Slashdot Mirror
Eolas vs. Microsoft Lawsuit Settled and Sealed
theodp writes "The Seattle P-I's Todd Bishop reports that Microsoft has settled its 8-year-old web browser plug-in patent dispute with Eolas. The spat begat the click-to-activate Web after Microsoft was slapped with a $500+ million patent infringement judgement. Neither Eolas nor Microsoft will be disclosing terms of the deal, although Eolas told investors to expect a dividend (PDF). Microsoft didn't say whether or how the settlement would affect its approach to the underlying technology in IE or other programs. Just last month, the USPTO issued a non-final rejection of the patent's claims, citing the work of Pei-Yuan Wei as prior art."
Sounds as though the end is nigh for the useless extra clicks. Eolas deserves a smack. Too bad they're getting rewarded.
Oh, that's right, I use a good web browser (Firefox|Safari|Opera).
Two public companies reach an agreement and the terms are not released to shareholders? What is this? Science fiction?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Figures this double click plugin problem would go away, especially after I had spent my precious development time implementing the stupid external JavaScript workaround on every applet in my companies software.
Then I had to document it, explain it to the non-technical retards in QA and Product Support, and get the blessing from change management to include it in the latest service pack.
All for nothing.
The "dividends" part of this topic gives away the problem. A more mercenary person would now be slapping themselves for not investing in Eolas - and thus contributing to the problem and making money out of it.
There's one thing (another story) with suing over a frivolous patent if you make the product, but this company only exists to take money off another and give it to people who've done no work whatsoever.
Simple. Freeze the shares of a company who files an IP suit over a patent they're not using. If a company only has one patent and plans to start making something with it, they needn't worry - they can still make money from their product while getting an injunction against the competitor.
I wrote my first program at the age of six, and I still can't work out how this website works.
What's the ticker symbol for Eolas? I uh ... just want to check their um ... corporate history. Nothing to do with the upcoming dividend. No sirree.
No ticker - Eolas shares are privately held.
So let me get this straight...Eolas pattented Clicking?
And Microsoft couldn't find any prior art for a toggle switch?
I have one thing to complain. While you have to click to play a video you already clicked, the annoying web adds do play instantly! :-S
The world isn't fair...
How do you put that into law? IANAL or wouldn't even attempt to write a law, but I've been behind the idea of revoking a patent that a company isn't actively using/developing a product with after a set period of time (3 years?). This would prevent IP holdings companies from existing very effectively. But I'm also a proponent of reforming the patent law back to 7 years and we see how far that is getting...and the copyright law, etc.
Although I would like to see who would win in a fight between Microsoft and Ebola.
The US needs to do something about patents laws! If I'm not mistaken Vonage is still in trial with Verizon, now this Microsoft thing, and I'm sure others out there. It's gotten to a point where patents are holding technology back. Technology should never be held back by bureaucracy. But unfortunately that is where we are headed. Simply put, our patent system is quite sad, and yet another example of how the mighty USA is falling behind and in essence shooting itself in the foot.
Maybe he will try and launch WebRouser (again), watch it fail miserably (again) and decide that Firefox is actually worth going after when he runs out of M$ money.
...they patented NOT clicking.
How is it in the public interest for this agreement to be sealed? Any suit that goes on, using public resources along the way, should not be eligible for this "feature" of settlement, i.e. "sealing" the settlement agreement. The public has the right to know the details.