Slashdot Mirror
New Prior Art Cited In 2nd Eolas Patent Rejection
theodp writes "To be able to reject the Eolas browser plug-in patent a second time, the USPTO had to add the teachings of G.Toye after Eolas' response prompted the examiner to withdraw his previous finding that was based solely on the teachings of the W3C's Dave Raggett and Tim Berners-Lee. It's unclear where the Toye prior art came from, since the W3C didn't offer it when it asked the PTO to overturn the patent. Also, a newly available document reveals that the W3C's widely-publicized prior art filing, which was hastily made without community input, differed little from an unpublicized filing that was made weeks earlier by attorneys from Microsoft and AOL."
I disagree. Copyright is the protection you should get for your code, not patent.
Patent is far too broad to cover something like software algorithms. Software is another science where ideas are built upon other's ideas. Nothing's built in a vacuum here, but yet people still come off thinking that their code is somehow special and that nobody else would have thought of it.
Patent is obviously a bad idea because we're winding up with situations like this stupid Eolas thing. It's like someone (Fraunhoffer?) thinking they are the only ones who can do audio compression because the MP3 patent covers any similar algorithm. While they haven't sued anyone yet as far as I know, they have stated that Vorbis likely infringes on their patents. That's just ridiculous.
Microsoft has succeeded in controlling the global software market by prevailing in at least these three main areas:
1. Convincing everyone that Windows is the universal platform, when in fact it runs on fewer architectectures (one, mainly) than virtually any other OS around;
2. Exacting an OS tax on virtually every personal computer sold;
3. Using large blocks of public domain code in their software, while getting to treat under law in most jurisdictions as their own copyrighted work.
Now add to that list: Making sure that the only software patent royalties that get paid, get paid to them.
Since the ex post facto rejection of the Eolas patent does nothing to influence software patent law in general, your elation regarding the Eolas patent disallowance is sorely misplaced, IMHO. Microsoft simply paid to get it overturned. All patents in retrospect are obvious, and just about any scrap of paper read 10+ years later can be made to seem preemptive if all you have to do is say that it is.
If Eolas were suing Microsoft on the exact same legal grounds, the suit would have most surely failed. Look at how simply having money -- some report it came largely from Microsoft -- has prolonged the circus that is the SCO lawsuit. It's clearly about money, not software patent law.
Is just over two months from now immediate enough?
Are you implying that a Kerry presidency would treat patents any differently?
Sorry, no. The Rep and Dem parties haven't made any true difference on Intellectual Property law in their platforms. Bills like the Sonny Bono Act get bi-partisan support.
It's even possible that Democratic politicians would favor Eolas in this case, since the Clinton adminstration demonstrated itself to be anti-Microsoft (relative to the successive Republican leadership, that is). They might be inclined to "rescue a common-inventor from big business"
Actually, there's a good case on either side, but what should really be patentable is the use of a particular algorithm for a particular use - wouldn't it be better if you could stop your competitors from copying your application? (I.E, no one else can use your nifty algorithm for a game, but that doesn't stop them from using it to develop a spam filter!)
Honestly, software patents should be like biotechnology patents - you can't stop people from using the science, but you can stop them from using the technique you developed to compete with you in your area!
Like other sciences, computer science should move to a point where creative innovations are freely available to those who want to apply them - but not so free you put people out of business who are working to develop the ideas you want to use.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
"Your position is fine except that the company pushing to not pay this patent's due royalties is the same company agressively pushing for thousands of software patents annually for their own financial benefit. "
Wrong + Wrong == Right?
" Convincing everyone that Windows is the universal platform, when in fact it runs on fewer architectectures (one, mainly) than virtually any other OS around;"
I don't totally disagree with your post, but I am not a big fan of this particular aspect of it. Being the 'universal platform' isn't strictly limited to what architecture it can run on. You can write something for Windows 95 and it'll still work almost 10 years later on XP. I'd like to give Linux credit for that, but I've personally found myself having to go install new library files just to get Cinepaint running.
Additionally, Microsoft's market presence means that you can write something and have an instant audience in the 10s of millions. Since most PCs run Windows, it is a version of 'universal'. That's why the game library is so ridiculously huge on the PC.
Yes, it's a marketing definition of 'universal', but your own definition of it is far too narrow for a word that describes 'everything and everywhere'.
"Derp de derp."
i don't see how you can patent an implementation of an algorithm. Does that mean i could of patented using a binary system to store data? Or the von neuman architechture for.. making computing devices?
Software is written code, much like a book or music. Isn't it more logical that code should be copyrighted, not patened? This is much like trying to patent the idea of a book (Its about people that are living in a distopia, and try to rebel...) Everyone should have a right to express an idea through words/code, but not to steal anothers exact words. If someone tries to make money on unmodified, obviously plagerised code, without paying royalties, or does not site the author/s, then and only then should a lawsuit pursued.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
Logically, then, Microsoft would only go to such an expense for financial reward. And they have stated that they would do this 'agressively' -- deliberately overloading the patent process and the reviewers -- they said 3,000 a year, which is just about 1-1/2 applications an hour. To spend Microsoft corporate money on such an endeavor without such a goal would be negligent and a breach of fiduciary responsibilty. Not to mention completely out of established Redmond character.
Microsoft is notorious for abusing monopoly power. If Microsoft was the assignee of the Eolas patent, I seriously doubt their would be any other browser out there but IE (or its duly MS-EULA-based derivitives).
But that's just me.