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.
.. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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