Retrial Slated for Microsoft v. Eolas

wwphx writes "Back to trial they go. Microsoft won a decision stating that evidence of a prior browser, Viola, was excluded from the previous trial." From the article: "It had also suggested that Mike Doyle, Eolas' founder and a former UC researcher, had intentionally concealed his knowledge of Viola when filing the patent claim." Commentary also available from Forbes and ZDNet.

Comments

Again?

[anocelot]

Wait... WHO decided it would be a good idea to retry Micro$oft during the Bush administration?!?

You know...

[zoloto]

The company had suggested the existence of "prior art" - the technical term used when there is evidence that someone else came up with an application of the patented idea first.

Microsoft had wanted to show the court another browser called Viola, designed by a student at UC a year before the patent was filed in 1994.

As much as the slashbots here may hate Microsoft, I really do want them to beat Eolas. Don't patents become invalid if you don't defend them after a certian time period?

Re:Repost scheduled for Slashdot

[Lisandro]

I hate to bash a free (for me, atleast) service as Slashdot, but the amount of dupe stories lately is mind boggling. C'mon, it's not so hard to search the story tree before submitting...

Re:Corporate Legal System

[fireduck]

well, sure, that's good and all, except this is the opposite case. Here, MS is being sued by Eolas and the University of California system for violations of a patent that might be invalid because of prior art. if we're going to knee-jerk, we might as well argue the correct direction and fine Eolas / UC for abusing the patent and legal system.

Re:Corporate Legal System

[Otter]

If M$ loses 10% of its annual profit on lawyer fees, they wouldn't go to court with everyone everyday for the fun of it. They are abusing the system cause legal fees cost them pocket change at the moment.

Uhhh, do you have the slightest idea what this case is about?

Re:Corporate Legal System

[freshman_a]

They are abusing the system

How is this abusing the system???

There is a retrial because apparently prior art was concealed in a patent case. Seems legit to me. Or is it only bad because it's Microsoft? ...oh pardon me, I mean Micro$oft, a.k.a The Devil

And for the record, I'm a 100% Linux user who is not a Microsoft fan, but this retrial is totally justified IMHO.

Re:Another Big Victory for MS

[freshman_a]

You posted this same comment the other day

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=141180&cid=118 28350

So I'll post my same response...

I'll admit I'm not the biggest MS fan in the world. However, if the situation were reversed, and MS was claiming to own the patent, I think a lot of peoples' tones would be different (i.e. hoping that MS wasn't granted the patent). I hate to say it, but I sort of hope MS wins, but with the outcome being that no one is awarded the patent. That way no browser will be (or potentially be) affected, whether it be IE, Firefox, Opera, or whatever. But that's just MHO...

Re:Another Big Victory for MS

[Anonymous Coward]

While we all know ActiveX is terrible

Once again, don't hate the standard. Didn't I just do this yesterday with Flash? That's like saying you hate guns because they kill people, but I bet you'd be strongly opposed to removing guns from our police and military forces.

God you people are senseless clods.

Re:The Viola story

[Macadamizer]

"Maybe if knowingly withholding prior art was a federal crime this would not have happenned."

Well, it's not a federal crime, but it is "inequitable conduct," and it can result in any number of things, chief of which are that the patent itself will likely be found to either be invalid or unenforceable, and that the patent agent or attorney who prosecuted the patent could find himself or herself without a license to practice before the USPTO...

News for lawyers, stuff that matters

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot is depressing. Look at the front page:

• Your Rights Online: Retrial Slated for Microsoft v. Eolas
• IT: Interview With The SpamAssassin
• Your Rights Online: UK Record Industry Starts Suing Filesharers
• Games: Views on Violence in Video Games
• Your Rights Online: FCC Fines Company for Blocking Access to VoIP
• Your Rights Online: EU Patents Won't Stay Dead
• NYPL Digital Gallery Open to Public
• IT: Tracking a Specific Machine Anywhere On The Net
• Linux: Open Source Advocacy The Right Way
• Your Rights Online: Datamining the NSA
• Developers: Part 2 of Ruby on Rails Tutorial Online
• Apple: Judge Finds For Apple in ThinkSecret Case
• Your Rights Online: Phishers Face Jail Time Under New U.S. Bill
• British Government Considers Tax on Computers
• Your Rights Online: Rambus Patent Claims Dismissed

That's a lot of ligitation nonsense for one day. I'm not blaming the editors since this stuff is the news. But it's disheartening nonetheless. You'd almost forget that this stuff can be fun some of the time.

Clueless journalists ("prior art")

[Doomdark]

"The company had suggested the existence of "prior art" - the technical term used when there is evidence that someone else came up with an application of the patented idea first."

Geez. Not only are most Slashdotters ignorant, but so are journalists (yeah yeah, big news?). Although doing the exact thing(s) patent covers is (part of) prior art, the reverse is not necessarily true: prior art is a loose term referring to things done in same domain, related things; past inventions, well-known techniques and so on. Prior art means anything relevant to the patent that has already been done; not just things patent itself if covers.

Patent applications usually list tons of prior art, and for a good reason: it gives the impression that the applicant (applicant's lawyers) have done some research regarding novelty of the patented invention, and where it stands with respect to the current state of the art in the field (ok ok; or that's the idea, probably not the reality though).