Man Claiming He Invented the Internet Sues 326
wiedzmin writes "A low-profile Chicago biologist, Michael Doyle, and his company Eola Technologies, who has once won a $521m patent lawsuit against Microsoft, claim that it was actually he and two co-inventors who invented, and patented, the "interactive web" before anyone else, back in 1993. Doyle argues that a program he created to allow doctors to view embryos over the early Internet, was the first program that allowed users to interact with images inside of a web browser window. He is therefore seeking royalties for the use of just about every modern interactive Internet technology, like watching videos or suggesting instant search results. Dozens of lawyers, representing the world's biggest internet companies, including Yahoo, Amazon, Google and YouTube are acting as defendants in the case, which has even seen Tim Berners-Lee testify on Tuesday."
Bad post title (Score:5, Insightful)
"Internet" != "Interactive Web"
Why sensationalize this lawsuit? It's absurd enough on its own merit.
Let him succeed (Score:5, Insightful)
His patent is about as valid as 99.999% of all computer-related patents from the last 25 years. Maybe if he sues the entire planet into oblivion, someone will admit how screwed up software patents are.
Ah, how I love my afternoon fantasies...
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
With his winnings from 2003 Microsoft lawsuit (Score:4, Insightful)
Universities (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You have to be really braindead. (Score:5, Insightful)
He settled the MS suit, actually (for an unannounced amount, but in the millions at least). I would assume that, like many people who find themselves with undeserved money, he blew it all on private jets, hookers, and blow, and now is looking for more (rather than going back to work). Also, TFS doesn't mention it, but quite a few companies have already settled. This is (one of) the problems with the legal system: it's easier and cheaper for big companies just to pay a few million than actually do the right thing and blow these stupid patents right the hell up.
Javascript / HTML (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I understanding the patent correctly in that it requires an external application to be infringing? So that something like ActiveX or QuickTime plugin would infringe, but pure HTML5 and Javascript (because there is no Interprocess Communication) would be non-infringing?
Based on the claims in this Patent, can anyone explain how Eolas is not in the right? I mean, I get that they didn't implement anything, but this was filed in 1994. It seems like anyone supporting the patent system would have to admit defeat on this (i.e. Google, Yahoo, etc). If you're generally against software patents, that seems like the only argument. I don't see anything obvious about this from 1994.
It seems like the ViolaWWW would have been prior art that nullified this patent, but apparently the claims were not clear enough?
Re:LIAR (Score:5, Insightful)
Note that "create" is not the same as "invent."
From Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn [interesting-people.org] :
No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the
Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among
people in government and the university community. But as the two people
who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the
Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a
Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to
our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.
Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his
role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the
initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have
argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover,
there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's
initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving
Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and
promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it
is timely to offer our perspective..
I know both of these gentlemen, and getting them to agree on anything is not easy. Anyone, at this late date, who thinks its funny to denigrate Al Gore in this fashion is, IMHO, an idiot.
Re:there has to be some statute of limitations... (Score:5, Insightful)
RT(F)A -- Suit originally filed in 1999. Since the claim is specifically against image interaction, rather than simply hyperlinks, the timing is just about right.
That 1999 suit is long since over:
To those who follow high-profile tech litigation, the name Eolas may sound familiar. The company sued Microsoft back in 1999, winning a $521 million jury verdict in 2003 that shook the tech world. While that verdict was overturned on appeal, Microsoft ultimately settled rather than re-try the case.
So ultimately they lost the only case that went to court. By that time Microsoft could pay them to go away out of pocket change. That doesn't in any way validate their patent, which rejected the Eolas patent claims in re-exams. That was the state of things for a long long time.
So the entire web grew up in the interim after the rejection, but before the re-instatement. Everybody thought the way was cleared by the rejection.
Just as a side issue, Compuserve had the ability to share images over the web BEFORE there was even a WEB. Their suite even had image viewing back when it was strictly dial up. They introduced the GIF format in 1987, and digital porn was born two minutes later.
Compuserve was the first online service to offer Internet connectivity, albeit limited access, as early as 1989.
And another side note, consider this exercise:
Berners-Lee's argument against this patent, namely that unless the Eolas patent was invalidated it would cause the “disruption of global web standards” and cause “substantial economic and technical damage to the operation of the World Wide Web. is fairly weak if you ask me.
If Eolas didn't have valid patents the case should be thrown out on THAT fact alone! BUT, If they did have valid patents, then invalidating them SIMPLY because of the hardship those patents would inflict seems to me just one more proof of how essential those (supposedly) valid patents would be to the development of the web.
I throw that out in the interest of discussion only. I'm not aware if there is any case law that allows invalidating a patent JUST because it proves essential to development of the very product it patents.
(Note: this is about current law, not the world as it "should be").
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish this guy success though. As you suggest, this will gore enough oxen that somebody with money will care that the system is broken.
Your folly is in assuming the cure won't be worse than the sickness.
Think about the parties involved here, and their past actions regarding patents and copyright. This does not bode well for the average creator.
Re:LIAR (Score:5, Insightful)
That's an old, tired, indulgent falsehood posing as a joke.
It irritates me not just because it's unfunny, but more because it takes a certain kind of mindset to think it's funny. You have to like beating down on others for their being dumb (whether that's actually what's going on), while simultaneously making yourself feel superior.
Basically, you have to be a bully at heart.
I find it irritating seeing bullies smugly picking on people. At least this "joke" serves a good purpose: to spotlight who's a bully.
Re:I hope he wins. (Score:4, Insightful)
Abolished? That's what smart people would do. But in the real world where the number of dollars just about always wins out over doing what's right, what will happen is even more ridiculous patents being shoved through the system that are so general that it will prevent anyone from ever being able to come up with another "invention" without infringing on a dozen patents. This will effectively kill innovations and cement the position of the big boys at the top of the ladder.
Patents were designed to facilitate progress. Now they are abused to facilitate profits.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Berners-Lee, one of the guys who actually invented the internet
Return your geek card. This is /., not Digg.
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, Berners-Lee, one of the guys who actually invented the internet, and probably couldn't care any less about all the legal nonsense, has to get dragged into court to testify. What a waste of time for the poor guy.
It is upon this condition these sorts of Patent Troll suits prosper - when you don't show up the judge or jury is more than likely to rule against you.
IANAPL, but looking at that patent, I can name several technologies which existed before it, peforming parts of the same functions. Problem is, the companies which made those products are mostly out of business by now and what hardware isn't in the Computer Museum is in a landfill in China, where a lot of the old computers went to be scraped for gold and copper.
Re:Al Gore? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately the same guy who claims he invented the internet also claims to have a patent on scrapping the patent system, so we'll never find out how bad it would have to get.
This is silly. We all know that Al Gore invented the Internet!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore_and_information_technology
This joke reminds me I need to go out in the field and beat a dead horse.
Re:LIAR (Score:4, Insightful)
Vint Cerf is obstructing the truth a little? (Score:5, Insightful)
Al Gore insisted that multi-site network access be publicly available, and made that happen using his power as a public servant to get money and government approval. He did that back when CEOs didn't know how to type. That service became the internet as we know it today. By that measure Al Gore did "create" the the public utility we call the internet.
My understanding, which may be wrong, is that Vint Cerf did nothing to make the internet a public utility. He didn't express an opinion. He didn't help promote the internet as a public utility until Al Gore made that possible and somewhat popular.
Before Al Gore's involvement, multi-site network access was available to those with U.S. government contracts, which restricted it to universities and corporations like Tektronix. Remember that in the U.S. the initial drive to network sites together was by DARPA, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [wikipedia.org], which is part of the U.S. government's ongoing drive to find more efficient ways of killing people and destroying property. There was, initially, no intent to do anything for anyone but the U.S. military. As the Wikipedia article says, "The Mansfield Amendment of 1973 expressly limited appropriations for defense research (through ARPA/DARPA) to projects with direct military application."
It's difficult now for technically knowledeable people to understand how technically backward most people were back then. Al Gore both knew about network technology and recognized its importance.
It seems reasonable to observe that the reason Vint Cerf's defense of Al Gore over the years has been expressed in tangled language is because he didn't want all the credit for the public utility to go to Al Gore.