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

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.)

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

[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.

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: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.