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?"

9 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.

  3. I find the patent by Srividya · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is the Eolas text. Who thinks such a thing novel?

  4. What this is all about by milgr · · Score: 5, Informative

    The poster could have indicated what all these patents were about - instead of referencing them by somewhat obscure names.

    These patents deal with browser plugins - and relate to a lawsuit that Microsoft lost.

    --
    Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
  5. Serious Question for L's and IANAL's by SloWave · · Score: 5, Interesting


    How hard is it to file file art papers with the patent office? Does the patent office charge for these filings? Can anyone do it? Maybe it's time to generate some boilerplate filings and start attacking some of these bogus patents out there.

    1. Re:Serious Question for L's and IANAL's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
      Filing papers isn't too hard, but you'll want to be sure you are using the right form: (PTO/SB/42)

      http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/sb0042.pdf

      There are several ways to file prior art depending on the status of the application, but this is likely what you are looking for. This filing, known as a "501", is free. It is unlikely that the PTO will decide to reexamine a patent on their own volition(known as sua sponte). Usually you have to file a request for a reexamination. The fee is about $9,000, plus the cost of counsel.

      If you'd like to do some light reading on this kind of filing, it was created under Title 37 of the Code of Federal Regulations, rule 1.501 (cited as 37 C.F.R. 1.501). You can find a reference in the United States Code at 35 U.S.C. 301 (the law) and in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), the book the patent examiners use, at MPEP 2202. All of these resources are on the web, but check that you are looking at the latest revision (Feb 2003, 8th edition, first revision). These are all available at the USPTO website.

      This isn't intended to be legal advice, and this doesn't mean that I am accepting you as a client. If you are planning to try and take down a major patent (or do much of anything with the USPTO) you really ought to seek qualified representation. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a member of the patent bar (basically I have a license to file for patents).

    2. Re:Serious Question for L's and IANAL's by Dashing+Leech · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This is something that irks me. I can understand why filing a patent costs a lot of money. But if a bad patent is granted it should be easy to have it revoked, not $9000+. After all, we're essentially doing the job that the reviewer should have done in the first place.

      Wait, maybe that's the plan. It's like software companies intentionally putting bugs in their programs, then charging you even more to fix them and with upgrades. The patent office gets paid to grant a patent, and then gets paid again to revoke it. It's either sloppy workmanship or intentional deceipt.

      If a bad patent is granted, what can the "little" guy do? The options are to have it reviewed or to violate it and risk have it go to court. Either way, it's expensive.

  6. tkwww perhaps by boutell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Very early versions of the tkwww browser supported full-scale applets: tk widgets and tcl scripts embedded in HTML. The feature was removed later due to the obvious security concerns, but nobody else had a real security model at the time, either (sigh, it's always the obvious and easy part that somebody patents). Unfortunately I was unable to contact the original author or locate a sufficiently old tarball of tkwww; but perhaps someone else succeeded in doing so. This was definitely available early enough, '93 or early '94.

    --
    Check out the Apostrophe open-source CMS: http://www.apostrophenow.com/
  7. Why only the Raggett citation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not sure I understand the theory that other prior art would,
    apparently, be too confusing for the patent office to handle. It
    doesn't sound like the typical lawyer thing to do (which is to use
    a shotgun approach). This is weird to me, and I would like to understand.