Slashdot Mirror
USPTO Reexam Finds $521M Eolas Patent Valid
theodp writes "As predicted earlier on Slashdot, looks like the W3C goofed by shutting out the public and asking the Patent Office to base its reexamination of the Eolas Web Plug-In Patent solely on prior art promoted by Microsoft. The USPTO has reaffirmed the validity of the $521M patent, rejecting the W3C's prior art as deficient for not demonstrating the capability of ongoing real-time manipulation and control by the user. The USPTO also considered but rejected the prior art of the Viola Browser, which formed the basis for Microsoft's appellate argument. Ironically, Eolas' defense was bolstered by the arguments of its expert witness, 2005 EFF Pioneer Award Winner Ed Felten."
Then you should be on Microsofts side, and not Eolas. Microsoft hasn't sued anyone over patents they hold, which is more than can be said for Eolas.
"...art promoted by Microsoft..." what the heck?
Eolas has only 100 shareholders, so not counting legal fees that would mean $5.21 million each. After fees it'll probably be about $49.95 each. :-)
Still, this is a broad patent and will have serious implications if those 100 start seeing dollar signs. Microsoft could be target #1 and while I've heard rumors of Eolas vowing not to go after FOSS infringers -- like Mozilla -- all bets are off once the greed fever takes hold.
I wonder if AOL/Time-Warner is a potential target for all their infringing years as owners of Netscape/Mozilla. They have some cash laying around that I'm sure some patent lawyers would like to "liberate".
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
*cue evil laugh* Muahahahaha! Power to the patent (I'm biased, having my own hand in the game)!
/.ers, OSS, etc.) in respect to the fact that this confirms a broad patent, with all the WMD-type damage that in can incur.
/.ers) in that this patent is pointed at Microsoft. As MS is quite adept at dishing it out (destroying competition, litigating projects out of existance, etc.), it's nice to see a little fair play. Bonus points because it's the little guy (small inventor) giving it to the big guy (corporation).
But in all seriousness, this is both a good and bad thing.
It's a bad thing (in the eyes of most
It's a good thing (again, in the eyes of
I am John Hurt.
The problem is that you can replace Microsoft with Mozilla, and your statement changes to:
Patent Infringement Charges against Mozilla=Superawesome!
You see, Mozilla's browsers infringe on this patent in exactly the same way as Internet Explorer. Microsoft just got sued first, and while they claim they won't sue Mozilla, it is just that, a claim.
.. your average Joe and Jill American. At least not directly, as far as they're aware. Baseball does, unfortunately. That is why, as sad as it is, real issues don't get the attention they deserve, while farcery like athletes using steroids does.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
They won't need to sue anyone once they have total control. And that is their goal.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
That assumes they all have an equal number of shares. I think one guy has a majority, a couple of others have good-sized chunks, and everyone else was optioned in in lieu of salary. There's probably a bank or two involved, and the lawyers will get half anyway.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
This is good new not because we all hate Microsoft, but because this shows how fucked up software patents are. A few more cases like this and there will be serious change, by necessity. Once corporations start to feel the pain, they'll get the patent laws changed. But perhaps I'm being too optomistic thinking that they'll change it for the better.
Forget about the 10 shareholders. The major players in the world of "Intellectual Property" have always been people who create nothing but merely buy rights from others. I don't fear the Eolas shareholders as much as I fear somebody else with a few hundred $million who might buy their rights and start systematically going after people for a few thousand or tens of thousands of dollars a pop. And all the while they'll be making self-righteous proclamations about protecting "their" technology.
Even if the Eolas claim is valid, it's pretty sad that the government can let somebody sit on something like this for years while other people innovate, and then dive in and claim they own it. This news illustrates the need to place a time limit on "sleeper" patent claims.
I wonder how many times they'll be able to repost this and still be modded funny.
Just because the USPTO reissues the patent doesn't mean that it has the same scope as the original. The new art may have forced Eolas to narrow the claims so much that they are not relevant anymore (or maybe not). My point is that we still don't know anything important.
The examiner deciding the reexamination made a classic error. Patent claims are supposed to define what is "covered" by the patent, and what is not. So, if you describe a granite wheel mounted on a oak axle, your claim should say whether your patent covers the wheel itself, or merely a granite-on-oak wheel. The examiner in this case bought the patentee's argument that "interactive processing" really means "ongoing real-time manipulation and control by the user". Now, if the patentee had wanted to claim that the patent covered "ongoing real-time manipulation and control by the user", the simple solution would have been to put "ongoing real-time manipulation and control by the user" in the claims, to let everyone know that is what the patent covers. Nothing in "interactive processing" says "ongoing". Processing can interact, then stop, then start again and interact again. An externally launched applet does not have to be "real-time" to perform "interactive processing". Manipulation and control are words to argue about with your wife, not to define a software invention. These words are far too general to help legally define a technical invention. Hey, if you think about it, I'm manipulating and controlling you right now, in real time, in an interactive process. Did I launch an external application to write this? Are these words manipulating your perceptions and thoughts? PINK ELEPHANTS! Are we not interacting? Don't even get started on the meaning of the terms "external" and "application".
So, first to file is a *good* thing? Because way I see it, First to File would give Eolas an undeniable clinch.
Forget prior art. Did they file before you? That's the only thing you have to worry about.
I don't call that better. Now granted, I'm sure many provisions do benefit consumers, and innovation, but this whole first to file thing is just trying to get rid of red-tape that they have to deal with finding prior art. Now, they just have to look through their records and see if you're the first one to file for it. If you are, congratulations, otherwise, too bad, we'll put you in contact with who you need to to speak to about getting a license to use the technology that you independently developed before them.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
Shouldn't that mean that it's a rather obvious solution to practitioners in the field, possibly the only truly reasonable solution? These teams all developed similar solutions independently, without the help of the patent holders, yes? The teams didn't even know about the patent beforehand?
Maybe, in a few rare cases, patents have spurred development of new, truly innovative, technologies. But, to quote Lyndon Johnson, "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." I would feel vaguely sorry for the little and truly innovative companies if we took away patents, but not sorry enough.
This website offers nice rebuttals and arguments against software patents or "computer-invented inventions" as they're popularly called by their proponents:
. html
/. might even make you more competitive, since you're already wasting time reading it! ;-)
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/index
I urge everyone to mail this link to every co-worker and IT-knowledgeable person you know. First, all the geeks must unite, then the knowledge will spread from the knowledgeable to the ignorant.
A link to
It is never too late! The costs of maintaining a broken system is greater than fixing it, no matter when you finally decide to do it!
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
If the patent only covers applets, Flash, plug-ins, and ActiveX, then it probably doesn't matter anymore: they are not being used for much that is important anymore, and anything that eliminates these from the web is a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
That doesn't change the fact, of course, that the patent is stupid and has prior art., it's just that in this case, the incorrect decision may not have a lot of serious consequences.
IMO, the most effective thing that Microsoft can do is to use the implied threat of lawsuits to intimidate people / companies. Of course, this doesn't work so well if their bluff is called.
Actually, I think that Microsoft itself is in real danger over software patents. There could be 100's of software patents in the system that Microsoft is violating, and their healthy financial position makes them the ideal "mark" in a game of high stakes patent poker.
I am against software patents.
But in a world with software patents, I am all for abusive companies to get a serving of their own medicine.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Good news:
*cough* First to file a patent instead of first to invent is NOT a good thing. The patent law needs a reform, but this one goes into the wrong direction. Also, its less the law, then the USPTO being the problem.
What makes you think they developed their solutions independently? Netscape's plugin architecture was very popular by the time Internet Explorer had ActiveX, and Konqueror duplicated Netscape's interface exactly.
Irrelevent. Patents are intended to spur innovation by rewarding who gets there first. It's entirely possible for two independent teams to come up with something innovative and non-obvious without working together. That doesn't mean that the person who gets there first isn't entitled to the reward.
I'm not saying the patent's valid, just that your reason for shooting it down isn't.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Q. "Would an average software developer with an average education and average experience in computing ever need to refer to Eolas' patent on plug-ins, either directly or indirectly, in order to introduce optional functionality into an application?"
A. "No."
In fact, no software developer of any standing would need the information allegedly protected by the patent, because it is 100% obvious. And if you don't need the information in a patent, either directly or indirectly, then clearly the patent does not contribute the technical novelty which is allegedly being infringed. It has not offered the claimed item of value to the commonweal through its publication.
Given the above, nothing else in this case is relevant. Regardless of the form of words on the application, there can be no rational claim of infringement of a protected invention here, because the likelihood that the patent played any part whatsoever in the development of the allegedly infringing products is zero.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
I see things a different way. This patent was researched and applied for useing the TAX money from California residents. Therefor the patent should belong to the citizens of California. It has become the norm today for YOUR TAX DOLLARS going into research and delvelopment at colleges, universities and grants to private businesses. This all comes FROM YOUR TAX DOLLARS yet they get to walk away with a potential windfall of millions or billions in a patented product, service or business process. There should be a class action in california to recoup the tax monies spend on such research that is clearly not what your TAX DOLLAR are collected for. YOUR EDUCATION!!!!!!FUCKERS!!!!!
But you have to prove your invention was prior art by showing that you publicised it. "Prior art", under first-to-invent, means anything that existed before your invention. Under first-to-file, though, it's only what the patentee could have known about.
I see a huge conflict between trade secret law and patent law under first-to-file. The proposed changes will only benefit the patent lawyers and other system parasites.
sigs, as if you care.
The patent can be challenged by every schmoe accused of infringement as long as he hadn't sued or been sued before.
Well maybe in principle, but none of the schmoes will be able to deploy as effectively again the arguments based on the art cited in the failed re-exam proceeding.
There is always some tendency for a court to take the view that the questions handled in the re-exam were properly dealt with, and that the statutory presumption of validity of the patent has been strengthened.
That pushes future disputes about validity towards the direction of being an open-and-shut case.
In that way, the failure of the re-exam harms everybody interested in freedom to use this technology.
-wb-