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."
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
[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.
In SP2 they changed their plugin interface a bit (now they are Add-Ons?). Wasn't that done to avoid this issue?
No, the greater impact it has I would imagine. IE is everywhere, it affects Mozilla and EVERY browser.
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
Why should we celebrate the demise of one of the few sw patents that really show the right people how ridiculous sw patents really are?
Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam
This article sums it up: I've invented the greatest compression algorithm ever .. and I'm keeping it a secret
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)?
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
Hope for One-Click to get thrown out? No, I don't think so.
The lesson here is that the patent office is on the side of large corporations with billions of dollars. Don't hold your breath that AOL/TW's patent will be invalidated just because many independant web developers can see that it's trivial.
. . . 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.
You make it sound as though you've been told differently by someone
To bring it back on topic, I question the original assertion that MS has somehow has bought the overturning of the browser patent because there is no MO (MS haven't successfully overturned a patent before and there's certainly no evidence that they've ever payed off the Patent Office). In other words, there isn't even circumstantial evidence! No, the only evidence here is a formed from personal opinion and as I'm sure your friendly judge would have told you, that *isn't* admissable.
Actually this is the main pain point.
Patents held by companies that do business are not generally a problem. IBM and Microsoft both own a metric shit-load of patents and they don't cause a tenth of the problems that Doyle/Eolas type individual 'inventors' do.
OK Microsoft has a patent on encoding document files in XML format. Does anyone really think that they would try to enforce it? The prior art is called HTML. The only logical reason for filing that patent and many of the other recent ones is to stop a would-be Doyle doing the same.
If you think the Eolas situation is sick take a look at Lemelson, over a billion dollars extorted through a completely worthless claim. The old crook's widow bribed MIT to start an 'inventor's prize' to burnish his name. To their everlasting shame MIT took the cash.
It would be much better if the USPTO would do its job and reject the crap. One of the issues I face as an architect is that a patent holder can often play stupid games when we are agreeing a standard. It gives unfair leverage. So I end up having to file patents to stop other people doing the same to me, now I have the unfair leverage.
In about two months time there is going to be a slashdot story accusing me of all sorts of stuff because I patented every idea I could think of to stop spam. But it is the only tool I have to stop some other person doing it.
At least I know that my employer has a big interest in making the ideas unencumbered and is in no danger of being taken over or going under. But there is always the danger of a SCO type situation. SCO would never have tried the desperation suit against IBM if they still had a viable business.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Patent examiners are also now being evaluated based on how "efficient" they are. Which means how many applications they process in a particular time cycle. So, while it's easy to bounce it back the first time (and most do), by the second or third try it actually takes more time to figure out if they're full of it than to just grant the patent, so most folks just grant the patent on the second or third time through.
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?
If the grant for the patent was a vaild one, the USPTO has no right to reject the patent
:p
Ahh. The Crux of the matter.
Having followed this for quite some time, it was clear that the patent infringed upon prior art.
The putz at Eolas was quite aware of the prior art too.
Look here for information about the prior art
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
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?
They won't make that mistake again. Here are the top contributors to Bush's 2004 campaign. Microsoft is in the top 20.
Microsft isn't listed as a top contributor to Kerry's campaign, but they are listed as a top contributor to Dean's campaign, so I guess they bet on the wrong horse there.
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.
OK Microsoft has a patent on encoding document files in XML format. Does anyone really think that they would try to enforce it? The prior art is called HTML. The only logical reason for filing that patent and many of the other recent ones is to stop a would-be Doyle doing the same.
.asf video file format. I stress the file format - we're not even talking about something as complex as a codec or anything. Like the XML patents, it's nothing at all original, but that didn't stop them from using it to force the author of VirtualDub to remove ASF support from his program!
Well, Microsoft also has a patent on the
No, what we have is a situation where a big companies can use their boatloads of worthless patents to squash little guys who can't afford to fight and don't have the clout to pressure the USPO. While any patents, valid or not, an individual may have can easily be made worthless.
There's been a real attempt recently to create an economic situation where only large corporations can afford to do software development, and software patents and the DMCA are a big part of it. If Microsoft has there way all PCs will have X-Box like DRM protection where only signed code can be run, and any attempt to get around it will be illegal.
Maybe i'm missing something, but according to the VirtualDub author, he wasn't contacted by any legal entity of MS, only a programmer who claimed the format was patented.
I looked at the supplied patent, and it appears to me (though i'm not an expert) to only cover streaming ASF audio, and the algorithm for handling that (specifically using error correction and sliding windows, along with a few other features).
For the life of me, I can't figure out how this patent could be claimed to a patent on a file format. It seems to be a patent on the process of streaming data.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
True he wasn't actually sued, but he was contacted by someone officially representing Microsoft. Not many people developing open source software for free would really want to call that bluff.
:-).
I'm sure Microsoft's take would be that just the act of writing an asf file somehow infringes on the patent. That's all VirtualDub did - no actual streaming happened (unless you count "streaming" the file to disk
Sure if Microsoft tried the same trick on a company like IBM, they might just laugh it off, but in the U.S. very few individuals can afford that attitude. Fending off legal action could easily bankrupt a person even if they eventually win.