Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Two Strikes for Eolas Plug-In Patent

Posted by simoniker on from the no-bunting-allowed dept.

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."

14 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. I knew it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  2. And the winner is... by numist · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We pay our lawyers more."

  3. Please please please please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.)

  4. Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law by IGTeRR0r · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Perhaps patent law should be like trademark law by kramer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  5. What's a University doing involved in this shit? by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!!!!
  6. Re:Yay by theparanoidcynic · · Score: 5, Funny

    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. ;)

    --
    Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
  7. Wait a second by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:Wait a second by subterfuge · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  8. I am scared by Garabito · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

  9. Re:Yay by S.+Traaken · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  10. Re:Consistency by Wolfbone · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "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.

  11. Re:Consistency by Jason+Earl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.