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."

56 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 sjbrown · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. 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
    4. 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.
    5. Re:So I guess there isn't much hope for One Click? by PierceLabs · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      As such it doesn't really surprise me. Heck there are multiple patents for ketchup dispensers :)

    6. 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

    7. 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. Now for more by redune45 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Now for more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Can holders of patents that are subsequently invalidated sue the US Patent Office for lack of due diligence in granting the patent?

    2. 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!

  3. Finally... by clifgriffin · · Score: 3, Funny

    A consumer oriented decision in this case. Web developers and users everywhere should start clapping.

    I'll be the first.

    *clap*

    --
    clifgriffin > blog
    1. 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...

  4. Good news, bad news by jimbolaya · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is good news, bad news for Microsoft.

    [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.

    1. 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. Microsoft's Response by Liselle · · Score: 4, Informative

    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."
  6. IE changes already there by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In SP2 they changed their plugin interface a bit (now they are Add-Ons?). Wasn't that done to avoid this issue?

  7. Microsoft and those politicians by segment · · Score: 4, Informative
    I guess it does pay to lobby...
    Judge Kollar-Kotelly heard that total donations to political donations from Microsoft and its employees to political parties, candidates and PACs in the 2000 election cycle amounted to more than $6.1 million. During this period, Microsoft and its executives accounted for $2.3 million in soft money contributions, compared to $1.55 million by Enron and its executives for the same period. Soft money is the term generally given to unregulated corporate and individual contributions that cannot go directly to candidates, but which typically goes to political parties. USA: Microsoft's Lobbying Efforts Eclipse Enron

    If anyone really thinks these kinds of issues don't affect the outcome of things, I seriously think you need to do your research. Of course it's unethical, but you name one business that hasn't done something unethical for the sake of their company.

    --
    MoFscker
    1. Re:Microsoft and those politicians by hikerhat · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Microsoft was politically agnostic and never contributed to political campaigns until the US government brought the anti-trust suit against them. They've been one of the number one contributors ever since. Bush pretty much put the anti-trust trial on ice as soon as he walked into office. Microsoft, a relatively young company, learned what most other big companies already know - political contributions are a necessary cost of doing business in the US. They could have saved themselves the cost of ever having an anti-trust trial brought against them at all if they would have learned that lesson earlier.

      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.

    2. Re:Microsoft and those politicians by thewiz · · Score: 3, Informative
      If anyone really thinks these kinds of issues don't affect the outcome of things, I seriously think you need to do your research. Of course it's unethical, but you name one business that hasn't done something unethical for the sake of their company.

      There's one that immediately comes to mind: Malden Mills, the company that invented Polartec. Here's a little snippet about the president and owner from their website:
      After a devastating fire destroyed the mill in December 1995, Aaron Feuerstein, president and owner of Malden Mills(R) and grandson of the founder, garnered international acclaim and awards for his decision to rebuild a state-of-the-art, environmentally friendly facility in the same location. In a display of commitment to the community and employees, Mr. Feuerstein continued to compensate his staff during the rebuilding process.

      Had a chance to meet this gentleman and he is a very down-to-earth guy. Honest, truthful, caring - all the things I'd like in a boss.
      --
      If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  8. I'm siding with Microsoft ... by d00ber · · Score: 5, Funny


    ... on this one.

    ...Agghhhh... Can't breathe... ..

    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.

  9. 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
    2. Re:No, more likely by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Interesting
      they'll continue to only reject patents owned by individuals when they annoy a multibillion dollar corporation

      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/
    3. Re:No, more likely by Squareball · · Score: 4, Funny

      More like "In the election later this year, ask not what your government can legally do to you... because really the law doesn't apply to them"

    4. Re:No, more likely by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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
  10. 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.

  11. The irony... by blorg · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the USPTO help section:

    If you want to download the full pages of a patent from the USPTO, "you must install and use a browser plug-in..."

  12. so far not so good by segment · · Score: 3, Interesting


    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
  13. all you need to invalidate a patent... by braddock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  14. 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".
  15. Figure the odds by instantkarma1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  16. 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

  17. Best government that money can buy. by praksys · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess the only surprising thing about this is that sometimes money does actually buy good government.

  18. Head is going to explode! by FunWithHeadlines · · Score: 4, Funny
    Ahhh...what to do, what to do?....This is good, for software patents are bad. But this is bad, for it is good for Microsoft. But it is good, for it saves the rest of us from this patent. But this is bad-- (HEAD EXPLODES)

  19. 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!
  20. almost by jdkane · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

  21. 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
    2. Re:Hint for the idiots at the patent office by gclef · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  22. What happens next? by 1ucius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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)?

  23. It makes me wonder... by JamesP · · Score: 3, Funny

    about the other 150 invaidated patents...

    P No. 1234567 A machine that does nothing

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  24. I hate to side with Microsoft, but ... by rben · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  25. 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".
  26. So . . . by base3 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    . . . 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.
  27. 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 His+name+cannot+be+s · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If the grant for the patent was a vaild one, the USPTO has no right to reject the patent

      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 :p

      --
      "...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
    2. 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.
  28. Eolas claims this isn't over by enosys · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From the article:

    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?

    1. 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.

  29. Watch out Acacia.... by FightThePatent · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  30. If Eolas was SCO by MojoRilla · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

  31. Developer IE6 lead to multiple installed versions by starvingartist12 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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).

  32. This can only be a positive thing by brucmack · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  33. Re:Your Sig by DA-MAN · · Score: 4, Funny

    Makes perfect sense.

    If George Bush is complaining the sex in his marriage is always the same, the answer is not changing the constitution.

    George Bush has been complaining about same sex marriages, the parent poster took this to mean marriages where the sex is always the same, a pun as it were.

    Thus 'If George Bush is complaining the sex in his marriage is always the same, ..."

    He then continues with '... the answer is not changing the constitution." because George Bush has been mouthing off to anyone who will listen about how he intends on banning "same sex marriages"

    Personally I am glad that we have a president who has solved so many of our major problems like the economy, terrorism and high taxes that he can now worry on trivial shit like same sex marriages. (For those humor-less anonymous cowards, yes I am being sarcastic)

    --
    Can I get an eye poke?
    Dog House Forum
  34. Where patents are invalidated by waterbear · · Score: 4, Informative

    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-