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

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

[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.

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).