Two Strikes for Eolas Plug-In Patent

theodp writes "The USPTO has handed Microsoft a second victory in a dispute over a browser plug-in patent that could roil the Web if upheld, rejecting arguments by Eolas and the University of California that technologies cited as prior art by Microsoft and its W3C allies that persuaded the USPTO to open a reexam were irrelevant. Separately, Microsoft is attacking Eolas and the UC on a second front, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals to overturn a $565 million judgment, this time based on prior art that's completely different than that which it urged the USPTO to consider and the W3C to stand behind."

Comments

Yay

[dtfinch]

Microsoft wins another patent lawsuit.

Re:Yay

[theparanoidcynic]

Only this time, and for the first time . . . . well ever they're fighting for the forces of good.

The enemy of my enemy . . . is still my enemy but I'd rather they get shot at instead of us. ;)

Re:Yay

[Otter]

For anyone who attended a UC school and has bitter memories of writing check after check to "UC Regents", Microsoft has to seem like the lesser of two evils here. Although I confess to amusement at the thought of Bill pulling out his checkbook and having to write "Pay to the order of: UC Regents...uhhhh...five hundred sixty five million and 00/100 dollars". Maybe they'll tack on the "athletics fee", too.

Re:Yay

[S. Traaken]

No, they are - like any 'good' corporation - fighting for themselves.

I knew it...

[Anonymous Coward]

we do have a pay-as-you-go government!

And the winner is...

[numist]

"We pay our lawyers more."

Re:Roil

[tarquin_fim_bim]

turbid

adj : (of especially liquids) clouded as with sediment; "a cloudy liquid"; "muddy coffee"; "murky waters" [syn: cloudy, muddy, mirky, murky]

Please please please please

[Anonymous Coward]

USPTO take another look at Acacia Research's streaming media claims, too.

(If I wasn't in such a nice mood, I'd have written, "Take your head out of your ass, do what you have to do to completely reform how the USPTO reviews patents and then start reviewing and rejecting the huge lot of undeserved patents out there." But I'm in a good mood.)

If up held who really is infringing?

[hashish]

I think that MS is being sued because they have the money, not because they are infringing. The pluging ability in IE is one thing, but the way I read the patent the makers of the plugin are he ones infringing. Anyway if there is real prior art out there everyone who makes a plugin is going to be happy.

Re:If up held who really is infringing?

[periol]

That first sentence should include the word "first". MS is being sued "first" because they have the money. Despite claims to the contrary, it seems pretty clear that Eolas will follow the money.

In cases like this, where the patent holder claims to be trying to help the open source cause, they should help the cause by making the patent open source. Otherwise, they're vigilantes. They can do what they want, but there won't be any sympathy from me when they lose.

Re:If up held who really is infringing?

[SunPin]

First, the point of patents is to allow others to see how your invention was made. For you to sell the same thing, you must pay a licensing fee. I'm not going to even partially validate your statement to make their patent "open source."

How do you propose to do such a thing?

You can't compile the patent. You can't modify the patent. Perhaps you meant simply "abandon the patent and go straight to public domain."

In that case, your comment displays an unenlightened understanding of the actual events and the concepts guiding them. You don't deserve "insightful."

Sorry.

Re:If up held who really is infringing?

[periol]

i was going to correct myself after i posted and say something to the effect of abandoning the patent, but the truth is that "open source" is a technical term that has a technical meaning when applied to software, but is more and more acquiring a non-technical meaning in the tech industry and even outside the tech industry. this is evidenced by the simple fact you knew what i was saying even though you prefer my language to be more technical. so yes, i agree with you, but no, i don't agree with you.

Re:If up held who really is infringing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they'll "Open Source" the patent after they sue the pants off M$..God knows I would. Maybe they might change their mind if the OSS community gives them grief instead of support during this trial ;- )

Re:If up held who really is infringing?

[Anonymous Coward]

so yes, i agree with you, but no, i don't agree with you.

I think that clears it all up, right there. A+.

-- GNU/Anonymous Coward

Re:If up held who really is infringing?

[Tim C]

The phrase you're looking for would be something along the lines of "available for use by all under a limited, no-fee licence" (IANAL, etc). In some respects ("free to use", "no fee") "open source" conveys the right sort of feel, but the GP is correct - things covered by patents are by their very nature open source.

It's that sort of distinction that has the FSF preferring the term "software libre", as merely having access to the source is not the same thing.

Re:If up held who really is infringing?

[instance]

How about applying the viral philosophy of the GPL to patents? Assign the patent to the FSF. The terms for using the patent being that you assign your rights for a "similarly useful" patent (yes, that's a can of worms, I know) to the FSF. If your organization has no software patents, then use is free. All we need is one critical, valid, useful patent to be assigned, and the process of levering these legal disgraces into an open environment can begin.

[Actually I think I saw a reference to a body like this but can't find it now... anyone out there know?]

Re:Roil

[Anonymous Coward]

Sediment \Sed"i*ment\, n. [F. s['e]diment, L. sedimentum a
settling, fr. sedere to sit, to settle. See Sit.]
1. The matter which subsides to the bottom, frrom water or
any other liquid; settlings; lees; dregs.

Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[IGTeRR0r]

As with trademarks, maybe patent holders should be obligated to protect their patents or risk losing them. This patent was applyed for in 1994 and granted in 1998. Web browsers were using 'plugin' technology for a long time before Eolas brought up this stink.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[periol]

Yeah, but you're forgetting that the USPTO hasn't adjusted to the fact that computer technology works in doggie years, not human ones.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[sangreal66]

Be careful what you wish for. Microsoft (which I don't believe has filed any patent infringement lawsuits to date) and IBM own patents on.. well, everything. To force them to file suits against everyone would certainly get rid of a lot of errneous patents, but it would hurt everyone in the short-term.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[jeffkjo1]

Be careful what you wish for. Microsoft (which I don't believe has filed any patent infringement lawsuits to date) and IBM own patents on.. well, everything. To force them to file suits against everyone would certainly get rid of a lot of errneous patents, but it would hurt everyone in the short-term.

I don't think thats necessarily true. If they were all forced to actually defend their patents, nothing would change. Microsoft is not going to sue IBM over it's patents just like IBM isn't going to sue Microsoft. As a result, the patents go away. I strongly support making patent enforcement mandatory. This idea that you can sit on patents until someone else is making millions on the same idea and then pounce on them is ridiculous. Use it or lose it.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[zangdesign]

This idea that you can sit on patents until someone else is making millions on the same idea and then pounce on them is ridiculous. Use it or lose it.

It's the "uniqueness" of an idea that makes it an investable item, though. It actually works great, except when it gets to software.

There needs to be a different system for software, with a much shorter duration, to allow the people who have the idea to cash in somewhat on their idea, but the system must be well funded in order to allow the PTO to hire the qualified examiners. Physical objects a much longer useful lifespan than software does.

As well, the patents should be published so that everyone can access them to know if it's been done already. The current publishing system doesn't work too well.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[ergo98]

Even better, given that the patent office is obviously (hugely) fallible, patent holders should hold the liability that if they threaten a "patent violator" in any way, the "violator" has the right to instantly force a proof trial (no more patent blackmail, which is largely the unfortunate purpose of patents). If the patent itself is proven to be trivial/obvious to practitioners/with obvious prior art, the patent holder should pay all defendant legal costs, as well as a huge penalty for abusing the patent system with noise (which >99% of software patents are).

This would be a huge victory for the software industry in general, while forcing the patent holders to consider their patent enforcement (or even applications - why bother will bullshit patents if they represent such a potential liability - don't bother unless you're sure) very seriously.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[Anonymous Coward]

I know you mean well, but no, all that does is band-aid a cut that's too deep to cure. There is only one way to fix this: abolish software patents. Software patents are just plain silly. We used to just copyright software and that was good enough, let's just go back to that and live happily ever after.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[kramer]

No, no, no.

Incredibly bad idea.

Trademarks are of unlimited duriation. That's why you are required to defend it or lose it, because otherwise they would never expire -- people could buy up trademark rights from 200 years ago and start enforcing them.

Patents on the other hand automatically expire after 20 years. There's no need to have a "defend it or lose it" because they're going to lose it anyway. Be patient.

Also, keep in mind a trademark is just a name or a symbol as used in advertising. It might represent a few days of work by a graphic design person, or a couple of hours of brainstorming and focus groups. A patent can very well represent several years worth of someone's hard work.

I wouldn't want to be the person to tell an inventor that he just lost the right to 5 years worth of work because he lacked the money to immediately sue the large company who simply copied his published patent.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[xigxag]

Even worse, under a defend-it-or-lose-it regime they wouldn't have to actually sue all the infringers. They could selectively grant royalty-free licenses to their friends and sue the crap out of their foes (i.e. open source vendors).

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I disagree. The reason MS and IBM don't enforce many of those patents is simply because of they do then other patents will be enforced on them.

The real problem in trying to implement this idea is that companies have the right not to go after the people they don't want to (consider it a 'buissness agreement'). So while MS wouldn't go after IBM for violating a small patent because it will be a death wish for them. Doing it to a much smaller company is somthing that they could do.

And that is where the problem is. For all you know Eolas 'theoretically' (And not in this case but in the abstract case) could have had a buissness agreement with Microsoft, and now that the agreement with Microsoft is off they want them to start paying.

How are you going to tell the difference between that and a regular submarine patent? Force Eolas to reveal internal dealings of weather they did do this or not? Not practical.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[Fuzzle]

It's the "uniqueness" of an idea that makes it an investable item, though. It actually works great, except when it gets to software.

...and the cotton gin.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[biovoid]

"Also, keep in mind a trademark is just a name or a symbol as used in advertising. It might represent a few days of work by a graphic design person, or a couple of hours of brainstorming and focus groups. A patent can very well represent several years worth of someone's hard work."

I agree with your post, except where you imply that a trademark is of less value than a patent. Actually, a trademark can represent hundreds of thousands of man hours in research and development time, and billions of dollars in invested advertising revenue. High profile trademarks are worth much more than most patents.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

How is this worse than submarine patents?

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Why would it not be practical for a business with a patent to list everyone to whome they've given permission to use the patent? There would be no 'theoretically' about it--someone should have to provide documented proof that Eolas and Microsoft had such a deal in that case.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[Dorsai65]

There you go! Fluffy martinis!

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[killjoe]

" Be careful what you wish for. Microsoft (which I don't believe has filed any patent infringement lawsuits to date) "

Not true see http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/10304113.asp

MS has been an awfully litigious company. They have sued dozens of companies for all kinds of stuff including trademarks, defamation, and yes even patent related stuff. There is no reason whatsoever to think that a company which has publicly stated it intends "vigorously defend our intellectual property" and has filed tons of lawsuits in the past will not sue over patent infringement.

For all the astro turfers here are the links to just some of the reading material you might run into when you google for microsoft lawsuits.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/07/13/are_your _s ql_apps_streetlegal/
http://www.mobiletechnews.co m/info/2003/04/11/1416 01.html
http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/south florida/s tories/2004/04/26/daily19.html
http://trends.news forge.com/trends/04/06/20/142024 5.shtml?tid=137&tid=147

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[jdbo]

Unfortunately, this assumes that the patent system is un-gameable, at least in regards to extending patents durations. That's very wrong; there are many ways to subtly, not to mention overtly "extend" a patent's duration, and these are most explotable by those who have the $ to put into an extended patent process (i.e. large companies w/ patent lawyers on retainer).

Simply put, patents on non-physical inventions should be abandoned entirely or have a drastically shorter, less extensible lifespan. While 17+ years is still a justifiably lifespan for a product requiring physical manufacturing techniques, given the prerequisites for introducing a new manufacturing process/product to market, those prerequisites do not apply to software production, which may be put into "mass production" at effectively negligible costs.

I certainly agree with your final point, though!

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Incredibly bad idea.

Actually, it's a moderately good idea. An incredibly good idea would be to eliminate software patents.

Patents on the other hand automatically expire after 20 years. There's no need to have a "defend it or lose it" because they're going to lose it anyway. Be patient.

The problem is that any given product uses a whole bunch of technologies intertwined. So you could have a situation where you have to wait until a technology expires, then a new patent on a related technology is released and you have to wait 20 more years, and in the worst case you end up reducing the amount of progress of civilization by 20 fold or more. This is especially true in software.

I wouldn't want to be the person to tell an inventor that he just lost the right to 5 years worth of work because he lacked the money to immediately sue the large company who simply copied his published patent.

Look me up. I'll tell that guy. You go tell all the American (and Austrialian?) programmers why it's going to become impossible to write software in a few years unless the system is seriously changed.

Patents, even legitimate ones, are basically just tools for large corporations anyway. Garage inventors can't afford the fees anyway--and what good is the patent if they aren't going to be able to enforce it? Whether he or she lets the corporations get away with it, or loses the patent for lack of enforcement, the patent gets copied anyway. Your argument is self defeating.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[dbIII]

This idea that you can sit on patents until someone else is making millions on the same idea and then pounce on them is ridiculous.

Perhaps we should gif up on the idea of software patents, so many of them are broken.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[Anonymous Coward]

"gif"? a pun?

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[servognome]

It's the "uniqueness" of an idea that makes it an investable item, though
I think for patents it's more the "uniqueness" of the implementation. If Pfizer got a patent on "a drug that increases sexuality" there would be no room for all the copycat stuff that is out there. Pfizer has the rights to the specific chemical compound, not the concept. The same thing should happen for software, companies should be able to protect their implementation, but not the general concept.
Just my 2c

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[servognome]

Microsoft is not going to sue IBM over it's patents just like IBM isn't going to sue Microsoft
They will not necessarily sue, but they will just have the lawyers meet in a room and cross-license all their patents, thus giving legal support to each of them. I do however like the idea of making companies enforce their patents so we don't have RAMBUS type backhanded tactics.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[Jesus IS the Devil]

Patching a sinking ship isn't a good idea.

It would save a lot more time, money, and effort to just have the USPTO do it right to begin with, as opposed to them approving a patent, then allowing lawyers and corporations with deep pockets to come along and easily blow it apart.

How would you like to have a patent, only to have a multi-billion dollar corporation basically say, "oh screw them let's just violate it, then use or deep pockets to blow it apart later".

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[Rattencremesuppe]

Pfizer has the rights to the specific chemical compound, not the concept. The same thing should happen for software, companies should be able to protect their implementation, but not the general concept.

This is already the case. It's called copyright.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[Anonymous Coward]

Patching a sinking ship isn't a good idea /. + rationality + Microsoft fighting patent enforcement = head explo...

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[kramer]

Patents, even legitimate ones, are basically just tools for large corporations anyway. Garage inventors can't afford the fees anyway--and what good is the patent if they aren't going to be able to enforce it? Whether he or she lets the corporations get away with it, or loses the patent for lack of enforcement, the patent gets copied anyway. Your argument is self defeating.

I believe you'll find you're wrong on several points. Many patent applicants are "garage" inventors. Small businesses create 13-14 times as many patents per employee as large ones, and those patents are twice as likely to be cited in other patents. http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/sbfaq.html

Further, garage inventors can afford the fees. The patent office has special reduced rates for qualifing small businesses. First, you don't need a lawyer -- the patent office does allow an inventor to represent himself. Representing yourself, the cost to patent can be under $2,000 (plus a signifigant outlay of time). Even with a lawyer, an average design patent will run you about $10,000. It's not cheap, but it's hardly the sole domain of large corporations as you suggest http://www.patentlessons.com/what%20patents%20cost .html

As for not being enforced, that's where the current system is very effective. Since the inventor doesn't have to sue everybody who violates his rights to mantain his patent, he can choose to only go after companies with enough money to make a prosecution profitable. The inventor doesn't have to burn money to mantain his patent against a small startup company that will simply declare bankrupcy if they lose the case.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Small businesses create 13-14 times as many patents per employee as large ones, and those patents are twice as likely to be cited in other patents.

A useless statistic--who cares how many are created per employee? Further, I wonder if this statistic is inflated by the existence of lawyer driven patent extorters--Eolas is no garage inventor.

Perhaps the fees are affordable, but the enforcement is so difficult that the $10,000 isn't worth paying unless you have teams of lawyers to defend yourself.

As for not being enforced, that's where the current system is very effective. Since the inventor doesn't have to sue everybody who violates his rights to mantain his patent, he can choose to only go after companies with enough money to make a prosecution profitable.

We should note that this is a reversal from your previous complaint: "I wouldn't want to be the person to tell an inventor that he just lost the right to 5 years worth of work because he lacked the money to immediately sue the large company who simply copied his published patent."

Besides, if you really don't want to sue them in an enforcement-required regime, you could always just mail them short-term licensing for your patent and consider it enforced, so your whole argument here is based on a false premise. Garage inventor submarine patents are just as immoral as major corporation submarine patents.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIR Mosaic (the first usable web browser) appeared first in Sept. 93 and I'm not sure whether it even had a plugin concept (I believe it hadn't but I could be wrong on that). The "browsers" before like Viola or Erwise, let alone the famous "www", definitely didn't have plugins (I tried to use them at that time). I don't know much about the very first browser/editor though, the one for the NeXT.

So if the patent was filed in 1994 it's not clear whether web browsers had plugins before, they certainly didn't have them "a long time" before.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[kramer]

We should note that this is a reversal from your previous complaint: "I wouldn't want to be the person to tell an inventor that he just lost the right to 5 years worth of work because he lacked the money to immediately sue the large company who simply copied his published patent."

Not at all, it's a corralary. The first example shows what could happen if an inventor were forced to defend every incurson. The second shows how by not haveing to defend every incursion the inventor can restrict his fights to the ones that matter without risk of losing the patent.

Garage inventor submarine patents are just as immoral as major corporation submarine patents.

I think you're missing the realities of business here. Not all people who fail to pursue a patent immediately have bad motivation. Many lack financing, and spend the time afforded by the patent to set up their business with less worry about a large businesss simply noticing their product and beating them to market.

As a final note, I'd like to point out that I've got a bachelors degree an Computer Science, am starting my second year in my law degree, and am somewhat of a garage inventor myself. That being said, I still think 90% of software patents are shit, and somewhere close to 100% of business method patents are shit. Further, I think this particular instance of the Eloas patent is a steaming pile of shit, and the court system seems to be agreeing. Still, I think "defend it or lose it" patents would cause far more problems than it would solve.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[groot]

Patents on the other hand automatically expire after 20 years. There's no need to have a "defend it or lose it" because they're going to lose it anyway. Be patient.

That's one problem right there. Patents on software and other non-physical inventions such as processes are 20 years in length, way too long. A more practical value would be 5 to 7 years so that good ideas could become standards without hamstringing the entire industry that relies on standardization in order to bring cost to consumers down (like any other industry, come to think of it). Cause unlike physical inventions such as washing machines, etc., software needs to be interoperated, ie. it is kind of useless by itself. Today's 20 year length encourages avoiding using some elses patent no matter how good it is, resulting in less than "best practices" and leads to non-standardization.

Reducing the length would also encourage those who own patents to allow royalty use during that period and would encourage others to use patented ideas if the prices are realistic. Both patent holder and industry would be better off than today's antogonistic, "mine, mine, mine!", mentality.

--laz

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[instance]

Patents are 20 years long because it takes an average of 19.5 years to litigate them. ;)

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[spectecjr]

" Be careful what you wish for. Microsoft (which I don't believe has filed any patent infringement lawsuits to date) "

Not true see http://www.ciol.com/content/news/2003/10304113.asp

MS has been an awfully litigious company. They have sued dozens of companies for all kinds of stuff including trademarks, defamation, and yes even patent related stuff. There is no reason whatsoever to think that a company which has publicly stated it intends "vigorously defend our intellectual property" and has filed tons of lawsuits in the past will not sue over patent infringement.


That article you're linking to? It states that they're filing a defensive lawsuit against Lucent's representatives, who "sent Microsoft a letter in January, listing 16 patents and seeking to persuade Microsoft to enter talks about licensing them. The firm, called ThinkFire, wrote that the patents were crucial to current and planned Microsoft products, and "impact approximately $9 billion of current Microsoft annual sales." "

That's defensive use of your patent library against others who want to screw you out of money using THEIR patent library. That's not Microsoft going out and trying to sue defenseless people out of business because they own a patent on something.

If you're going to go off spouting baseless Microsoft rhetoric, please at least read the entire article you link to.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[kansas1051]

I strongly support making patent enforcement mandatory. This idea that you can sit on patents until someone else is making millions on the same idea and then pounce on them is ridiculous. Use it or lose it.

The courts have agreed with you since 1790. Do a google search for the doctrine of laches. Its argued in almost every patent infringment case, often sucessfully.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[einhverfr]

Even better, given that the patent office is obviously (hugely) fallible, patent holders should hold the liability that if they threaten a "patent violator" in any way, the "violator" has the right to instantly force a proof trial (no more patent blackmail, which is largely the unfortunate purpose of patents).

I am not a lawyer, but I do read Groklaw ;-) What you are talking about does exist. It is called "declaratory judgement." IBM's counterclaims against SCO seek declaratory judement that they are not violating SCO's copyrights. Red hat is also suing for declaratory judgement.

Declaratory judgement works as follows: company 1 threatens to sue company B (or possibly Company B's customers). Company B can't go forward with this uncertainty, so they sue company A asking for declaratory judgement.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[TRACK-YOUR-POSITION]

Not at all, it's a corralary. The first example shows what could happen if an inventor were forced to defend every incurson. The second shows how by not haveing to defend every incursion the inventor can restrict his fights to the ones that matter without risk of losing the patent.

Exactly, they're corralaries for my point of view--either the patents are worthless because they can't be enforced against large corporations, or they're worthless because they can ONLY be enforced on large corporations.

In any event, it's completely moot, because under a "defend it or lose it" system, you could still just give permission to whoever you wanted--but you would have to do so explicitly, on paper. I'm not saying you should be forced to sue in court over it--that's a position that makes no logical sense unless we also combine it with some sort of mandatory patent licensing scheme (which might also be a good idea).

If it can be proven that you knew someone was violating your patent, but chose to neither give notice of your permission to use your patent (perhaps for a limited period of time until you decide you can afford to sue) or insist that the violator cease their activity, then you ought to lose the patent, because you DO have a bad motivation--you want to have a submarine patent. You shouldn't have to sue every violator, but you SHOULD have to make the decision whether or not to sue immediately.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[killjoe]

It's still a patent lawsuit. MS has sued hundreds of companies for all kinds of stuff. They are the original litigious bastards.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[spectecjr]

It's still a patent lawsuit. MS has sued hundreds of companies for all kinds of stuff. They are the original litigious bastards.


There's a huge difference between defending yourself from people trying to use their patent library against you, and using your patent library as a weapon - something that Microsoft has never done.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[killjoe]

"something that Microsoft has never done."

MS has sued people for all kinds of IP issues. They have promised to sue for patents as well. What is the significance of them not suing for patent infringement yet? It's a very litigious company, they have tons of lawyers and like to sue.

Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law

[Tough Love]

There needs to be a different system for software, with a much shorter duration, to allow the people who have the idea to cash in somewhat on their idea, but the system must be well funded in order to allow the PTO to hire the qualified examiners. Physical objects a much longer useful lifespan than software does.

How about just ending the sillyness by returning to the former, sensible situation where software could not be patented at all. It is clear that copyright provides all the protection a software business needs to survive and prosper. It is clear that software patents do not speed the development of better, more useful software, quite the contrary.

Only lawyers benefit from software patents.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

But on this topic, we LIKE what Microsoft is doing. Forcing the USPTO to re-examine some tech patents. We hate stupid patents more than we hate Microsoft.

I think.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[KageMonkey]

Personally, I hate Microsoft more than the Patent system.

What's a University doing involved in this shit?

[stratjakt]

Does an institute of higher learning actually buy into this no-duh software patent?

Sad, I guess Universities are just like any other for-profit corporation these days.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

IE the standard? IE isn't even standards compliant!

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Anonymous Coward]

Why?

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[IGTeRR0r]

I agree. I am behind Microsoft in this issue...

CNET-speak translation...

[Anonymous Coward]

Roil is US-English for rile....

Wait a second

[jeffkjo1]

Hey, wait a second, I thought we only liked Microsoft on odd Tuesdays.

Re:Wait a second

[subterfuge]

I learned long ago that you need not like the people you are sleeping with...

Re:Wait a second

[Anonymous Coward]

In fact it's a hinderance if you're into BDSM. That's what you're getting at, isn't it?

Freak.

Re:Wait a second

[halowolf]

Well the story was last modified on June 8th 2004 which was actually a Tuesday... the second tuesday of the month.

Re:Wait a second

[EvilCabbage]

I learned long ago that you need not like the people you are sleeping with...

Yeah, you can tell they don't like you either in the way they just snatch the money.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[KageMonkey]

Internet Explorer is the standard for all web protocols, so why change it?

There are numerous reasons why we should change it. First of all, since Microsoft has an iron-grip in the browser market, they do not feel that it is necessary to innovate. Therefore, consumers are stuck with the same old browser iterations. Along with the lack of innovations, bugs and security flaws are also gone unfixed. Since Microsoft has the market with no choice for the consumer because it is "the standard", they know that the average Joe are not likely to switch to alternatives, so Microsoft don't feel a need to put any money and effort into fixing problems. These are the main reasons why we need to change it. It is for the good of technology and mankind.

Consistency

[Landaras]

I'm sure we're going to get several insightful jokes about Slashdot's collective head exploding due to two evils (software patents and Microsoft) coming together in a single article.

After all, who are we supposed to root for?

I believe the key in this situation is remembering that your belief in a right is perhaps best shown in whether you are willing to afford that right to an enemy.

Is the right to develop software free from the unneeded burden and litigation threat of software patents important to us?

I believe it is, and as such I cannot fully get behind the offensive use of software patents, even against an enemy such as Microsoft.

- Neil Wehneman

P.S. Have you donated to the EFF recently?

Re:Consistency

[Wolfbone]

"I believe it is, and as such I cannot fully get behind the offensive use of software patents, even against an enemy such as Microsoft".

Right. But I'd drop the adjective 'fully': Neither Microsoft nor any other company is the enemy, except when they are actively promoting software patentability. Companies are amoral entities at best and we shouldn't expect them to behave with any measure of philanthropy or social responsibility - the most we can demand is that they act lawfully. The real enemies are the corrupt, incompetent or short-sighted politicians and legislators who make and administrate the laws that enable such companies to behave immorally and unethically, yet perfectly legally.

Re:Consistency

[Jason Earl]

Generally I would agree with you. Anyone defending themself in a software patent lawsuit deserves to win because software patents are evil. However, Microsoft is one of the major forces keeping the current patent regime in place. They are currently pushing for software patents all over the world.

I am starting to believe that the only way that the current software patent mess is ever going to be cleaned up is for large and prosperous corporations like Microsoft (and IBM) to realize that it is in their best interest to do away with software patents. If IBM and Microsoft came out against software patents then the laws that support them would change fairly quickly.

Groups like Eolas aren't the slightest bit interested in Free Software. They sued Microsoft because Microsoft has piles of money, and they aren't going to sue Mozilla because Mozilla has nothing. If Eolas scores a big payday then thousands of other small companies with nothing to their name but some patents and attack lawyers are also likely to join in the feeding frenzy, and eventually Microsoft will realize that software patents aren't in their best interest. The beauty of this business model is that you don't have to go through all the hard work of actually writing software. You just have to come up with an idea, patent it, and wait for someone to violate your patent. If companies like Eolas start winning lawsuits then Microsoft will almost certainly have a change of heart regarding software patents.

Microsoft is hard at work creating roadblocks for Free Software with their growing portfolio of software patents. If Microsoft can't be made to feel the heat from these intellectual property companies then very soon it might become impossible for Free Software developers to write software.

Re:Consistency

[Landaras]

I included "fully" because I honestly do want to see Microsoft get hurt by this Eolas flap.

Is that right of me? No, I don't think it is, and hopefully in time I'll be able to suppress this dangerously passionate hatred of the company that I have.

Reason should prevail over emotion in an issue such as this. The trick is ensuring that happens.

- Neil Wehneman

Re:Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird, in every other slashdot article Microsoft is portrayed as the Great Evil whether they have any relevance to the topic at hand or not...

Re:Consistency

[Oddly_Drac]

"After all, who are we supposed to root for?"

A sane expression of the protection of ideas rather than the current system.

"enemy such as Microsoft."

Jesus. Slashdot can be so damned blinkered at times it's daft. Is your hatred of a corporate entity down to their business, their ubiquity or simply their alignment against der widdle penguin?

Re:Consistency

[Halo1]

The real enemies are the corrupt, incompetent or short-sighted politicians and legislators who make and administrate the laws that enable such companies to behave immorally and unethically, yet perfectly legally.

In case of software patents, it has nothing to do with corrupt politicians and legislators. Software patents were introduced in the US (and Europe for now) without any political interventions whatsoever. It's the Patent Offices that grant such patents, and the courts that consider them valid. Why? Because the corporations are asking, arguing and suing for it.

In this case the corporations (or better: the "intellectual property departments" of corporations) are directly responsible. And then they start complaining about the consequences of their own actions...

Re:Consistency

[Wolfbone]

The Patent Offices don't work in a vacuum: If Lord Sainsbury told the U.K. PTO not to violate the letter and spirit of the EPC, they would be obliged to comply. Courts and Judges, who by their incompetent and short-sighted decisions build the case law that validates software patentability are acting as legislators too.

I'm well aware of what is going on in some apparently mismanaged corporations but even so, they are only playing the game and their asking and arguing comes under promoting software patentability, not using software patents. The board of directors of Microsoft are not blindly allowing their 'I.P.' department carte blanche to damage their strategic interests though. Theirs is a deliberate policy but it is amoral not immoral - they genuinely believe it's in the best interests of their shareholders - and they'd just shrug their collective shoulders and find some other way to maintain their profitability if only the politicians and legislators had wit, courage and integrity enough to stand up to them and do what is right for society.

Re:Consistency

[Halo1]

The board of directors of Microsoft are not blindly allowing their 'I.P.' department carte blanche to damage their strategic interests though. Theirs is a deliberate policy but it is amoral not immoral - they genuinely believe it's in the best interests of their shareholders

... until they find themselves at the wrong end of the stick. I contend that management has been mislead by their IP department, and that this has happened in many large companies. It's not just bad for society as a whole, in the long run it's just as bad for large companies and their shareholders imho.

Re:Consistency

[instance]

This is false. Congress held hearings in several locations on the topic of software patents. I read the 600K+ of transcripts from hearings they held in California (talk about dull reading). Almost to a person, there was a stark division between two camps: the developers opposed software patents, largely arguing that "copyright and speed of innovation is sufficient"; the lawyers argued that patents were absolutely required.

Now the last time I checked, there were a hell of a lot more lawyers in Congress than developers and engineers, so you can figure out which argument carried the day.

The time is fast approaching when the developers should form a single voice (hello ACM, IEEE, are you there?) and say "we told you so, change it." This is and always will be an inherently political process.

Re:Consistency

[Halo1]

This is false. Congress held hearings in several locations on the topic of software patents.

They did so after the fact. Have a look at this chapter from the NRC book "The Digital Dilemma" (search for legislative branch).

I read the 600K+ of transcripts from hearings they held in California (talk about dull reading). Almost to a person, there was a stark division between two camps: the developers opposed software patents, largely arguing that "copyright and speed of innovation is sufficient"; the lawyers argued that patents were absolutely required.

Yes, that's generally the case. Although in some cases the lawyers themselves also oppose them, see e.g. the testimony of Robert Barr (head IP at Cisco) before the FTC in 2002.

The time is fast approaching when the developers should form a single voice (hello ACM, IEEE, are you there?) and say "we told you so, change it." This is and always will be an inherently political process.

In the end it's indeed politics that has to create the guidelines. But the situation you (in the US) and we (in Europe) are now in is not the direct consequence of political games, but of juridical games.

Re:Consistency

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you hadntn noticed, MS might be the only sued on this patent but every browser under the sun is in violation of this patent.

Its just easier to go after the company with the most money than to bankrupt the Mozilla foundation which gets you no dollars.

Re:Consistency

[AstroDrabb]

Neither Microsoft nor any other company is the enemy, except when they are actively promoting software patentability.

MS is always promotting software patentability and the legal protection if "IP".

The real enemies are the corrupt, incompetent or short-sighted politicians and legislators who make and administrate the laws

Who do you think are funding these laws? That is right, these big companies. Microsoft has dumped millions USD into the hands of the politicians. MS helped create this broken US legal system, and I hope they get a little payback by losing this UC/Eolas case. The only thing that will wake up $BIG_COMPANIES is losing money. Most $BIG_COMPANIES just cross-license their crap, so I hope to see many, many small and medium sized companies hitting the $BIG_COMPANIES where it hurts, in the wallet, through litigation of patent disputes.

Re:Consistency

[johnnyb]

"Companies are amoral entities at best"

You should probably reword that sentence to read "corporations are amoral entities at best". Sole Proprietorships and regular partnerships, for example, are not separate from the owner in the same way that corporations are, and therefore are in fact as moral or immoral as their owners.

Re:Consistency

[Wolfbone]

Yes, I know Microsoft is promoting software patentability and when it does so it's arguments must be countered vigorously but that doesn't mean you should show that you're willing to throw away your principles simply because it is your 'enemy' who is being harmed by the evil you claim to despise. Landaras understood that and my response to his original post was because I think it is counterproductive to harbour feelings of antipathy toward publically owned corporations. They will always do what they think is expedient and in the narrow interests of their shareholders and there is no point in getting peeved about it.

Something does appear to have gone badly wrong within some Western democracies lately; the moral and intellectual calibre of many of our representatives seems exceptionally poor and they have let the influence of special interest groups reach far into the heart of government but that is their failing, not that of the lobbyists and it is right and useful to be outraged at their wilful failure to discharge their duties to the public diligently and ethically.

Re:Consistency

[Wolfbone]

Yes, you are right of course and it's even possible for corporations to behave deliberately ethically (possibly as part of their business plan), it's just not something to expect or rely on.

Good to hear

[lakeland]

Between evil companies and evil patents, it's pretty easy to see which is worse.

Re:Good to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

no its not! now i want to know, who is worse?!

Re:Good to hear

[sr180]

I dont know, I want the Evil Patent to destroy the Evil Company, but I want the Evil Company to destroy Evil Patents. Maybe I can hope for a matter-antimatter type relationship and they'll both disappear?

Re:Good to hear

[borgheron]

Evil patents are worse. :)

Re:Good to hear

[Tim C]

Maybe I can hope for a matter-antimatter type relationship and they'll both disappear?

In a hugely energetic explosion that is fatal to all caught within the blast?

Yeah, sounds like an apt analogy.

Re:Good to hear

[Anonymous Coward]

Surely the only ones likely to be caught in the blast are lawyers though... sounds like a win-win-win-win-win situation to me

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ignore the troll. He's been posting his "Mozilla is gay, IE is the leading edge standard" crap in every story I've read today. He'll get tired of it soon enough.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[tarquin_fim_bim]

Because they market an operating system that allows people to fashion viruses which flood my mail server on a regular basis. For which I have never received so much as an apology, let alone compensation for my time constructing new filters for each variant.

Microsoft knows about 'prior art'..

[CmdrTostado]

I was sure no-one on the microsoft patent team was aware of the fact that patents are not supposed to be awarded on something that has sufficient 'prior art'. If they know this then why.... oh, nevermind.

Re:Microsoft knows about 'prior art'..

[Anonymous Coward]

Sucks that in this case Microsoft is not the patent holder. Sucks for you to bash Microsoft without even knowing what is going on. Of course, the points will come rolling in for you.

Re:Microsoft knows about 'prior art'..

[Anonymous Coward]

sucks that you completely missed the point, moron.

I am scared

[Garabito]

that USTPO is only re-examinating this patent by request of Microsoft and its allies. From the article:

On the second front, Microsoft's allies in the software industry last fall persuaded the Patent Office to initiate a re-examination of the patent on the grounds that it was awarded improperly.

It's not that USTPO has realized that it has been granting bogus software patents, nor does it plan to change its attitude toward them.

After all, we all know that Microsoft is right now a big patent filler and that USTPO is paid by patent aplication.

Re:I am scared

[Anonymous Coward]

The only way to improve the patent system is to treat invalid patents like pollution and ensure that the polluter pays. Ask the Patent office pay for the _full_ costs of challenging invalid patents in court. If there are no invalid patents there will be no costs - right?

Re:I am scared

[drinkypoo]

This will further raise the cost of patents ensuring that only large firms will be able to afford to file them. You don't need a lawyer to file a patent but if you don't have one you have to bear all the responsibility, but hiring a lawyer to help you file a patent will cost a lot more and it will come out to the same thing - either way the people filing the patents have to pay for it.

Instead, we should make it easier to strike down patents.

This one is really odd

[sphealey]

I realize that Microsoft no more than IBM can afford to be seen as an easy mark by patent litigators, but in fighting this battle they are developing techniques which would certainly be used to defend Linux from Microsoft patent lawsuits. I can't believe it is a right hand/left hand issue either: Gates and Ballmer must know what is going on.

Puzzling.

sPh

Re:This one is really odd

[Anonymous Coward]

When has microsoft ever filed patent lawsuits?

What makes you think (besides slashdot groupthink) that filing patent lawsuits is any part of their business strategy?

What the hell are you talking about?

[AzrealAO]

Microsoft is trying to get a patent invalidated which would do what you think Microsoft is trying to do.

The Eolas patent they they have been sued over, and are attempting to have overturned on Prior Art grounds, claims to hold an exclusive patent on plug-in technology.

If Microsoft wins, they will have succeeded in getting a patent covering this method of plug-in interaction overturned.

Re:Power Play

[stubear]

What the fuck are you talking about? Microsoft does NOT have a patent on plug-in technology, Eolas does. They sued Microsoft for violating their patent (and only Microsoft I might add, though other browsers use thew same patent). Microsoft filed a complaint with the USPTO to have the patent reviwed and then tossed out due to volumes of prior art. The W3C and Tim Berners Lee, to name a couple, even came out on Microsoft's side of this one. Their concern is if the patent is upheld, Microsoft will be forced to change the way they handle plug-ins, invariably "breaking" hundreds of thousands of sites at a minimum, and by proxy "breaking" the internet itself. If anyone is stifling technology it's Eolas. I really hope someone mods your post down to "-1: fucking moron".

Re:What's a University doing involved in this shit

[Jason Earl]

For $565 million they would probably buy into all sorts of stuff.

Mixed Emotions

[xjimhb]

This story reminds me of the classic definition of "mixed Emotions" ... watching your mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your new Cadillac!

Re:Mixed Emotions

[Antique Geekmeister]

Just make sure they're both insured first. Mothers-in-law have much less trade-in value.

Re:Mixed Emotions

[sweetooth]

Why would your mother-in-law driving off a cliff in your new Cadillac cause you to have mixed emotions? Unless of course your new Cadillac is uninsured.

Re:Mixed Emotions

[Anonymous Coward]

the type of people that drive caddys are not the type of people who spend good money on insurance. but you can bet your ass that them dub dueces it's sittin on are spinnin'.

Sue the USPTO if MS wins

[Matt Perry]

If Microsoft wins this I'd really like to see them sue the USPTO to recover their legal fees. Until the USPTO is held accountable for granting patents on work that is either obvious or has prior art, they won't make any changes.

Re:Sue the USPTO if MS wins

[BCW2]

You might be right. But the thought of more lawyers making fortunes because of stupidity nauseates me.

Even if it worked it would take ten years to get the USPTO changed. How much more damage would they do in that time?

Re:Sue the USPTO if MS wins

[Dun Malg]

If Microsoft wins this I'd really like to see them sue the USPTO to recover their legal fees. Until the USPTO is held accountable for granting patents on work that is either obvious or has prior art, they won't make any changes.

Sadly, you cannot sue the federal government unless granted special dispensation to do so....such dispensation is available only from the federal government itself. strange but true.

Re:Sue the USPTO if MS wins

[Matt Perry]

Can you back that statement up? Please provide a link.

Re:Sue the USPTO if MS wins

[Dun Malg]

Can you back that statement up? Please provide a link.

It's called "sovereign immunity". The Federal Tort Claims Act makes allowances for suits based on federal employee negligence, but I doubt any federal court would consider anything the USPTO does negligent enough to qualify as a valid FTCA suit.

Sadly...

[Anonymous Coward]

It appears that though they are an institute of higher learning, they weren't able to determine that the missing step is not attainable:

1.) Sue Microsoft, which has a very, very large amount of money (HINT HINT)
2.) ????
3.) Profit!

As you can see, step 3 is never possible. So if you mean "just like any other for-profit corporation" in the sense that it's just like any other for-profit corporation which doesn't make any money, then yes, I think you're right.

here's hoping...

[the-build-chicken]

Microsoft: This patent is invalid.
UC: No it's not.
Patent Office: We agree with microsoft, it is invalid.


UC: They said our patent's invalid, fix it.
Microsoft: It is invalid.
Board of Patent Appeals: We agree with microsoft, it is invalid.


UC: They said our patent's invalid, fix it.
Microsoft: It is invalid.
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals: We agree with microsoft, it is invalid. Further more, it seems the USPTO really needs an overhaul in regards to software patenting to stop this happening again. I recomend an inquiry into USPTO and software patents.


Microsoft: doh :(

Re:here's hoping...

[Anonymous Coward]

unless it is the 9th circus court of appeals, who will always rule against Microsoft or other big companies out of pure spite.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. And I hate car companies for creating cars that pollute my air and cause traffic on the highways that I drive my 2 ton SUV on.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Anonymous Coward]

There are also companies that market anti-virus programs and firewalls.

You don't think any other operating system can have a virus written for it?

I guess that you're just an idiot.

You know what's funny.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen more posts defending MS than otherwise, on these articles and others dealing with XP SP 2 and IE vulnerabilities, and on articles about Mozilla.

I still don't understand where this myth comes from that the majority of slashdotters hate MS ...

Evidently the moderators are also not anti-MS because it appears posts defending MS are modded up!

At any rate, this whole patent lawsuit is a complete sham, and we all knew it from the beginning; there's no way EOLAS could have won.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[tarquin_fim_bim]

You don't think any other operating system can have a virus written for it?

No, but I commenting on my day to day chores not theories and hypotheses.

Re:What's a University doing involved in this shit

[/dev/trash]

Uh. When budgets are not met, it's always the schools and libraries that lose out.

Re:Power Play

[king-manic]

Power Play (Score:1)
by GoldenWolf (767107) on Wednesday August 18, @10:26PM (#10008809)
Yet another power play from Microsoft, once again aimed at the world in general. If this case goes through, it will add yet more lock-in to Microsoft's already locked in platform, while hurting the world in general. Does this mean we can no longer view Flash content from Linux or OS X?
Furthermore, most ad-blocking software is based on some sort of internet plugin. So does this mean that we have to get bombarded with popup ads just because we don't run IE?
Does this mean we have to pay some huge licensing fee to create a plugin for a browser -- or worse, have to pay a huge fee and have to use Microsoft's development software to create a browser plugin?

This could be the end of the 'Web as we know it. Internet Explorer and Windows country from here on, folks


This is what they call a severe case of RTFA. With a little of RTFT (Read the fucking Title) on top. There might even be some IST (Intentionally Stupid Trolling), but I think the chance is small.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Anonymous Coward]

It is, but it complies to the standard of the WWW-Consortium (w3c.org), not to the Netscape-standard (Netscape gratiously donated their obsolete source-code to the Mozilla-foundation).

Re:Roil

[Anonymous Coward]

The \The\ ([th][=e], when emphatic or alone; [th][-e], obscure
before a vowel; [th]e, obscure before a consonant; 37),
definite article. [AS. [eth]e, a later form for earlier nom.
sing. masc. s[=e], formed under the influence of the oblique
cases. See {That}, pron.]
A word placed before nouns to limit or individualize their
meaning.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't english.

Re:Offtopic, but...

[periol]

DNS change

You mean...

[NEOtaku17]

"Sad, I guess Universities are just like any other for-profit corporation these days."

You mean they want to make money?

Re:You mean...

[kundor]

You mean they want to make money?

Uh, yes.

The sad part is, you say that as though it's laughable that they wouldn't. Time was, Universities were about providing a forum for dissemination and creation of knowledge, not making money.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[rd_syringe]

Neither is Linux, or Slashdot, or a whole bunch of other things. Hell, there isn't even a desktop standard or API in the OSS world for Linux desktops to comply to.

I don't consider any company my "enemy"

[rd_syringe]

People take religions, er, operating systems entirely too seriously here on Slashdot. Out in the real world, it's all about what you like that works already. Here, it's "Microsoft is the enemy but we can afford them this one victory." Enemy? Victory? Scary.

Re:Offtopic, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Much appreciated. Now if only someone would post their new IP...

now that's a new one

[Trepidity]

"Microsoft and its W3C allies"...

Re:Power Play

[Anonymous Coward]

Buzz! Oh and you were so close. Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

6,691,176 Method for managing client services across browser pages

6,658,600 Target control abstraction for debugging embedded systems

6,199,081 Automatic tagging of documents and exclusion by content

5,903,728 Plug-in control including an independent plug-in process

Available here

Re:What's a University doing involved in...

[Gogo Dodo]

The reason the University of California is involved is because the technology was developed at UC San Francisco. They didn't "buy-in". They always owned it. The patent is assigned to the University of California. Eolas was spun out of work done at UC. See the UC/Eolas Patent Q&A page.

It's not uncommon for universities to spin off for-profit companies for research done on their campuses or to license patents they are assigned.

Re:Power Play

[Breakerofthings]

Help me, I can't find "-1: fucking moron"

Lemme get this straight...

[JFMulder]

Microsoft... in a fight to preserve standards... against evil patents... they do have prior art... meaning they innovated...

As Keanu would put it : Whoa.

Re:Wait a second - "FIZBIN!"

[Anonymous Coward]

grep for 'Tuesday'

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[satoshi1]

If it complies to standards, why does (in CSS) border: 1px dotted black; produce the same effect as border: 1px dashed black; ?

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[kundor]

I'm not behind Microsoft. But I do hope they win this case, because the patent system as currently being interpreted is a far larger threat to software freedom than Microsoft is. Though Microsoft shouldn't be discounted, it is more concerned with keeping its profits up than primarily crushing software freedom -- insofar as it sees free software as a threat, it works against it, but it doesn't have its destruction as a direct goal -- the way that software patents do.

Re:Totally OT: Time to hire a technical writer

[kundor]

Slashdot powers-that-be: IT IS TIME TO HIRE A TECHNICAL WRITER!

There's really no problems in that article. Maybe you should hire a technical reader.

Re:Totally OT: Time to hire a technical writer

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the article, the item on slashdot. Perhaps you're in need of the 'technical reader'.

Re:Totally OT: Time to hire a technical writer

[kundor]

I meant the slashdot "item." It's perfectly comprehensible.

I'm probably totally off-topic, but...

[johnnliu]

WTH, I thought I turned off YRO from my preferences, why is it still appearing in my /.

May be because it's a good news against stupid people, /. 's AI filter decided to show this YRO topic to me, bypassing my preference settings.

Anyway, congrats MS. Shame on you UC, to force me to stand on MS's side.

And /. programmers are either incredibly brilliant, or they wrote buggy software again.

A parable about patents...

[LighthouseJ]

I had a teacher one time speak about patent law in how it applied to Polaroid instant cameras. Now, come and sit around me in a semi-circle pattern and stare in amazement as I tell you a story...

Polaroid knew that once these new fangled instant cameras came out that everyone and their cousin would try and copy it. They would patent their initial design and would patent it and release it. They would continue to work on it but not update the cameras and a year before the old patent expires, they take out another patent based on their new and improved design and issue cameras using the new design.

Competing companies could use the 20 year old design but Polaroid already had excellent market position. If a customer wanted to buy an instant camera, do they get a Polaroid camera, a company with 20 years in the instant camera business, a household name with a now cheap price (once manufacturing prices go down to sane levels) or another company new to the market with a more expensive camera based on 20 year old technology.

Re:A parable about patents...

[jafiwam]

I haven't seen a Poleroid camera in use other than their lame commercials in over 15 years.

Great market position that.

Re:A parable about patents...

[drinkypoo]

If their competitors had done the same research and gotten there first, then patented their revisions to polaroid's patents, polaroid would have been screwed. A technique like that is a gamble; you're betting that no one else will do the same research you're doing and patent it before you do.

Re:A parable about patents...

[technos]

They're pretty common in industry and business. Things like insurance. Say you're going out to check on a water damage claim. Snap a Polaroid of the stained walls, you have something to stuff in the file when you arrive back at the office.

I once saw a glass manufacturer that equipped all their drivers with them, to document cases of glass damage. A couple Polaroids of a half-usable case of glass often dissuaded the customer from claiming all the glass was damaged on delivery and that he should get his new half-order for free.

Course, a lot of the applications that Polaroids are perfect for are also perfect for digital cameras. Digital cameras are cheaper to use, but more difficult to use correctly. But if you're taking 40+ a day, the odd screwed photo from the digital still gets you out cheaper than 40 mostly-perfect Polaroids.

Eolas

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, you guys spelt ebola wrong!

Re:Power Play

[lucifer_666]

Ah that's because once you post, you loose your ability to moderate a discussion.

;-)

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Jason Earl]

Yes, but Microsoft is one of the reasons why the current patent regime exists. In fact, Microsoft is hard at work trying to spread the U.S. patent system over the rest of the planet. The reason that Microsoft wants to spread the patent regime around the planet is because they want to raise the price of developing software. Microsoft is tired of competing against every small-time developer with an idea and a PC, and so they are using patents to guarantee that only large corporations with hordes of patent attorneys and huge cross-licensing deals can create software.

The problem, of course, is that you don't have to actually write software to get a patent. Eolas never wrote any software. They just saw where the market was headed and submitted a patent. The Eolases of the world are always going to target the large businesses like Microsoft. If enough of these Eolas-style suits are successful then Microsoft, IBM, and the rest of the pro-patent crowd will rethink their strategy. If Microsoft changes their mind on software patents then it is very likely that the laws will end up getting changed to be more sane.

So I say screw Microsoft. I hope hundreds of Eolas style patent suits get filed against them, and I hope they lose every single one. IP companies like Eolas are never going to target small time developers because there is no money there. The only folks really susceptible to these suits are those highly successful software companies that are pushing for software patentability.

Well I hope it sticks

[glens]

It would be great in my opinion of the patent held, MS had to ante up the fine, and plugin-requiring content was pulled from web pages around the globe. Who uses plugins anyway and who isn't tired of the WWW being turned into a multimedia hell? Has there ever been a useful Flash "movie"? Why have the browser engulf another application? I'm sticking with Netscape 4.8 since it so handily allows me to specify external applications to separately handle various content in ways better than a bloated browser ever could.

Misleading Title

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes a USPTO Office Action rejection is a "strike". But it is certainly not a lethal strike, and doesn't even necessarily lead to the path of lethality.

The USPTO is building a paper record of reject-respond. They have now apparently finished round two, and round three is upcoming. But even a loss at round three is not a lethal strike. These are just actions at the Patent Examiner level. Any "final" rejection can still be appealed to the Patent Office Board of Appeals and Interferences. And if failing to win there, in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Given the political weight of the players in this fight, one should expect that the USPTO will issue a final rejection on the re-exam, and the Board will affirm the rejection. That is the normal course for the USPTO in high-profile cases.

But once the case hits the court, where the judges have life tenure and are somewhat immune from the "congressperson [name one] called", things may turn out differently.

This case is years from being over unless some settlement is reached between the parties in the meantime.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[KageMonkey]

The parent is right. Microsoft appends to the standard, so they become "the standard". For example, the DYNSRC doesn't work with Mozilla, it just works with IE. So people start thinking that because tags doesn't work on other browsers, IE is "the standard".

The first browser

[azbot]

Wait a minute, I seem to recall windows 3.11 not having a browser "built-in", we were all left to download the browser of our choice back then. Netscape 3 or 4 was all I remember using, I'm not certain that there were others around at that time, but I do recall having to download these "plug-ins" things for it. So whats going on, where does all this fit in to the equation?

Re:What's a University doing involved in...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not uncommon for universities to spin off for-profit companies for research done on their campuses

Paid for by grants from Uncle Sam. It should be, if a University does spin off a company, then they should be ineligible for any grant from the government.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Richard_at_work]

Uhm, it doesnt here.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is you idiot. http://www.freedesktop.org/

So, whats the bill sofar?

[Anonymous Coward]

A question for those US ianal types out there. If microsoft is a publicly traded company should it not disclose to its investors how much it spends on what? I cant think of better proof of the "software patents only for big players (and kills little players)" argument then the grand total microsoft spend on fighting this single patent. Lawyers, reexamination fees, programmers working out alternatives not covered by the patent, more lawyers... This could easily run in to the millions and they still lost the lawsuit!

Is the financial impact for microsoft already reported somewhere, could investors ask for it?

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Tim C]

Pragmatically speaking, IE has become the de facto standard. The w3c can write all the specifications they want, but as of right now, if IE doesn't support it, they might as well not bother.

That will hopefully change in the future (I'm a long-term Netscape/Mozilla user, I've never used IE out of choice), but right now it's the reality. If you're creating a website for public use, you code to Mozilla/Opera/etc *and* IE, or to IE *only*. Even for private intra/extranet use, you at least code to IE as well, or plan to deal with support calls from users as they adapt to using another browser (assuming you offer support, as we generally do).

Don't get me wrong, I long for the day when the OS/browser/etc that you use is essentially irrelevant from a technical point of view, but those days are a long way off yet.

Re:And the winner is...Not Readability

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoth the submitter in a single, convoluted sentence:

The USPTO has handed Microsoft a second victory in a dispute over a browser plug-in patent that could roil the Web if upheld, rejecting arguments by Eolas and the University of California that technologies cited as prior art by Microsoft and its W3C allies that persuaded the USPTO to open a reexam were irrelevant.

The USPTO has handed Microsoft a second victory in a dispute over a browser plug-in patent that could roil the Web if upheld. In a reexam proceeding opened due to prior art submitted by Microsoft and its W3C allies, the USPTO rejected arguments against that art from Eolas and the University of California.

(Same content, same style, but much more readable. BTW, the major problem was that the words "were irrelevant" were placed much to far from the word "arguments".)

MOD parent up

[airConditionedGypsy]

this is exactly the point.

A software implementation is a "physical" realization of an abstraction: an algorithm or collection of algorithms. To extend the previous metaphor to pharma's: the algorithm is like the formula for a particular compound, and the software implementation (of which yours is just a particular version) is like a tablet/pill that just rolls off the assembly line.

The bigger question is: should algorithms be patentable. There is probably a stronger case for patenting algorithms than there is for patenting chemical compounds...

Re:MOD parent up

[AstroDrabb]

The bigger question is: should algorithms be patentable. There is probably a stronger case for patenting algorithms than there is for patenting chemical compounds...

The problem with that is already apparent. The algorithms will become generic and lock out competition. For example:

I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two dates and subtracts them, returning the difference.

I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two character arrays and returns a new concatenated character array.

I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts two numbers and adds them and returns the sum.

I hereby patent an algorithm that accepts an image file as an array of bytes and an x and y coordinate. The algorithm will return the pixel color of those coordinates.

etc, etc. etc.

Can you see how silly it becomes. Basically, you will no longer be able to program a computer with out paying $BIG_COMPANY fees for all the patents. The only companies that are safe are $BIG_COMPANIES, since they will cross license their patent hoards.

Re:MOD parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

"Can you see how silly it becomes."

I hereby patent being silly on slashdot.

Re:MOD parent up

[airConditionedGypsy]

I agree with you. For simple stuff, I think the 'prior art' qualification takes care of it.

As with the pharma case, it is sometimes a little ridiculous. I mean, should those compounds that have existed in nature or are 'obvious' be patentable? What about compounds that need to be synthesized by some non-obvious means, including finding ways to join the molecules that produce something that won't irritate the digestive system?

The hope is that a more capable patent evaluation system would weed out those sorts of "silly" algorithms. Adding two numbers doesn't deserve a patent. Does/did something like RSA deserve a patent? Does a particular sorting algorithm (nevermind that we have a whole host of good ones that are effectively in the public domain) deserve patent protection?

In any event, a good patent office would equate public Date diffDate(Date x, Date y); with "I hereby patent the ability to flip a piece of paper containing a table of days back and forth." From my (admittedly limited) experience of being involved in a patent filing, it seems that a good patent lawyer will make sure that the patent is non-trivial. The problem is all those folks (and $BIG_COMPANIES) that have enough money to spend that they can patent every brain-fart that comes along.

As far as paying money to $BIG_COMPANY, in the worst case we'll just have to wait for 20 years (conceivably much less the way the wait time is at the patent office) in order to program again.

patents...

[Mr._Hole]

I read the above comment about patents open sourcing... he does have a valid point... but what if the open source community provided a voluntary consortium that let companies "donate" their patents under a GPL like lisence where the company would still be in control of the patents (to enforce their rights) yet the public could freely develop software without worry of being sued... the patents would still apply for companies selling software obviously... but for GPL software that does not make any money (besides support) they would not have to worry about being threatened... I have more ideas about how to implement this, and how it would protect company rights and public rights alike... webactivex@yahoo.com, but all I can see is IBM dumping their entire patent repository on to the OSS community... and it is a beautiful thing to imagine...

Mike Doyle, was Re:Consistency

[Katharine]

I was along for the ride when Mike Doyle pitched Eolas to some of my relatives back in the mid-90's after the patent was applied for but before it was issued and I've gone to some of their stockholder's meetings. I have the following observations to make:

1) Mike Doyle's father considered himself an inventor and had several patents. Doyle also considers himself an inventor. That's probably why, unlike many programmers, his first instinct when he thinks of a clever way to solve a programming problem is to patent it. He is very much in favor of patents because he strongly believes that they protect the little guy from exploitation by big business.

2) The "Eolas patent" isn't Doyle's only patent; it would be interesting to know what you all think of the other patents' validity. Back at the original pitch session I mentioned above, Doyle commented that he had a patent on a way of handling collisions in computer games and similar interactive, graphical application. He observed that people had been infringing his patent for years but he didn't find out in time to enforce it-- he only found out about the infringement when he read the book "Secrets of the Game Designers" (or something like that). He explained that this wasn't going to be a problem with the "Eolas patent" because he already knew it was being infringed. My reaction to his story was that the "game designers" had probably come up with the technique independently (would not necessarily invalidate the patent) and may have even done so before he did (would invalidate the patent). Say what you like about the man, but you've got to give him credit for self-confidence and faith in his own abilities.

3) Doyle also has a patent on a cryptographic system that he tried to spin out into its own company (as a subsidiary of Eolas) called "ProofSpace" or "ProofStamp" or something like that. I no longer recall the details of the product, but it was to be some kind of web-accessible digital timestamp. I think it was a good idea to actually make a product, and it was a product that was needed-- but the company was probably doomed from the get-go. I'm not convinced that Doyle's idea ever could have been made into a workable product. I was at their one and only shareholder's meeting, again the guest of a relative. I asked their main technical guy there some very pointed questions about they planned to secure the time signal they were planning to use and he absolutely could not answer them. I don't know much about cryptography and it is possible that my question was a "bad" one that couldn't be answered, but I don't think so. (If it were, I would imagine that the technical guy would have told me that.) It did not come as a surprise to me when later it turned out that their programming team was unable to make the product work and they went bankrupt.

In my opinion, Doyle is a bright guy. He should have taken his ideas and implemented them into a product or product(s) rather than just trying to play the patent lottery. Early on Eolas did try to do that. They sold a Tcl/tk development environment among other things. It could have potentially slowly grown into a profitable company. Instead, they bet everything on this one patent lawsuit against Microsoft. It took too much of Doyle's time to deal with it and they had to stop trying to exist as a real company. It's a shame.

Re:Mike Doyle, was Re:Consistency

[Jason Earl]

Your post was very interesting, thank you very much. However, it sums up in a nutshell what is wrong with software patents. There are only two cases where it makes sense to create software patents. The first case is the case of the huge and successful software business that creates patents to keep competitors from entering into their software markets. Microsoft, for example, is excited about software patents because they know that they can afford to file them, and their smaller competitors can't. Microsoft wants to raise the minimum requirements for software creation from having access to a computer to having access to a computer and having access to a pile of software patents that you can cross-license to protect your business. All of the large software houses want to keep out the riff raff, and software patents are a great way to do that.

The other case where it makes sense to create software patents is if you are a small company like Eolas that doesn't actually write software. The best part is that companies like this don't even have to invent stuff. They can simply patent ideas that everyone uses (digital timestamps, collision algorithms), and can use these patents to intimidate all sorts of small businesses that can't afford to go to court over patents. Sometimes these businesses might actually patent something that is truly novel (and useful), and then they can go to war with the Microsoft's and IBM's of the world. The important thing to remember is that these small businesses can't actually write software if they are going to go for the big money. If Eolas had made a bit of money over the years selling their own web browser, for example, then the Eolas suit would never have gone to trial. Microsoft would have found a patent or two that Eolas violated, and Microsoft would have forced Eolas to cross-license the web-browser plugin patent. Since Eolas didn't really have any products, that tactic was impossible.

In other words software patents are basically useful to large corporations that want to keep small businesses from writing software and to small businesses that want to profit from someone else's hard work. Everyone else gets screwed under the current regime.

I am sure that Doyle is a nice enough guy, and he may even believe that his "ideas" are worth more than someone else's actual implementation. The fact of the matter is that the folks at Microsoft didn't read Doyle's patent and think to themselves, "hey, that's a great idea. Internet Explorer should do that!" They simply came to the same conclusion that Doyle did, that the web browser would be a great place to run applications. The difference was that someone at Microsoft actually sat down in front of a text editor and actually wrote the software to implement the idea. Doyle is simply setting up landmines for other inventors that are actually trying to make their visions a reality. He is essentially trying to profit from someone else's work, and that's not right. Doyle and his ilk will get no support or sympathy from me.

Microsoft also gets no sympathy from me because they are actively promoting the current patent regime. The folks at Microsoft know that software patents are detrimental to actual software innovation. In fact, Microsoft has gotten to the place it is precisely because there were no software patents when they were first starting out. Microsoft would have had a much harder time competing with IBM if software had been patentable back in the day. As long as Microsoft promotes the current patent regime then I wish the Eolases of the world the best of luck.

What About Xerox (PARC)

[webzombie]

You know I think what's really being lost here in all this blathering about MS and IBM and software patents is Xerox's original (prior art) for many if not ALL the foundational technologies that appear to have been "borrowed" by some many of the big patent holders of today.

It seems to me that these same big players are doing all they can to position themselves to extract potentially HUGE sums of money from whomever they can when their monopolistic business models are in danger of falling.

Just a humble thought from the fringe!

Oh and what colour are the terrorists today? Yellow? Blue? Whatever!

Whatever you do, don't blame the patent holders.

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so many of them could spend a half a million dollars for lawyers and also hire a lobbying firm to steamroll over some bound-and-gagged bureaucrats who read in the news every other week about some other private sector "professional" calling the entire bureaucratic profession stupid.

But that's beside the point once you've invented a new circuit that software can inevitably simulate, and so there's no point in patenting it.

It's beside the point when some hack tech journalist with a deadline and no clue is looking for something to write.

It's beside the point when the politicians are happy to join in the lobbyist-inspired bureaucrat-bashing bandwagon.

Slashdotters have a gift for the perverse, just like any other info-mercial wind-up tool.

Doctrine of Laches...

[gillbates]

This idea that you can sit on patents until someone else is making millions on the same idea and then pounce on them is ridiculous...

Yes, it is. And the law agrees with you. Of course, IANAL, though...

The Doctrine of Laches states that a plaintiff who unreasonably delays action to the detriment of the defendant loses the ability to collect damages due to the delay.

In the case of intentional delay, the plaintiff would not be able to collect royalties for past infringement. If the defendant continued to infringe, the plaintiff could collect damages for that.

Thus, there are two mitigating factors in favor of the defendant:

1. If the defendant changes the code so that it no longer infringes, he will bear little or no liability for patent infringement. In the case of open source, where the plaintiff should have known of the infringement from the release date (or shortly thereafter), the Doctrine of Laches could be applied to have the case dismissed.
2. In cases where the defendant continued to infringe, they could still end up owing no royalties. It could be argued that the value of the patent lies not in the actual utility of the method, but rather in its widespread adoption by industry, and the compatibility with existing devices. Hence, as it was the plaintiff's delay in bringing action which caused such widespread adoption, it could be argued that the defendant owes no royalties past, present, and future, because the value of the patent is entirely contingent on the plaintiff's prejudicial behavior toward the defendant.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone should patent viruses...and then when the INDUCE act gets approved, sue Microsoft!

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[satoshi1]

I'm using WinXP Pro, IE 6.0.2. I've heard that MacIE doesn't have this problem, but I haven't been able to confirm it for myself.

Re:And the winner is...Not Readability

[(54)T-Dub]

Thank you!!! I had to read the article 3 times before I understood what the hell he was saying. An article that long should be required to have more than 2 periods. The second sentence is pretty freaking confusing as well.

...and I was out-of-state

[Chazman]

That sum doesn't sound too different from the checks I actually wrote.

Uh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right. You regularly astroturf for Microsoft and blast anything Open Source. Talk about religiosity--you're a regular zealot (with ten replies in this story alone)! Douchebag says what?

Mods: Beware--this guy is the latest manifestation of bonch/Overly Critical Guy.

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[rd_syringe]

Get back to me when the myriad of desktop environments actually all conform to those standards--or is this another case of linking to an unused online draft and then claiming you've topped Microsoft?

MODS: TROLL ALERT

[Anonymous Coward]

This is to inform you, gentle moderator, that the parent post is from a person who has trolled Slashdot in the past under the names bonch and Overly Critical Guy. Please, do all of us a favor and don't be taken in by this person's moronic brayings.

Thank you.

This has been a public service announcement.

MS Challenging Eolas?

[gevantry]

Good. I hope MS wins in court, and can find a way to legally stick it to UC and Eolas to recover costs. Every patent of the sort Eolas was granted that I've seen is spurious. Now, if only MS would refrain from filing for the same kinds of patents... What's the most recent one? Pointing and clicking or double or triple-clicking an icon on the screen of a handheld device...? Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others. --Groucho Marx

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[Alsee]

I would be behind Microsoft here if they were opposing software patents, but they're not. They are simply sweeping one patent out of the way that happens to inconvience them.

Software patents need to be done away with, but in the mean time I hope Microsoft loses. It would be Microsoft's own software patent advocacy coming home to roost. If they loose for a half billion dollars on this single patent maybe it will put a dent in their efforts promoting software patents here and worldwide.

-