Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Eolas vs. Microsoft Lawsuit Settled and Sealed

Posted by Zonk on from the another-biggie-comes-to-a-close dept.

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."

16 of 45 comments (clear)

  1. Excellent by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sounds as though the end is nigh for the useless extra clicks. Eolas deserves a smack. Too bad they're getting rewarded.

  2. what????? by superwiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:what????? by EveryNickIsTaken · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wait for the next quarter's report when they'll have to disclose it. SEC rules are fun.

    2. Re:what????? by Jayfar · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Eolas is privately held, and the letter does not disclose the total number of shares outstanding in the company."

      So no disclosure from Eolas. It remains to be seen how effectively ms can hide the terms and dollar amount in their quarterly reports.

    3. Re:what????? by jim_redwagon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      don't know the exact law/act/SEC rule, but my thoughts are MS will be able to bury it under a cost of doing business line item. especially one that's been used to pay fines/compliance for any anti-trust happiness they've been involved with.

      --
      I forgot what I wanted to say, but honestly, it was important.
    4. Re:what????? by yaddayaddaslashdot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Public companies generally are required to disclose settlement terms if they are material.

      Last quarter Microsoft's gross revenues were somewhere north of $14 billion. If they paid 500 million to Eolas (and presumably it was less than that, given the verdict of $521 million and the fact of a pending reexam that might kill the patent), that's way less than 5% of their revenues for one quarter. Most securities experts would say that isn't material.

      And the other terms of the agreement probably amount to saying that Microsoft can do what it used to do. That's not material, either.

      Finally, as TFA says, Eolas is not, in fact, public, so has no public disclosure obligations.

  3. Change in law by sqldr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Change in law by giafly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Simple. Freeze the shares of a company who files an IP suit over a patent they're not using.
      Dumb.
      1. Company announces it will sue and shares rise
      2. Company sues and shares are frozen at this higher price
      3. Directors get $$$$s by e.g. borrowing against the shares
      4. Profit!
      --
      Reduce, reuse, cycle
  4. Hurry!! by SpeedyDX · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

  5. Eolas privately held by Jayfar · · Score: 2, Informative

    No ticker - Eolas shares are privately held.

  6. Re:Click twice pain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now that Microsoft has settled, who is next on the list? It may well be Opera or the Mozilla foundation. Beware, more lawsuits are probably coming.

  7. Re:Click twice pain... by Ajehals · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can I ask why you would come to that conclusion? It was the only one I ignored using the following reasoning:

    The process to invalidate the patent was clearly initiated, surely it is in the public interest to remove invalid patents, regardless of the outcome of any particular case. Its not like the settlement would establish any sort of precedent, never mind the fact that Microsoft or Eolas's statements on the matter shouldn't have any bearing on whether the patent is valid or not, especially since there is an established method for testing the validity of patents.

    I may be being naive of course.

  8. For the layman by Alzheimers · · Score: 2, Funny

    So let me get this straight...Eolas pattented Clicking?

    And Microsoft couldn't find any prior art for a toggle switch?

    1. Re:For the layman by silentben · · Score: 5, Informative

      In a nutshell, Eolas had a patent pending for some form of integrated media into web pages. When IE supported Flash, Eolas saw this as infringement and sued Microsoft. Since then, MS designed new versions of IE to require you to click on a Flash element in order to activate it, thereby no longer being fluid. But they left a back door in that if a developer included the Flash object by having a separate javascript file write it to the page, then this would not require clicking to activate it (enter SWFObject as the lay-developers easy way out). I just hope that this settlement included some exchange of words that discouraged Eolas from pursuing similar charges against Mozilla and other browser developers. It is bad enough they had effected change with THIS frivolous lawsuit.

  9. Flash where it shouldn't be by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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...

  10. It's worse... by Urusai · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...they patented NOT clicking.