Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Yeah, but you're forgetting that the USPTO hasn't adjusted to the fact that computer technology works in doggie years, not human ones.
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.
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.
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?
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
Between evil companies and evil patents, it's pretty easy to see which is worse.
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.
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
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.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
For $565 million they would probably buy into all sorts of stuff.
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.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
No, they are - like any 'good' corporation - fighting for themselves.
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.
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).
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.