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

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]

Re: A Summary for your lazy slashdotters..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

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

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: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: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

[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.