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.
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
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
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.