then would you mind explaining it to the rest of us?

    I for one do NOT understand why it's so freakin' expensive to file a patent. It seems to me that this defeats the very purpose of patents. I mean, if I as a (hypothetical) independent inventor invent something new, but can't afford to file the patent, how is the patent system helping?

    Right now, due to the costs involved, the patent system only helps the wealthy, and large, well-funded corporations, IMHO.

    --
    // TODO: Insert Cool Sig
  8. Macromedia by Archalien · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can you say Macromedia? I think they would be hit hardest by EOLAS since that IS their core business model IMHO.

    No proof. Just a hunch.

  9. Re:software is well protected by copyright by arkanes · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Thats a great story but for every case like that theres 20 where a guy has all the drawings and patterns and whatnot and it's NOT exactly how people end up doing it - but it's close enough that he can hassle people 10 years down the road.

    On top of that, if making a prototype was technically impossible, then, imo the true innovation involved is in overcoming those technical barriers - conceptualizing is important but it's better protected by trade secret and/or copyrights than by patents.