Slashdot Mirror
Feds Reject Eolas Browser Plug-In Patent
theodp writes "The USPTO has issued a preliminary decision invalidating Eolas' claim to Web browser technology central to a case against Microsoft, which could save the software giant more than half a billion dollars in damages. If upheld, this also means Microsoft will not be required to make changes that would have crippled IE's ability to work with plug-ins like QuickTime and Flash. Eolas has 60 days to respond to the decision. The USPTO has only invalidated 151 patents out of nearly 4 million patents awarded since 1988."
I still can't believe that a trivial use of cookies managed to get patented. I suppose this is inevitable when the patent office is run as a for-profit center.
Hopefully they'll keep it up. And start rejecting more of those stupidly obvious patents.
redune.com: The World 3.2 Megapixels at a time
A consumer oriented decision in this case. Web developers and users everywhere should start clapping.
I'll be the first.
*clap*
clifgriffin > blog
[this] could save the software giant more than half a billion dollars in damages
That's the good news.
Microsoft will not be required to make changes that would have crippled IE's ability to work with plug-ins like QuickTime and Flash.
That's the bad news.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
The more money you have, the more likely it is that the USPTO will invalidate inconvenient patents for you.
Remember back when this story first broke, and Microsoft was set to add pop-up confirmation to IE in order to get around the EOLAS issue? That was supposed to happen earlier this year, but there was an update posted at the end of January for those of you who might have missed it.
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
In SP2 they changed their plugin interface a bit (now they are Add-Ons?). Wasn't that done to avoid this issue?
MoFscker
This patent for browser plugins should have been shot down. All browsers (and many other apps) use this idea in some form and even though Eolas seemed to have a soft side for Free browsers it still sets a bad precedent to have bad patents unchallenged.
they'll continue to only reject patents owned by individuals when they annoy a multibillion dollar corporation
"Is this just useless, or is it expensive as well?"
As exciting as it is that the patent office has done this, I can't help but be suspicious that it has a heck of a lot to do with MS's lobbying power and less to do with some sudden fundamental gain of basic common sense in the patent office.
Time will tell whether the patent office will be willing to look reasonably at other ridiculous patents, or just ones that could cost behemoths like microsoft some money.
If you want to download the full pages of a patent from the USPTO, "you must install and use a browser plug-in..."
a cheer is heard from millions of Macromedia Flash developers everywhere
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Microsoft will not be required to make changes that would have crippled IE's ability to work with plug-ins like QuickTime and Flash. Would this really matter? The government is tiptoeing through the laws with MS in any circumstance, so how long will it be before the next MS release has implemented functions that will (by default) play these filetypes on IE by default. Sure it won't be allowed to 'cripple' them, "no one said we had to use them by default". A half a billion to MS is nothing, sure it's worth saving, but for what?, to use that half billion to find a newer method of skirting the issue?
MoFscker
Wow, so if you're a multi-billion dollar corporation in a half-billion dollar lawsuit, then after a few million dollars in lawyer fees and several years and god knows what type of political influence you can actually get a patent seriously reviewed and invalidated by the USPTO?!?! So there's hope!
For only about the vested interest of the entire GNP we should be able to get the other four million patents since '88 reviewed. One down, four million to go...
braddock gaskill
We don't have to implement a hokey work around to get around the letter of the ruling. Anyone running Flash, Real Media Player or Windows Media Player would have had to update every page with these plug ins. Not bad if you have a handful, but any large site operator would need to spend a LOT of time to find/update/test each one... A huge amount of unproductive effort.
While I'm glad they have invalidated such a bogus patent, I really hate the fact that they have decided to come to Jesus in just the nick of time for Microsoft.
free WMV plugin?
Tetris grandmaster
Super Mario Bros 3 in 11 minutes
Let's face it, this is really just another example of how that patent system is now geared to protect bigger coprporte interests and not the smaller inventors the patent system was origianally intended to protect.
The patent office went back to review this patent because of the dollar-size of the potential damage and less to do with the legitamacy of the patent. A small company would likely never see such a consideration from the patent office.
Instead, a smaller guy is most likely to face a crappy patent that is presumed valid until you spend $2-3M and 12-months to get to a markman ruling in a fedral lawsuit before a judge can even consider a summary judgement against a clearly bogus patent.
Even though the odds are about 50/50 for winning if you take a patent to court, the barrier to entry is so great for a little guy that it's not usually not possible to contest a patent.
jeff
I guess the only surprising thing about this is that sometimes money does actually buy good government.
While MS may have been the target, this would have eventually affected all of us.
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
M$ = Bad
Software Patents = Bad
software patents that cost M$ $,$$$,$$$ = ???
The More Knowledge you have the Luckier you Get- J.R. Ewing
Since you put it like that I see your SCO and raise you with my SCUM
MoFscker
in our government and the legal system, here this comes. Maybe Microsoft bought someone off :)
This guy is way out there
This Info World article explains that "The patent office's decision, issued Feb. 25, may be good news for Microsoft, but it is common for claims to be rejected at this stage of patent review" ... so in other words we shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch.
Well, the article made no mention of why the patent was overturned. We should assume that is because of one or more pieces of prior art were deemed to be applicable and invalidate the patents claims, and not corporate conspiracy.
(S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))
This article sums it up: I've invented the greatest compression algorithm ever .. and I'm keeping it a secret
I do not think the Eolas come up with anything that merits a patent. But all the same I think Bush's cofferes were just lined this time around too.
Remember when the microsoft Eolas source was posted on slashdot in its entirety!
This time it looks like that microsoft are going to get one up over eolas!
Something must be done!
Murphy's Law of Research: Enough research will tend to support your theory.
Your hint for the day: It's a hell of a lot easier to not grant these stupid patents in the first place than to be forced to go back and invalidate them.
Pull your heads out of your asses and quit handing out patents like candy. You're ruining the tech industry.
Do you have ESP?
Right now, we have a federal district court saying the patent is valid and the USPTO saying it's invalid. Presumably, both decisions are based on the same art. Normally, the federal court's opinion trumps the USPTO's.
So, does this decision have any legal effect? Or does MS still have to win an appeal/reconsideration (which is presumably made easier by this decision)?
Why would they suddenly invalidate a patent when there's so much at stake? I'm sure something fishy is going on.
Despite the fact that this is a victory for MS, it is a victory for all of us. This patent was dangerous and shouldn't have been issued in the first place.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
It's all ActiveX controls. You'll see a bunch of *.ocx files.
about the other 150 invaidated patents...
P No. 1234567 A machine that does nothing
how long until
When I first read this, my reaction was to side with Eolas against M$, because of Microsoft's long history of shady business practices. It also seems mighty convenient that this patent is being overturned at Microsoft's request. After reading more about it, however, I have come to the conclusion that the patent should not have been issued in the first place, especially with the W3C presenting evidence of proir art.
The problem here is first that the patent was awarded when there was plenty of prior art that should have invalidated. We were all badly served by that decision of the USPTO.
What is even worse, is that I doubt this patent would have been invalidated if I had challenged it, or if any small or medium-sized business had challenged it. The patent would have stayed in force until some giant corporation found it to be a nuisence.
Lately, trying to gain control over Internet related technology has been pursued with the same kind of irresponsible single minded fervor as was demonstrated by the miners during the gold rush. Everyone is racing to stake claims on everything they can lay their hands on. It's sad that our government hasn't seen fit to review how these patents are being awarded and make the needed changes at the USPTO to insure that the patents that are given out are deserved and unlikely to be overturned in the future.
-All that is gold does not glitter - Tolkien
www.ra
Maybe - if the consumer is a Microsoft shareholder. The way I see it, the rest of us are forked either way. It's just a question of by whom.
Playboy has announced that Heff wants to market a physical plug-in so that computer users can "interface with their browser in more intimate ways." Analysts speculate that the E.D. drug manufacturers are behind the product, which may be scheduled to release prematurely.
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
Ok, as I understand it, first this invention was created and a patent was applied for.
/. to continually applaud Microsoft and boo Eolas concerning this case makes me strongly believe they are badly informed on this case.
Then the inventors showed this technology to Microsoft and Microsoft blew off any talks for licensing this technology.
Then, Microsoft put this technology into their products with full knowledge that they had no rights to it, as they have done many other times.
Over time, this technology appeared to be ubiquitous and fundamental to everyday web usage due to this theft of intellectual property many years ago.
Then, after years of examining this patent application, including for claims of prior art, the USPTO awarded the patent.
Microsoft once again stiff-armed any discussion for licensing this technology from the inventors.
The inventors sued Microsoft and during the long trial, Microsoft trotted forward all possible claims of prior art and reasons why this patent should not be considered valid. The federal jury made out of normal common folks were not convinced that any of these claims were valid and found for the inventors.
Microsoft went very public and stated they would disrupt all existing web sites by changing their product rather than licensing this technology. Lots of ill-informed people start whining about this patent rather than questioning Microsoft and forcing them to for once, do the right thing for its customers.
The Judge reexamined all of the trial evidence and testimony and reaffirmed the verdict and awarded both interest and an injunction against Microsoft (both subsequently stayed until the appeal process is completed).
The soon to be Sir Tim Berners-Lee sends a letter to the USPTO requesting a reexamination of the patent based not so much on the merits of the award of the patent and the same tired old claims of prior art that have been repeatedly examined and found wanting, but rather more on the economic impact of Microsoft's threatened disruption of the Web.
The USPTO accepts the reexamination petition.
The USPTO issues a preliminary decision to invalidate the patent.
I hope that the preliminary decision is, as the Eolas attorney states, a routine matter in these kinds of patent reexamination cases and not due to the political visibility that this case has risen to. I fundamentally dislike these process patents, but they exist. As far as I can tell, Eolas has played the game completely above board and Microsoft has acted reprehensively every step of the way. For the great vocal audience of
Additionally, should Microsoft prevail, the entire issue of intellectual property protections, including those most revered by the open source and free software communities, becomes open to override by the extortion and illegal activities of Microsoft. This should worry us all.
. . . does this show us that the USPTO actually cares about bad patents, or that it can be induced to care about them for a megacorporation who has given sufficient campaign contributions?
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
Does not bother the moderators though
Lest I get trolled down, let me make it clear I am neither on Microsoft's side nor on Eolas' side. I am simply against the idiots in the USPTO.
;-)
This is the case Eolas can make: If the grant for the patent was a vaild one, the USPTO has no right to reject the patent. The point I am making is: what's the point of registering a patent if you know that by some arbitrary decesion of the USPTO the patent can be recalled? Doesn't the USPTO know what is worthy of patenting and what is not? If it doesn't, it has no right to exist.
I don't know if one has to pay extra if the patent is accepted, I mean in addition to the patent application charges. But if one does have to pay extra after the patent has been accepted, Eolas should ask for a refund (and maybe punitive damages).
If the USPTO is not made accountable for its actions, it will continue to make arbitrary grants of patents. Hey, what have they got to lose?
Oh, by the way, I did not RTFA. I am on slashdot, right?
This is not my sig.
Martin Lueck, the lawyer who represented Eolas, said it was not uncommon for the patent office to invalidate a claim as the first step of a review process, but said he was confident that the patent office would ultimately uphold Eolas' claim on the Web technology.
That makes it seem as if this is far from over. I don't know much about the process. How much of a chance does Eolas really have still?
...apply for a patent on toilet seats. I'm sure it has a good chance at slipping through the cracks. Then I can sue all the end users and manufacturers. Maybe even the technicians(plumbers, construction contracters).
I think that means that the electronic system doesn't accept it. You will have to send them in on plain papaer.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
If George W. Bush is against 'same sex marriage' he should watch a video and learn a new technique like the rest of us.
What on earth does that mean?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
What other patents were invalidated in order to protect MS? Or, how about, what valid patents were invalidated to protect MS. The Eolas patent was bullshit to begin with, and if they had held on to their victory they would have OwnZ0r3d the web. Even if Eolas didn't go after Moz and other browsers, most people would still use IE, making data-using plugins useless on the web, and under the w3c's RAND patent rules (reasonable and non-discriminatinitory) they would have to have been taken out of their recommendations.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I guess this is another "loss" against Microsoft. Maybe next time we'll be able to bag the monster and throw it out of a tall building ... For example, the OSDL building ;) ... ahhh, my fantasies.
- Code Dark
Hell, if Martha goes to jail for trying to cover her tracks to save less than 100K, then surely lots of heads should roll at the PTO. Their incompetence costs the high tech industries probably billions of dollars in unnecessary licensing for trivial patents and for legal fees.
A number of posts have suggested suing the PTO. But my question is for what and how?
Now isn't this interesting.. Microsoft's attorneys couldn't invalidate the patent, but the W3C and its supporters seemingly came up with the prior art to invalidate the patent on their re-exam petition.
The current defendants against Acacia's DMT patent (which covers the process of downloading audio/video from a web server) will most likely get a non-infringing verdict, since it's faster and cheaper than trying to invalidate the patent in their current litigation.
When this happens, it means that the patent doesn't apply to the internet. Cable companies would be left to deal with the DMT patent, and would most likely need to file a re-exam of their own and provide prior art to the USPTO to invalidate the DMT patent.
FightThePatent.com provides free prior art found by volunteer searchers to defense patent attorneys.
Patent abuse cases in the audio/video realm (Acacia, SightSound, USA Video) are being tracked on the website.
------ Fight The Patent! website
Who wants Ebola on their computer anyway....oh wait, Eolas? Nevermind.
Don't get me wrong. I think Eolas is scum. The idea was trivial, and only extended the natural trend that things like mime types and gopher were doing. Plus plug-ins being used in much other software.
But, if Eolas was SCO, they would be suing end users for infringing on their browser technology. They would claim you would owe them $6.99 every time you accessed a page with a plugin. They would be saying that the mozilla developers were theives, and that javascript plugin detection code is unconstitutional.
So it could be a whole lot worse.
This update was big news for the web design community, for other reasons. The developer's edition of IE6 (which was a modified version that contained the pop-up) revealed that Windows was able to run multiple Internet Explorer versions simultaneously by merely adding a blank text file!.
For the longest time, people thought it was impossible to run multiple versions of IE on the same machine to do testing on various browsers. It was a huge pain, and it also meant that developers were forced to use the IE version that came with the OS and not downgrade, while Netscape 4.xx to Mozilla installed fine. But now, it's possible to run IE3, IE4, IE5.01, IE5.5 SP2 and IE6 side-by-side (screenshot).
Yes, this is mainly benefiting MS right now, but I see this as only a positive thing.
Suppose the patent was upheld and MS had to make changes to IE and pay damages. What was to stop the guy from going after the other browsers once he felt his bank account was getting a bit too low? If Microsoft weren't able to stop the patent, how would some of the other browser makers put up a fight?
The other thing is that this wasn't just MS fighting this patent, the W3C was involved as well, and all of the major players met to discuss the issue last year. I look at this as a victory for sensible thinking, not as a victory for Microsoft.
Being dyslexic , when I read this I kept wondering
how EBOLA could spread itself with a plugin......
I'm not a slimeball at all, but if you come to me and try to sell me something stupidly obvious like the IP covered by the Eolas patent, I'm going to tell you to get lost, just like Microsoft (excuse me, Micro$oft) did.
Verdict: lame-ass attempt to extort large amounts of funds from an entire industry. Eolas fails it. Case closed (cue sound of gavel).
I can't believe that out of 4 million patents, only 151 of them were been invalidated since 1988. Scary
That's not what the story meant (but it was ambiguously worded). The report related only to patents invalidated by the Patent Office's re-examination process. That is a relatively new procedure. Many patent challenges are made in court, and those were not being counted. One of the factors dissuading would-be challengers from using the relatively new PTO patent re-examination process is that it has been perceived as not close enough to fairly balanced, and too likely to uphold the patent. Many challengers have preferred for that reason to reserve their patent challenges for federal court.
-wb-
Learn HTML! It's far too much work to copy and paste...
There should be a law requiring/prohibiting that (Please circle one)
Cause yaknow, Microsoft does a pretty good job cripping it themselves every time they update IE, didnt need another company frocing them to do it.
ok got it out of the way.... go back to real discussion as to why Microsoft was right for once.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
sh_t walks...
As other /.-er noticed, Eolas had a soft side because there were no money to make from free browsers.
1 132 - read links from that message).
/.-ers who see the world in such a manner too).
I'd give another reasoning: if they'd sue everybody (including non-free Opera), they would never be awarded that much against MS.
You see, jurors in such type of lawsuits are idiots or even degenerates
(here is the reasoning why: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99223&cid=846
They award "damages" based not on what the actual damages are, but on defendant's worth (their distortion of guilty/not guilty is not a subject of this argument). In order to convince them to award these huge damages, one just needs to represent himself as a "little guy wersus evil billion dollar corporation" (unfortunately, I see a lot of left-leaning
If they would sue everyone, it would not be the case, it would be seen more like "greedy bastards got a chance", and they wouldn't be given that much.
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
Damn, used up my mod points, I would've modded you up for insightful. But as a compliment, that does clear things up. Rare are there in Slashdot who can comment logically and calmly.
As a side note, what extortion claim did Lemelsom do? And I'm shocked that MIT is part of the scam.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
Damn skippy. And it makes coding SO much easier. I currently have 11 browsers installed on one machine, for testing purposes - IE 4 through 6, FireFox, NS 4.8, Opera 5 through 7, Lynx, and Mozilla.
What can I say, I'm a stickler for standards.
-- Karma is for people who think they matter.
So, why do you test with IE again?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Reminds me of the time I was looking up L. Ron Hubbard's e-meter (basically a couple of tin cans wired to a galvanometer) at the Patent Office in Crystal City when I ran into a patent for a jet propelled suppository. Now there's a truly useful invention....
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
Lawyers just made themselves a lot of money because of this stupidity.
You need to think who makes the rules in this country, and you'll understand.
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
Well at least now we've figured out that damn middle step.
1. File an obvious patent.
2. Sue a small company with few lawyers for patent infringement.
3. Profit!!!
vs.
1. File an obvious patent.
2. Sue a ginormous company with tons of lawyers for patent infringement.
3. Get your patent invalidated by the patent office!!!
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
You're wrong. The patent system was originally intended to reward inventors for non-trivial inventions, i.e. those which are not obvious to those already trained in the art. The simple fact is that embedding one application in another has been known for ages -- any windowing system, especially the client/server based X-windows, is an example (the parent screen desktop is the outer window representing the operating system). Pei-Wei Yuan, then a sophomore at the University of California at Berekeley, had also implemented many of things Doyle claimed to have "invented", and there were others as well -- these concepts were obvious to those trained in the art.
Spare me the David and Goliath stories. Michael Doyle is no David, but a serial lawsuit filer and opportunist.
because it *is* the standard, stupid.
Mike Doyle always pretends to be the "benevolent dictator", by reassuing others that he would only sue Microsoft.
But what happens if Doyle gets killed prematurely, say in a car accident? Would his suriving relatives (including a CIA brother) inherit Eolas and the patent rights, and would THEY become malicious dictators, perhaps employing SCO laywers to demand compensation from everybody under the sun?
Reexamination can be one of three flavors: (i) ex parte reexam, where the patentee deals with the PTO by himself, and noone else is allowed to participate, once the initial petition is acted upon; (ii) inter partes reexam, where the petitioner, but only the petitioner, can file comments at every stage; and (iii) commissioner's reexam, which is just a type of ex parte, but where the commissioner calls for reexamination.
Now, the petition basically asks the examiner to consider whether new prior art (not yet examined) raises a substantial new question of patentability (SNQP) and is not merely cumulative of stuff already considered. If the examiner finds SNQP, the petition is granted and the patent "case" is reopened.
The examiner then issues an office action in view of the new art, citing the relevant elements and rejecting those claims that are impacted thereby. This is JUST LIKE the first office action in a patent application, which routinely rejects all the claims in view of a search.
The applicant responds, either amending the claims to avoid the prior art, or arguing that the examiner was wrong, or both. The examiner then decides whether or not she buys the new arguments and either issues a notice of allowability, or a new office action (usually FINAL, which means that a new application fee must be filed or that the rejection must be appealed). Sometimes, a new, non-final rejection is issued, and the process repeats.
At the end, either every claim (possibly as amended) will be allowed (including new claims which can be filed), or every claim will be rejected, in which case the patent dies.
The news report is unsurprising. It would be very odd, almost nonsensical, for the USPTO to grant a petition finding a new question of patentability was raised by the prior art, and then to simply allow all the claims. Of COURSE there was an initial office action rejecting all or most of the claims -- they granted the petition.
I was going to patent this "concept", but I've decided to publish the idea here so that future generations can point back to prior-concept in case there are related patent disputes (perhaps this isn't enough for a patent, but maybe others will fill this out for the public domain).
I'm sure the industry I am about to describe will become a multi-million (might not reach the billion-dollar mark unless permanent body modification beyond just cosmetic skin-coloring becomes popular and accepted). I plan to make my profit from infomercials and the surgical centers employing the "open source" methods I fund (after the company I work for IPOs at $10 per share, hah!) and the science gets a bit further along. I have the talent and charisma it will take to make such centers popular -- the pie is big enough for all!
So what is the great idea? Implanting self-generating teeth in places other than the mouth for body-enhancement. Such enhancements may be for "cosmetic" or utilitarian purposes.
More details to arrive some day at http://www.gg411.com under the "wacky ideas" section.
Check out the latest edition of "The Economist", Feb 28th 2004 edition. Article "Regenerative dentistry: Tooth fairies", page 77.
Do you agree Microsoft already has fewer freedoms in business due to being declared a monopoly? If yes, do you agree we should not pollute the discussion?
Can holders of patents that are subsequently invalidated sue the US Patent Office for lack of due diligence in granting the patent?
Once a patent is granted, VENTURE CAPITALISTS will invest millions based on the Intellectual Property rights of a company.
Imagine if you invested your life savings (and everyone you know aswell) into a venture based on an approved patent. The USPTO has an enormous reposibility here, especially for the "small" inventor. It cost millions in legal fees to protect a patent, the last thing we need is validity coming into question aswell!
What exactly IS this new substance? I for one have never heard of it...
I've followed this story carefully for some time, and the cynical interpretation among Slashdotters is actually not the case. While the article talks about Microsoft, the evidence submitted to the USPTO was submitted by the W3C, who wants to see this overturned just as much as Microsoft. I doubt Eolas has a soft side for free software, they just realize that they needed to bag a big prize early on to fund bringing everyone else into line.
The 906 patent was a farce, and was contradicted by numerous pieces of prior art. It's a Good Thing for everyone (except perhaps, Eolas) that this turd is thrown out.
If MS could have bought their way out of this problem, they'd have done it a long time ago. They've lost decision after decision up to this point, and were basically SOL. This was essentially the last thing that could have saved their bacon. It is very convenient for the W3C and the web as a whole that the legal might of Microsoft happened to be aligned with their purposes.
Microsoft isn't lilly white themselves -- they already have a number of dubious web-related patents of their own. But I'm still glad to see them win in this case.
-- There is no truth. There is only Perception. To Percieve is to Exist.
That the patent office wasn't around when Grug discovered the wheel.
"Microsoft's Desler noted that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has only invalidated 151 patents out of nearly 4 million patents awarded since 1988."
This is insane. They should start measuring in clock speeds, like "4 megapatents."
How can they pretend to responsibly manage 4 million patents? This is simply a type of usury. Our government is irresponsibly collecting money at far too high of a cost to us, the citizens.
Many of us Anonymous Cowards actually have a perverted sense of humor. What could be more correctly self-deprecating than to post eternally as an AC?
In soviet Russia, sense of humor deprecates YOU.
This has been known for years! Microsoft even had an option in the IE5 installer to keep IE4 around!
The real question here is going to be: Will the Eolas modified claims be infringed by IE?
It is most likely that the patent will survive with modified claims:
A spokeswoman from the patent office could provide no statistics on how often preliminary findings are upheld.
However, she said that in 68 percent of reexaminations, one or more of the patent's claims are changed.
Thirteen percent of time, all of the claims are confirmed, and 19 percent of cases resulted in all claims being cancelled.
I should have patent chopsticks, so that all these Chinese + Japanese + Korean restaurants have to pay me.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0403100 243mar10,1,4397485.story
Patent `non-story' trips Eolas funding
Microsoft lawyer was source of tip
By Barbara Rose
Tribune staff reporter
Published March 10, 2004
A Microsoft Corp. attorney's e-mail tip to a reporter last week caused investors to yank their money from Eolas Technologies Inc., which is battling the software giant for a $521 million patent infringement award.
Eolas founder Michael Doyle said in a lengthy e-mail to his private company's investors that Eolas' widely reported setback at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was a "non-story" that Microsoft spun to its advantage--at the worst moment. The Chicago Tribune reported the story Saturday.
"Eolas was in the process of closing a very significant investment," stated Doyle's e-mail, a copy of which was obtained by the Tribune. "The investment, if it had been completed, would have relieved us of the need to raise any more money for at least two years."
The Wheaton company has about 100 investors, mainly in the Chicago area. Its fortunes have ebbed and flowed since its founding in 1994 to create and market Internet technology, including the disputed Web browser software that Doyle and two others developed at the University of California.
Doyle's e-mail said new investors had asked Eolas on Friday to return money they had wired the night before while they reconsidered their investment.
Their change of heart, according to Doyle, came after they read stories Friday on the Bloomberg wire service. Those stories were based on a tip to a reporter from a Chicago attorney working for Microsoft.
"We have returned the money," Doyle's e-mail stated.
Doyle, Eolas' sole employee, said Tuesday that the proceeds were to be used for day-to-day operations, including expenses to defend the patent at the examiner's office. He declined to identify the investors or disclose the amount.
Doyle has been at the center of controversy since August, when Eolas won a $521 million jury award--one of the largest in patent history--against Microsoft for infringing on browser technology that launches programs to make Web pages interactive.
The verdict has wide-ranging implications because the patent claims technology that has become a de facto standard, widely used for streaming audio and video, plug-ins such as Adobe's PDF document reader and Web languages such as Java.
Microsoft has appealed.
Separately, the software giant marshaled support last fall from influential members of the Web community to persuade the patent office's director to re-examine whether the patent should have been issued.
It was a development at the patent office that triggered last week's news reports. The office issued a preliminary finding in late February that Doyle's claims should not have been patented because they were based on prior discoveries. Eolas has 60 days to respond.
Patent attorneys said it is common for examiners to strike down claims in a preliminary finding, the first step in a process that takes 12 to 18 months.
Doyle's attorneys had not received a copy of the finding when a patent attorney working for Microsoft forwarded a copy to the Bloomberg reporter via e-mail. "The Patent Office has now invalidated all claims of the Eolas patent," the attorney's e-mail stated.
Bloomberg's initial headline read, "Microsoft wins U.S. patent ruling that could save $521 million." Caught off-guard, Doyle's attorney did not comment for Bloomberg's first story.
Later in the day, a Microsoft spokesman forwarded a copy of the patent office's finding to the Chicago Tribune, which reported the development the next day.
"We and our attorneys have every confidence that the patent will emerge unscathed from this process," Doyle said in his e-mail to investors.
Microsoft spokesman James Desler said the company's statement Friday made clear that the patent office's ruling was preliminary. He said he was unaware of the attorney's e-mail to Bloomberg until the wire service called him for comment.
Copyright (C) 2004, Chicago Tribune