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."
Being a Justice on the Supreme Court is the best job ever. You can pick and choose which cases you want to hear, and you need offer no justification whatsoever!
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.
has to be reformed. Such a basic idea shouldn't be patentable, even when it costs a giant like Microsoft.
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.
Bradley Holt
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.
I run Gentoo Linux, how does this affect me?
Allow me to compile an answer for you. Please check back in 7 hours.
Both of which routinely suggest actions you can take to try to turn this thing around.
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.
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.
... to access and execute an embedded program object." Sounds like it would cover browser support for Java and perhaps JavaScript embedded in web pages.
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
Crap.
Ars has better coverage.
It's a bit confusing, but as I understand things, this is the story: Eolas were awarded big damages against Microsoft based on their browser plugin patent. This patent was overturned in March 2004, which means Microsoft no longer had to pay those damages. Micosoft's appeal to SCOTUS was against those damages that it doesn't have to pay any more. So, I imagine the SCOTUS were like "WTF?" when they declined to hear the case.
Microsoft's not totally insane, though, because the patent has been reinstated, so MS and Eolas will be going back to court, and MS might lose again and have to pay money again. So they were looking for a precedent to keep a lid on those damages which they might get.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
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!!
This is my chance! Bad news for MicroSoft! All I have to do is act giddy, (and pretend that I don't care about the larger implications of the broken patent system), and I'll be modded up! w00t!
:(
And now, for my sarcastic insolence, I'll be modded down.
Maybe they'll cancel each other out?
FanFictionRecs.net
Ok,
in the eyes of the Courts, this question has long been settled. If I am remembering my Patent law correctly ( you patent lawyers out there please correct if wrong) trying to split the "outside world" from the U.S. is not considered, especially if those involved in the case are of U.S. "citizenship."
This is to prevent someone from using someone else's patent for profit overseas.
Looks like Microsoft needs some more/better patent attorneys...
They have made their bed, and now they must lie in it. If they support software idea patents
then they must also be willing to pay dearly to those who will do nothing but litigate
using them.
Sooner or later even these big companies must realise that it is more expensive in the long
haul to support software patents when there are constantly more and more companies that
don't make anything and are only out to litigate; and since crosslicensing with them is
useless, since they don't make anything, all they can do is constantly pay up.
A bad analogy is like a leaky screwdriver.
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".
"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
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
"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".
The Chief Justice doesn't choose cases for the Court. A "yes" vote from any four justices is enough for the Court to hear the case. The parties petition, and 4 justices have to vote yes for a case to be granted cert.
The Chief Justice does, however, lead the discussion leading to decision, and, if in the majority, choose who writes the opinion. So, the Chief is not without sway, and usually leads like-minded judges.
The earlier post which said it's the best job ever was half right: you might still have to hear a case if you don't want to, but you never have to write a sentence unless you take the opinion for yourself.
And, a little more knowledge for the curious, Chief Justices usually try to put a 'theme' to their tenure. For example, Earl Warren's was "Person liberty" and Rehnquist's was "States' rights" or "States' dignity." It'll be interesting to see where Roberts goes.
IANAL...y.
I'm no lawyer, so I may be wrong.
You probably know of one patent, the Eolas "browser plug in" patent, which threatens to kill every known web browser out there. And you probably know that Microsoft is fighting the patent, because it's being sued. And that everyone went about it the wrong way.
So (given I have not even read the actual patent details) I thought "wait, there's this function in Unix called 'dlopen' that is commonly used in Netscape and Mozilla to load in plugins. It's even described that way. Where does it date back to?"
A google search results in a Nov 16th, 1995 Sun Microsystems document describing a bug in SunOS 4.1.4's dlopen() call.
The patent was awarded in 1998. dlopen() existed since late 1995, at least two, if not three, years before the patent.
Whoops! I belive we got prior art from Sun! Quick, someone sue the Patent Office with this evidence!
--
# Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
$Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
Roberts who answered very little in his Senate Confirmation hearings, did mention he was open to the idea of either getting rid of the 'cert pool' concept and/or increasing the courts caseload each year.
Being a Slashdot editor is the best job ever! You can pick and choose what submissions you want to post and disregard all others without any justification whatsoever!
Being an anonymous loser is the best job ever! You can pick your butt, post what you find online and disregard bad karma :)
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
This case is, in my opinion, a huge bit of theatrics. Microsoft wants to lose this case, and here is why:
This patent, if enforced, would provide Microsoft a $500 million penalty for the ENFORCEMENT of plugins not being a possibility for browsers unless licensing is paid.
What would this mean? Well, you could kiss your Flash, Java VM, etc. goodbye! Not only that, but Firefox would have to block plugins like that as well!
Yes, as you can see, that would be a wet dream for Microsoft. The ability to dictate exactly what functionality is in IE, with the excuse of patents as an excuse.
So if Microsoft totally botches this case and sets up legal precident for Eolas to have this patent, you'll know why. They WANT It there. It's all part of their IP war against Linux, Firefox, and all things good and holy. (tm).
Microsoft: always playing the system. Never innovating. Might makes right!
No they don't.
They have the power to REWRITE the law, but that is not the same as oveerturning the Supreem Court.
I understand the argument you are trying to make, but you're overstating things a bit.