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.
The more money you have, the more likely it is that the USPTO will invalidate inconvenient patents for you.
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.
The other good news is that the W3C's submission demonstrating that this should have been nullified due to prior art seem to have been listened to.
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
While MS may have been the target, this would have eventually affected all of us.
-- A cat is no trade for integrity!
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))
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?
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 bad news for Microsoft because they'd surely love it if, for instance, Quicktime were crippled, forcing users to use only Windows Media.
There ain't no rules here; we're trying to accomplish something.
Well.. are you sure about that?
I will agree that they did the right thing here--I don't think that that patent ever should have been granted.
However, I fear that the reexamination was triggered by Microsoft's many lawyers and massive amounts of cash, rather than any sudden desire for the USPTO to be more consumer-oriented...
What was that figure? They've only reexamined 141 out of 4+ million patents? I'd be willing to guess that there are quite a few other patents out there that never should have been granted...
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.
But it seems that revoking a patent is a pretty serious matter (since it has only been done in 151 patents), that has no relation to the standard process. So what the lawyer is saying is essentially nonsense. Given the prior art is so compelling and strong, from the USPTO standpoint, this seems over. The patent laws and procedures are very clear about not being able to patent anything that has been published or publicly exists (that is, for sale) as prior art.
Except that since the beneficiary is MS, one is left with the suspicion that political pull had more to do with the decision that the relevant facts.
There are lots of invalid patents that are let stand merely because they don't annoy anyone powerful. Is this one genuinely invalid under law? IANAL. So all I can do is notice that if one guessed ahead of time based on political pull, one would have come to the correct answer. And that this method of estimating the decision often works.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
You have cause and effect in this situation backwards when you refer to companies paying political contributions and say,
What is unethical is a citizenry who has no moral qualms with using the force of government to compel other citizens to pay for wants they don't want to pay for themselves out of their own pockets. Once that camel's nose is in the tent, it's all over because you have ceded your sovereign power to a politician. That power is used to extort large companies to pay political contributions as the cost of doing business. And that power is very, very difficult for citizens to reclaim. Historical record tells us it is rarely reclaimed without bloodshed, and unfortunately, the citizens proceed to almost immediately cede it away from themselves again.
Take away the politican's power to extort and you will diminish companies' incentive to seek out access to that power, simply to protect themselves from harrassment if nothing else. We never receive the government we need or want, but the government we deserve.
You people (americans) gotta stop this sueing. Can't you see that you are ruining your own legal system? Can't you see that you are ruining a lot of things for yourselves? Stop and think about consequences for one second. If you sue McDonald's about hot coffee all you will get is lukewarm coffee. Stop sueing eachother and start thinking for yourselves god dammit! If you pour hot coffee into your own lap you WILL get burnt! That does not mean that hot coffee is a bad thing, it means that you should be more careful. Please stop sueing and start thinking!
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.