Slashdot Mirror
'Eolas' Browser Plug-in Patent Case Rises Again
eldavojohn writes "A legal battle that has been around since 1999 and seemingly ended in 2005 now rears its head again. In a confusing move, the USPTO 'reissued a Microsoft patent last week covering the same concepts outlined in the Eolas patent and with wording mirroring that of the Eolas patent. With both companies holding identical patents, the USPTO will now play King Solomon and decide which parent gets custody of the baby.' Both the Microsoft & Eolas patents are available online."
...for being "obvious?"
----- Connection reset by beer
Worked for King Solomon! Just split Microsoft in half, Applications apart from OS and we're all set!
Do you Gentoo!?
all that are doing is giving MS a chance to prove that they invented the technology before it was patented. This is not unusual.
It is also why there are forms of invention protection you can use when shopping around for investors.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
See why I don't like software patents, because they're stupid and everyone gets hurt.
Unless of course, you manage to patent something that a large company will have to pay you $500+ million for. But if that's my large company, I'll be upset.
At this rate, we might as well patent integration and differentiation.
http://judiciary.house.gov/committeestructure.aspx ?committee=3
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
... the USPTO issued itself a patent on issuing Identical patents. This new patent, along with its other patents for issuing Holy Crap Obvious patents and Why Not patents will now allow it to sue itself under the latest incarnation of the Recursive Rules of Litigation.
To the death in a Roman Coliseum?
They keep going on about Linux and how it infringes on their patents. I'm sure Microsoft's products infringe on quite a few too, it's just many companies don't have the time and money to spend suing Microsoft.
This is my biggest beef with software patents. Software already has copyright protecting it. It also has trade secrets protecting it (at least in closed source software). And it has patents. And in all the patents i've seen, I've never seen a full source code disclosure of a working model. So, now when the patent expires, you still can't dupicate it (assuming it's not trivial) because you have to figure out all the source code on your own. As far as I'm concerned, copyright and trade secrets should be enough to keep your software safe.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
USPTO
Obviously, Solomon's situation - and solution - differed somewhat from the classical problem and answer in the details, but underlying it is the same basic idea, which is to force the liar to stay consistent and the honest person to change.
The USPO (and all other patent offices) rely on a high level of honesty, as they stand, but what if a variant of King Solomon's approach could be used, when rival claims exist? Have a way of putting the claims on the spot such that the real claimant will concede something before any false claimants would? Mind you, that might not work - current culture is designed to put self above all else, then both would rather rip the intellectual baby in half. It would only work with ideas developed by people who primarily care that the customers get the products. For example, I could easily see a humanitarian who develops a cure for some deadly disease preferring that the product be developed by someone else than not at all. That's not going to happen very often, though.
Nonetheless, I believe that such methods are inevitable, eventually. The system as it stands doesn't scale and frequently doesn't work well - if at all. Somebody will have to develop filtering techniques that allow false and fraudulent claims to be detected much more easily - and preferably by anyone who wants to apply those techniques. The patent pending scheme is supposedly so that problems can be found - well, that's all fine and good, if there's any way to find said problems. If a programmatic test can be found to do at least some of the filtering, then all the USPO needs is to distribute the appropriate BOINC clinet. Eventually, this must happen, as there's simply more work than can humanly be done in the time alloted and the system, the inventors and the innovators are suffering as a result.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Eolas: It's the same patent!
Microsoft: IsNot!
Eolas: How can you say it IsNot the same patent?
Microsoft: because we've patented IsNot,, which means we can say it, and you can't!
Eolas: IsNot IsNot IsNot!
Microsoft: Lawyers!!!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
But software is more like a creative work than a physical object, so you might want to compare it to books. You get a copyright on a book, so that people can't print off copies of your book and make money off it. Imagine if you could get a patent on a book, such that nobody else could write a book with a similar plot. We'd have a lot less books, or a lot more litigation going on in the book making industry. You couldn't even start to sit down and write a book without reading through thousands of patents on books that people had written. It would be fairly impossible for two authors to come up with exactly the same book, but you could probably find lots of books with similar plots, and similar pieces of text. Just like with software. Presented with the same problem, most programmers will probably come up with very similar methods of solving the problem. I guess it's more of a problem with patents in general than with software patents. With so many patents out there, how are you supposed to know if you are infringing on something, and if you take the time to do the research, to see if you are infringing, then it will take you years before you can even start developing something.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
No, they'll both get revoked because SCO will claim to have some sort of "prior art" to hijacking patents.
Kevin Smith on Prince
When this idea was 'invented', web browsers were new, and the idea of a browser plug-in was to allow the playing of media, like .GIF's, .WAV's, and .FLI's on a web page.
Taking that idea of a plug in, writing one that makes it's own connection to a server to provide interactive data appears to be the basic 'invention'.
When I looked through Google Groups (USENET Archive) I could find nothing mentioned prior to then that mentioned an interactive plugin.
My thought is, because it's such a bad, horrible, wrong idea.
Browser plug-ins are not portable, between platforms, OS's or browsers. They run in native code, and need hardware access to render video/audio and access the network making them difficult to secure. They hurt maintainability, accessability and localizability. They can be used for DOS attacks on third parties. Have version compatibility issues, etc. etc. You're basically throwing away the entire point of a standards based browser, in favor of a single-use executable.
Patenting browser plugins that get embedded in pages was like patenting shooting yourself in the foot.
Our company spent upwards of half a million dollars revising code so that the 'click to activate' crap wouldn't show up in IE. Our team spent at least $40k.
Though mildly irritating for your average at-home browser, a message saying anything about 'clicking to active' an 'Object' is a barrier of entry for someone who is using software to learn to read at a readiness level; we couldn't just 'leave it be'.
Now that it gets reversed? I'd like to have that chunk o' change back, that's for sure.
lemme guess, somebody patented enumerating three possibilities with a summary stating there are three possibilities, so you had to work around that.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html32/
#find