Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Invalidation of Eolas's Web Patent Claims Upheld

Posted by Unknown on from the ding-dong-the-troll-is-dead dept.

New submitter Ajay Anand writes with news that Eolas's web patents are really dead (the infamous browser plugin patent that forced Internet Explorer to change how it activated plugins). After Eolas sued a number of companies, last fall a jury found the patents invalid; Eolas naturally mounted an appeal. But a panel of judges simply affirmed the jury decision (PDF). A quiet ending to a decade of patent trolling.

6 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. at what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So... how much money was spent to make the right decision?

    1. Re:at what cost? by GumphMaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last I checked it was the State that paid for judges, court officers, court facilities, jury expenses, etc. It matters because tax payer money was expended supporting a series of shameless private money-grabs through through to its (some would say inevitable) conclusion. The time and money expended from public coffers could have better been spent on legal matters of public worth.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  2. Give back the $$ they extorted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do they have to now give back the money they extorted?

    If not, they won.

    1. Re:Give back the $$ they extorted? by plover · · Score: 1, Insightful

      By all means, someone infringes on your patent, your personal invention, you deserve recompense. You decide you're going to build a portfolio of bullshit patents to tax society because you're a greedy scumbag, not so much.

      But this is where I have a problem. Whether it's owned by a greedy scumbag or not, the invention is worth something.

      (1) The inventor deserves recompense. Does that mean the inventor has to stand on a factory line and assemble each and every widget that uses his invention in order to get paid for it? Obviously not.

      (2) In order to make money from his invention, he licenses it to a factory who makes the widgets including his invention. So we have someone licensed to use it, and the inventor getting paid. Nothing wrong there.

      (3) One year out, and the inventor is tired of dealing with the factory, so he decides to sell his patent to them. He's made his decision, and he agrees with the payment amount, and he knows this is the last money he'll ever see from his invention. Is this a problem?

      (4) Before approaching the factory for the sale, the inventor asks his lawyer to draft a contract to protect his rights in the deal, and make sure it's fair. The lawyer writes all the correct language, so it's a fair trade of money for rights that is considered equitable to both sides. Is there a problem having a lawyer represent him in this transaction? Doesn't sound like it.

      Two years out and the factory realizes there's little market for widgets anymore, and they don't have anything else to do with the patent which they paid $10 million for, but someone else is interested in it for a different purpose. Do they have to make the other things themselves? Not according to #1. Can they license it to another factory? According to #2, yes. Can they sell it to an investor? The inventor did in #3. Can the investor use a lawyer to protect his interests? Once again, the inventor used a lawyer in #4.

      So with this argument, we've established that intellectual property rights are a thing that can be bought and sold by the inventor, and can be sold to anyone, including an investor. The investor can hire a lawyer, or even be a lawyer. And I don't think we disagree that there's anything wrong with this scenario, even though "investor & lawyer" is just a nicer word for "patent troll".

      So why is it that patent trolls are so bad? They may be the face of greed, but they got there through capitalism, and we just established that it's a perfectly legitimate path. I think the core of the problem is not necessarily with the patent trolls, it's with the very idea of software patents.

      --
      John
    2. Re:Give back the $$ they extorted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Whether it's owned by a greedy scumbag or not, the invention is worth something. ... The inventor deserves recompense.

      Agreed with in principle, but:

      The patents were invalidated. That means the person or company who filed them did not invent anything, thus did not invent anything that is "worth something", and thus does not deserve recompense.

      They should be held liable for all patent licensing fees (and any fines) paid to them for the invalidated patents. Court costs and damages as well, if they were knowingly attempting to license invalid patents (i.e. if they knew or had reasonable suspicion there was prior art).

  3. Re:Not quite a troll by rudy_wayne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If if what you say is true, and I'm not sure it is, you have completely missed the point. Eolas was awarded bogus patents. They did not "invent" anything that should have be patentable.