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.
Appeals Court Sends Eolas Case Back For New Trial
Wait... WHO decided it would be a good idea to retry Micro$oft during the Bush administration?!?
This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
This is the second major victory for Microsoft in two days. Slashdot didn't pick up the story but yesterday M$ won a pretty large appeal in the 9th circuit which dealt with patent and license issues having to do with ActiveX. While we all know ActiveX is terrible and its usuage has created one of the larger security holes known to man the victory is still a bad one because of the message that it sends to the lower courts. That issues involved a plug in developers access to APIs and whether they were allowed to create whatever they want. It is very legal jargon heavy and hard to summeraize the real implications, thats why I think it recieved such little press. The big suprise is that this happend in the 9th circuit where they are normally very friendly to the common man. The bottom line is that M$ is on a winning streak and we need to cross our fingers in the hopes that some judge is brave enough to step up against them.
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
Copyrights and patents don't become invalid due to non-enforcement. Trademarks, however, can be lost if the trademarked term passes into common use and the owner doesn't do anything about it.
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.
Uhhh, do you have the slightest idea what this case is about?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Welcome to the home of the Viola world wide web hypermedia toolkit. The original Xwindows, independent, experimental, scriptable, object oriented, alternative, etc, web browser. ViolaWWW is an extensible World Wide Web hypermedia browser. Based on and drawing from the Viola scripting language and toolkit, ViolaWWW provides a way to build relatively complex hypermedia applications that are beyond the provisions of the current HTML 3.0 standard. The Viola browser was the very first web browser to support interactive embedded objects, and other features such as tables, input forms, stylesheet. Source: viola homepage: http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/violaHome.h tml
fuvoo: watch something
They are abusing the system
...oh pardon me, I mean Micro$oft, a.k.a The Devil
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?
And for the record, I'm a 100% Linux user who is not a Microsoft fan, but this retrial is totally justified IMHO.
Slackware
im not sure if this has been suggested before, but who thinks patents should be (like trademarks) valid on a 'use it or lose it' basis, to prevent submarine patents, like this one?
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"
http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/aboutEolasM icrosoft.html
Slashdot is depressing. Look at the front page:
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.
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).
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Eolas was originally spun off by a group of University of Cal. employees, and still enjoys close legal ties to the university. The corporation also lists as business associates the Lawrence Livermore Labs, and the University of Illinois.
Eolas has been described as a one man band, with only one actual employee - in this case the man is:
"Founder Dr Mike Doyle was formerly director of the Academic Computer Center at UCSF and is an adjunct professor at two other universities."
(From The Register - March 4, 2005).
One of these adjunct professorships is: AP, Computer Science, DePaul University, Chicago.
(From Dr. Doyle's own website)
Eolas is apparently not publcly traded (Their website lists them as privately funded at present). In other words, while it has a contact point for venture capitalists interested, there is no general stock issued. This means (among many other things) Eolas has few or no restrictions on what it can list as its cental location for operations. Dr. Doyle may have incorporated under Ill. state law for any of a wide variety of reasons, i.e. lower cost than Ca., proximity to his more frequently occupied home address, or speed with which he expected an application to be processed.
Most companies that choose to incorporate under the laws of a state other than their physical own home choose one especially advantageous for them under corporate law. This is generally Connecticut . I can see why you and others are curious, as it is very hard to get any information on a small private corp. that it doesn't specifically release, but I'd just about bet that this is a straightforward decision in this case, and not something that indicates this lawsuit was long planned and the company somehow incorporated already planning to sue MS in a preferred venue.
Who is John Cabal?
Microsoft v. Ebola.
And I thought to myself "whoever wins, we lose".
wbs.
Huh?