Slashdot Mirror
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.
Sign me on that petition. I read Slashdot and I hear about a "new" (old) patent like this almost every month. It makes me frightened just to write my own code...but then that's probably what Eolas wants. I hope not.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
The author Pei Wei tells his story of the Eolas patent here and how prior art was suppressed.
Maybe if knowingly withholding prior art was a federal crime this would not have happenned.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Laches comes in two flavors: statutorily-defined and judicially-defined.
Under statutory laches (35 USC 286) "...no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action."
Under judicially-defined laches, no recovery of damages can be had (if laches is found), prior to the commensment of the suit. This branch also includes prosecution laches (i.e., playing the system to delay the prosecution of the patent application, a la Lemelson).
Laches is not a defense in the sense that the infringement case is thrown out. In all three cases, the infringement action goes forward, but the damages are either limited (the first two examples above) or the patent is ruled unenforceable (prosecution laches). Note that a patent being declared unenforceable is not legally the same a patent being found invalid. The finding of unenforceability is in the damages phase of litigation, not the liability phase.