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."
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.
Slashdot EeziPost (TM) MK I
[ ] Another: [ ] Dupe [ ] Slashvertisment [X] WTF [ ] $editor is a dork
[X] Frist psot [ ] link to GNAA [ ] Link to goatse [ ] $random_drivel
[X] I Haven't RTFA, but... $random_opinionated_comment
[ ] Slashdotted already!. I bet their server runs on $topic_item too
[ ] Soul_sucking registration required
[ ] Mod Parent [ ] up [ ] Down
[X] Fsck: [ ] SCO [X] Micro$oft [ ] DMCA [ ] DRM [ ] MPAA [ ] RIAA [ ] Google [ ] Bush [X] You all
[ ] I for one welcome our new $topic_item overlords
[ ] Imagine a beowulf cluster of those
[X] In Soviet Russia, $topic_item owns you!
[ ] Meh!
[ ] Netcraft confirms $topic_item is: [ ] dead [ ] dying
[ ] But have the inventors thought of what will happen if $random_amateur_insight
[X] Once again the USA is clamping down on my [X] Amendment rights.
[ ] You insensitive clod
[ ] But people who download music from P2P networks are more likely to buy the album
[ ] Cue DVD Jon-type crack in 3..2..1
[ ] Torrent, anyone?
[ ] Here's a link to a patch: $random_linux_distro_url
[X] Profit!!
[X] Still no cure for cancer
Nope. Nobody has deployed a non-infringing solution as of yet. Just about every browser (except maybe lynx) infringes on this.
.. 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.
Party in Middle Earth tonight! You're buying!
Signed,
Frodo and Gimli
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
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.
Ironically, Eolas' defense was bolstered by the arguments of its expert witness, 2005 EFF Pioneer Award Winner Ed Felten."
Unless I'm missing something, this isn't ironic.
Irony is a gulf between what you would expect and what happened. This isn't; in fact, it's EXACTLY WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT.
You would EXPECT that Eolas's defense would be bolstered by arguments of its witnesses, that's why they are Eolas's witnesses.
(Now, you may find it ironic that Ed Felten was testifying for them, but that's not what the sentence says.)
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.
Are you serious???? Have you not heard of the Patent Reform Act of 2005, H.R. 2795 ?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.
http://www.ipo.org/template.cfm?Section=Patent_Re
This is making major MAJOR changes to patent law (prior use rights, first to file instead of first to invent, creation of public opposition proceedings, publication of all patents, etc, etc, etc.) in 10 or 12 MAJOR areas of patent law.
And this thing is going to pass. It has wide congressional bipartisan support and the support of the all the major players. And it is a good thing for consumers.
Yikes, get your facts straight.
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
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.
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.
Erm. No.
First to file is much better than first to invent. In the case you mention that you invent someting first but someone else files first (both arrived at the same invention independently), your invention would make their invention INVALID as it would be perfectly valid prior art against their invention.
There's a few complications as regards the way certain countries and regions handle situations like this, but they system, isn't designed to punish you for being slow to file.
Here in Europe we have situations like this quite frequently where someone will oppose a granted patent using as evidence their own (or other) internal documents (or even product brochures). If it can be shown they genuinely have a point, then the patent could be invalidated or, in rare cases they could get to share the patent.
First to invent requires HUGE amounts of perfect paperwork at all times and is open to all sorts of fraud.
Plus, the US is the only major country that doesn't have first-to-file as a basic concept. In fact, that plus opposition boards etc - they are simply copying the European patent office.
Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
I am the great Slashdot. I am all user accounts, and yet I am none--I am THE Anonymous Coward. As you have humbly submitted thyself to my greatness, I shall take pity on thee and bestow my answer...
I cannot provide an exact date, but the following events will foretell the coming of a woman in your life:
Microsoft adds support for the OpenDocument format.
SCO realizes the error in their ways and open sources Unix.
A full year will pass here on Slashdot without a single dupe.
Duke Nukem Forever will be released.
As a final blessing, I foresee that you will meet this woman though the relationship services provided by Googlezon's EPIC system.
Good news:
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