Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Feds Reject Eolas Browser Plug-In Patent

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the surprise-turn-of-events dept.

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."

21 of 269 comments (clear)

  1. So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? by Trillan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't believe that out of 4 million patents, only 151 of them were been invalidated since 1988. Scary.

    2. Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? by October_30th · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I bet he also believes that if you're standing trial you're bound to be guilty.

      After all, if you were innocent in the first place you wouldn't have to be tried. That would, after all, mean that one could not rely on the police.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? by rollingcalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I can't believe that out of 4 million patents, only 151 of them were been invalidated since 1988. Scary."

      And I can't believe that as many as 4 million patents have been granted since 1988. Scary.

      There can't have been that many actual inventions in the last 16 years. Probably not even in the last 16 decades.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    4. Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the words of Susan McDougal, "God help you if you're innocent."

      The guilty have bargaining chips. Some so many that they can trade their way out of jail.

      The innocent have nothing, and if convicted garner harsh, retributional sentences for failing to "repent" that which they did not do.

      But hey, at least nearly anybody can swear out a criminal complaint against anybody, so what are the odds that you will ever face a criminal charge, eh? To hell with relying on the police, how about your wife/girlfriend. . . while you're breaking up, can you rely on her not "get even"?

      KFG

    5. Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? by rollingcalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "There is a common misconception that patents == inventions which simply isn't the case. You patent a method for doing something AND that something doesn't even have to be truly useful to anyone (hard to prove utility) or work."

      The point of my post was exactly that patents != inventions, which is why there are so many. My point is also that patents should be limited to actual useful inventions.

      When patents are granted for trivial steps in a process or trivial items, they can prevent others from building full-fledged working inventions because the would-be inventor of the more complex and useful device now has to tangle with 50 different patent holders who each have a claim on some minor aspects of the proposed creation. Had those trivial patents not been granted, the stuff they describe likely would have been created anyway as a natural part of building the more complex and useful invention.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
  2. No, more likely by blue_adept · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?"
    1. Re:No, more likely by msuzio · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I don't really care in this case. The patent was bogus, even if Microsoft was the sole target. It's one of those costs of freedoms, you know -- you have to agree that everyone gets the same sorts of freedoms (*)

      (*) yes, I know Microsoft already has fewer freedoms in business due to being declared a monopoly. Let's not pollute the discussion :-).

      --
      It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
  3. bittersweet? by Sylvius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Good news, bad news by Helvick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Re:Well Duh . . . by servoled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You have any proof to back this statement up? Or are you just making conclusions based on the very limited amount of information given in this story and your preconceptions about corrupt governments that you heard about once on TV?

    --
    "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
  6. Not that great... by jeffmock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  7. Not just IE by codefungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While MS may have been the target, this would have eventually affected all of us.

    --
    -- A cat is no trade for integrity!
  8. Hint for the idiots at the patent office by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Hint for the idiots at the patent office by hsoft · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not sure where I read it (it must have been on /. :) ), but it said that the USPTO accepts almost all software patents because they do not have the ressources nor the knowledge to determine if a software patent is valid. Thus, unless they are allocated more funds, they will accept all patents, and wait for the court to rule if it is valid.

      --
      perception is reality
  9. Re:Well Duh . . . by servoled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    correlation does not imply causation

    Just because Microsoft has money, and this patent has initially been rejected (though the finality of that rejection remains to be seen), does not mean that Microsoft's money had anything to do with that rejection.

    Plus, even under your analogy, both you and the parent poster have failed to show any track record of this type of ruling happening in the past which has been effected by the amount of money the winning party had availible.

    So, I ask again: What evidence is this conclusion based on?

    --
    "I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
  10. Re:Finally... by Xenographic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

  11. Eolas should now sue the Patent Office by prash_n_rao · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Eolas should now sue the Patent Office by rollingcalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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."

      Patents are presumed valid when applied for, and are granted unless blatant prior art is found during the few hours the examiner takes to review the patent. In essence, they rubber-stamp patents and leave it up to the courts or re-examination procedures to make a real determination of validity.

      You're correct; with this mode of operation they have no right to exist.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
  12. Re:Eolas claims this isn't over by francisu · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The lawyer is correct in that when you initially submit a patent, the examiner quite often just invalidates some or all of the claims and then you have to work with them to show why they are valid. As I understand it, they sometimes do that just to reduce their workload.

    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.

  13. Re:Now for more by cyborch · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!