Slashdot Mirror


Supreme Court Rejects Microsoft Eolas Appeal

mixmasterjake writes "The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to hear a Microsoft appeal in the software company's ongoing Web browsing patent dispute with the University of California and Eolas Technologies. The dispute arises over the Eolas patent for 'a system allowing a user of a browser program ... to access and execute an embedded program object.' From the article: "With today's decision, the Supreme Court decided not to hear Microsoft's argument relating to how damages in the case should be calculated. Microsoft had been asking the court to reject a previous ruling that damages should be awarded based on Microsoft's U.S. and foreign sales, saying that the Eolas patent should only apply to U.S. products. The Supreme Court did not give a reason for its rejection of Microsoft's appeal."

22 of 219 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't the Chief Justice set the Court's agenda? by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And all the libs said Roberts was in the pocket of Big Business... Guess they were wrong?

    --
    I am not left-handed, either!
  2. Oh the Irony... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft gets to eat it's own medicine. Maybe they'll start to realize how bad software patents really are. Patents aren't an universal tool that should be used in every field of science.

    1. Re:Oh the Irony... by jZnat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Scary as it is, Microsoft and other large software companies have patented software ideas and algorithms in order to make sure that no other company would go and patent the same idea and use it against them. Now they wouldn't have to waste the time and money in patenting algorithms (i.e. math equations, those of which aren't patentable anyways) if nobody patented them in the first place. It's usually a self-defence situation when patenting software, but when the company seeks out to use its patents to destroy "infringers" (see: SCO vs. Linux and IBM), that's where the problem lies. Yes, patenting software shouldn't even be a possibility, but while it is, companies need to legally defend themselves, but when they go and take the offence using their patents, that's when it becomes obvious to more than just us /. geeks that the idea of patenting software is ridiculous.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    2. Re:Oh the Irony... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because while it's true that it's about protection, what it is protecting is not Microsoft from patent attacks, but from startups with good ideas stealing their revenue and market share. It's all about raising the cost of entry into any given market.

  3. The patent system... by NaruVonWilkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    has to be reformed. Such a basic idea shouldn't be patentable, even when it costs a giant like Microsoft.

    1. Re:The patent system... by Bulmakau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you to a certain extent.
      However, I hear /.ers say that software should not be patentable. Why is that? What is special about software that it shouldn't quality?
      Patents are there to do two things:
      1. Protect inventors who work hard on creating something new, which is sometimes easy to replicate. So that when they do succeed, sometimes after a long hard work, it is them who enjoy the fruits of their work. This is by itself a nobel cause I think.
      2. To allow (after certain number of years, depending on the field of patent) for everyone to easily replicate the patent for the benefit of man kind. This is done by requiring that the patent is well documented and easy to reproduce. This is by itself also a nobel cause.
      The problem begins when companies are granted patents on very basic things. Be it algorithms, concepts or code. Software is no different than any other field. If someone doesn't like softtware patents, I don't see how he/she can justify any patent. If they like patents in one field, software patents should be as valid. If they don't like patent at all, that is another matter. However, it is not by mistake that patents are recognized in almost all developed countries. It will be counter productive to man kind if we did not compensate inventors.
      The only exceptions I see to that are these:
      1. Pointless patents and patents to too-simple things: One-click-shopping (amazon). This patent was given as a business practive patent to Amazon for saving the user's payent details for future purchases. What is this?? Is that a patent? As a business practice? No way. And the fact that it held in court is rediculous (imho). My cable company keeps my CC details in case I even want to order a new VOD movie or new channel. They did it long before Amazon existed (maybe not the VOD part;)).
      2. Unfair uses of patents: JPEG patent - now you remeber to say? after jpeg is standard in every application? It is true you are not obliged to tell the world about your patent, but if you do plan to monitize it, why did you waited so long? It hold the world by its balls? Unfair. Video streaming (Acacia) patent - same thing. In fact, the Acacia patent is unfair in many ways.. It is a case where a patent was purchased by a law office only to make money by basically extorting licencing fees. Licencing fees are a perfect way to compensate inventors. However, it shouldn't be used in a dishonets manner, where you keep quiet for many years only to let the world get addicted to something and then, out of the blue, strike. 3. Holding back on patents: You invented something? Good. USE IT. Don't write a patent for something and then refuse to use it or licence it for a fair fee. This is cunter productive to BOTH reasons of the patent. By not using it you are not compensating the inventor for her/his invention. You might be paying him to "keep thier invention to themselves" and by that cripple the market/competition. But that is unfair to the inventor, invention and the public.

      in conclusion, I think patents are very important and positive thing. But they should be used as a positive tool, not a negative one. Positive to the inventors and the society.

      --
      "From the moment I could talk, I was ordered to listen" - Cat Stevens
  4. It's Only Money by mysqlrocks · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft had already been dealt a $520.6 million judgement in the case two years ago

    How much does Microsoft clear in profit every month, over one billion dollars? This isn't much money to them.

    1. Re:It's Only Money by The+Bungi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      This isn't much money to them.

      What about the Mozilla foundation? Opera? KDE? Apple? Because armed with this precendent Eolas is going to go after anyone who has ever coded a browser with the ability to host an applet.

      Does it sound bad enough now?

    2. Re:It's Only Money by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I take it you haven't read the patent. It covers ideas that were floating around as early as the 1970s, things which are so obvious that any computer scientist or engineer will come up with the same solution before you even finish explaining the problem to them - hell I came up with the same concept before I even saw a web browser because it's so mind-bogglingly obvious. No one should be able to patent things like this. The only good thing about this case is that it's likely to push Microsoft and their lobbying fund away from the software patents are good camp.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:It's Only Money by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It covers ideas that were floating around as early as the 1970s, things which are so obvious that any computer scientist or engineer will come up with the same solution before you even finish explaining the problem to them - hell I came up with the same concept before I even saw a web browser because it's so mind-bogglingly obvious

      So you are saying that Microsoft's patent attorneys are total idiots and hopelessly incompetant, and you, personally have the One True Answer? Somehow I doubt it.

  5. I know how I should feel, but... by FirstTimeCaller · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok, this is Slashdot, and therefore anything that Microsoft does is supposed to be bad. But, I still can't bring myself to embrace obvious software patents. I did RTFA, but I have not looked at the patent itself -- so perhaps it isn't obvious. Still, I can't help but think this does not bode well for the internet in general.

    Sure MS has strong-armed some competitors in the past and probably stolen an idea or two (Stac compression comes to mind), but I would have preferred to see the patent overturned...

    --
    Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
  6. Absurd Patent by orangenormal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Eolas's patent, which covers web browser plugins, should never have been awarded -- let alone validated by the USPTO. As it stands, no browser that supports plugin technology is immune from Eolas, a one-man-show run by a university professor.

    The patent needs to be thrown out immediately; the amount of prior art must be staggering.

    For the future of the web, this is a case you'll want Microsoft to win, ultimately.

    1. Re:Absurd Patent by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Eolas's patent, which covers web browser plugins, should never have been awarded -- let alone validated by the USPTO."

      yes it should have been. It meets all the appropriate qualifications.
      there doesn't seem to be any prior art, much less a staggering amount.

      Hopefully the folly of patenting software and business process will start to become apparent to large corporations.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Absurd Patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You must not be a programmer.

  7. Microsoft's loss is Mozilla's loss by tbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I say this as someone who is no fan of Microsoft, and who is actually a student at the University of California--Microsoft's loss is bad for open source. Microsoft was simply the biggest fish Eolas could go after. Now they're going to demand royalties from all other browser makers, which could spell big trouble for Mozilla.

    I hope I'm wrong--please tell me this isn't going to kill open source web browsers.

    The UC/Eolas patent covers "a system allowing a user of a browser program ... to access and execute an embedded program object." Sounds like it would cover browser support for Java and perhaps JavaScript embedded in web pages.

    Crap.

  8. seconded.. and mod parent up.. by plasmacutter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    all i have to say on this.. in this case microsoft is obviously the lessser of two evils. when the US economy and government finally collapse under the accrued debt.. i hope the framers of the next constitution require intro to computer science for political candidacy. The level of technological idiocy reflected in our judges and politicians has plummeted so far under the bottom of the barrel it's actually made its way several thousand feet into the chinese sky.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    1. Re:seconded.. and mod parent up.. by steelfood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would result in a non-functioning government. It's like asking politicians to build you a computer.

      There are two issues at hand, and both are related. The first is the relative lack of knowledge of the average politician on anything other than politicking. Most of the politicians in office these days can win the hearts of the people with sweet words, but they have no idea WTF they're talking about the rest of the time. I'm not just talking about bible thumpers. Politicians require political savvy to remain in office--nothing else. This means that politicians have a tendency to be good at nothing other than politics. But that's why they have advisors. In particular, the President has his cabinet, and each member of the cabinet is given charge of a certain area of specialty.

      The second problem is the speed that technology is growing. We've been seeing exponential growth in technology and technology-related fields since the Renaissance. Human intellect just can't keep up. For a politician to keep up with what's happening technology-wise requires more and more people because previous fields of expertise are splitting up into two or more separate fields. For example, in the 60's, we had programmers. Now, we have C programmers, Java programmers, OO programmers, web designers, scripters, software architects, etc. Yet, our economey does not grow exponentially. Politicians cannot afford to hire fifty people just to advise on "technology," which covers everything from your house to your car to your computer.

      So what do we do? Either we slow down technological growth (like that'll happen) or we, the average citizen, will have to bring our elected representatives' attentions to issues that we feel are important. That means writing letters, petitioning, rallies, public demonstrations, etc. Or, we can do away with representatives completely, but let me remind you that whatever you might think, there are a lot more people who are much more ignorant on more important issues than you might like to believe. That, of course, includes anyone who's ever complained about a liberal arts class (or for that matter, any class) when majoring in an unrelated field.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  9. Re:How does this affect me? by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I run Gentoo Linux, how does this affect me?

    Actually, it affects any system running any browser. If the validity of EOLAS patent is confirmed in court - and it looks quite possible right now - all modern browsers will have to be rewritten to avoid patent infringement. This means also that majority of websites will have to be redesigned in one way or another. So even if you use Lynx as your only web surfing tool - you are affected. Don't take the sectarian attitude "when Microsoft has problems it's always good news".

  10. My first reaction would be... by Trogre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "I'm with Microsoft on this one". Patents on software and business practises are the greater evil here.

    However with Microsoft's extensive patent portfolio, I wonder just how hard they're trying with this case. Perhaps they intend to lose in order to set a legal precedent for software patents. Maybe Eolas has offerred them several key patents if they 'take one for the team', that would both make Eolas rich(er) and allow MS to pursue litigation against other firms.

    Let's face it, if MS did start defending all its patents and winning, they would manage to close down just about every small software house left.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  11. Rather than go for the patent system in total.. by DiamondGeezer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This story is really about the invidious patenting of ideas rather than actual inventions. Such patenting of software processes is not about protecting intellectual property or a partuclar working design of some new gizmo.

    The entire point of software patents like this is to stifle innovation by preventing anybody, including Microsoft, from reverse engineering the process by any means. That's not patenting because you have a product on the market that you're trying to protect, it's a form of intellectual highway robbery by digging a big hole in the road and then charging people to cross the hole using the one bridge and the police preventing people from going around the hole.

    As far as Microsoft is concerned, I feel no sympathy. Microsoft has aggressively tried to corner and stifle competition by collecting as many of these software or business process patents as it can. Now it gets bitten by somebody else doing the same thing. "He who lives by the software patent also get shafted by the software patent"

    Microsoft should be like Earl: call it "karma" and seek to redress people for what it has done. But first, Bill Gates needs to get caught in a hit-and-run accident while holding a winning scratch card.

    Unless there is urgent action to void these "business process through software" patents, then it will be the rest of the world, China, India and especially Europe which will benefit from innovation and not the US. In America, software patents are causing the pace of innovation to slow while costing eveybody more money, and jamming up the Patent system with these mendatious patent claims.

    --
    Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
  12. No reason? by Infinityis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Microsoft had been asking the court to reject a previous ruling that damages should be awarded based on Microsoft's U.S. and foreign sales, saying that the Eolas patent should only apply to U.S. products. The Supreme Court did not give a reason for its rejection of Microsoft's appeal"

    Here's a good reason for you: as a US company, you should abide by US patent law, even if you sell overseas. Just because the business is done outside the US does not mean it's exempt from patent protections.

    Microsoft above all should be aware of this sort of thing--it's exactly like the tactics they were using with Lee going to work for Google. Washington (the state) would say "He can't go right to work there", and California would say "Come on in, here's your desk".

    1. Re:No reason? by Keeper · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What it means is that if you're a US based company, and technology is patented by one person in the US and other person overseas, you have to pay licensing fee's twice.