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.
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?"
I was thinking that too... how many clerks in the PTO aren't going to be worrying about their mortgages for the next year?
libertarianswag.com
No, the greater impact it has I would imagine. IE is everywhere, it affects Mozilla and EVERY browser.
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.
my thoughts exactly... kinda "convenient" for microsoft. what if it was a rediculous patent used against anybody else... i seriously doubt *it* would get overturned
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
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".
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
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.
It's called experience. If a guy breaks into my house 3 times and I catch him, then I get broke into again with the same MO, but I don't catch him red handed this time, I'd strongly suspect it was the same guy. Even if I don't have "solid" proof.
And as the judge enformed me when I went in for jury duty, circumstantial evidence IS legally admissable evidence.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
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.
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
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".
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
. . . 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.
Ah, the impermeable naivete of the average techie. It gives them that aura of child-like innocence.
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?
But money must have an influence somewhere along the line. Otherwise, why would corporations make financial contributions in the first place.
....." and reasoning it out and then setting the tone for policy.
Take, for example, the DMCA. In the two year period after the DMCA was introduced to Congress, the entertainment industry's campaign contributions doubled to 18 million dolloars. Why? To get the the DMCA passed.
If you've ever listened to the LBJ Tapes on C-SPAN, you'll know that Washington is a closely knit community, a few phone calls by the right people can do wonders. This is not a conspiracy, just a few politicians expressing an opinion on something and saying "I don't think such a such would be a good idea because
A large part of government funding comes from corporate taxes. For the government not to be influenced by the weight and power of these companies is difficult for some of us to believe.
I think that's the point that's being made here.
Max
...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
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).
Actually, it was stated emphatically by the Eolas guy that he wouldn't license his technology to Microsoft because he wanted to hurt their position in the browser wars.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
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 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-
no, correlation does not imply causation, but i don't think that's the issue here.
fact: corporations with money have been able to unfairly influence the government in the past.
fact: the USPTO reexamines and rejects an insignificantly small number of patents.
fact: microsoft, in the past, has thrown its weight around when they've wanted things out of the gov't.
no, this isn't a ringing indictment, but i think it's suspicious enough to warrant some amount of skepticism that all this may not have been totally on the level.
Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
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."
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
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.
No MO? Are you kidding? This is the first time I know of that Microsoft was staring at a half a billion dollar patent judgement against them. How is that not an MO for doing whatever they can to get the patent invalidated??
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
Check out the latest edition of "The Economist", Feb 28th 2004 edition. Article "Regenerative dentistry: Tooth fairies", page 77.
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.
I am guessing you don't know what MO actually means, so heres a link: Modus Operandi
"I have a porkchop, you have a porkchop. I have a veal, you have a veal".
;-)
This has been known for years! Microsoft even had an option in the IE5 installer to keep IE4 around!
> 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?
It's not something you have to agree with, it's a fact. Having been declared a monopoly as part of the anti-trust suit, they are (by law) held to stricter standards of conduct wrt competitive actions.
Oh dear, now I've gone and polluted the discussion. How messy and inconsistent of me. Bad boy, Michael! Bad! (Smacks self on nose with a rolled-up newspaper)
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way