Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Internet Explorer The Internet Patents Government The Almighty Buck The Courts News

Argument Held in $565 mil Microsoft Patent Case 256

Posted by CowboyNeal from the putting-off-payment dept.
Grotius writes "As reported in CNET, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the court that hears patent appeals) heard oral argument in an appeal from a $565 million award against Microsoft for infringing patent rights held by the University of California and Eolas. The University and Eolas share the rights to a patent that they claim covers plug-ins and applets that are invoked through a Web browser. The case has broad implications for the internet -- Microsoft could be forced to change Internet Explorer and make it incompatible with some web pages. However, the issue before the court was narrow: Whether Microsoft should have been permitted to present evidence to the jury of prior art in the form of an earlier web browser called Viola created by Pei Wei."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Argument Held in $565 mil Microsoft Patent Case More

Argument Held in $565 mil Microsoft Patent Case

Comments Filter:

  • Indecision 2004 (Score:5, Funny)

    by bm17 ( 834529 ) * <brm@yoyodyne.com> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:25PM (#11048522)
    Ah. Decisions, decisions. I just don't know who I want to see get screwed more: Microsoft, or Eolas. I haven't been this perplexed since November 2nd.

    Still, I worry that this whole affair is going to cause Microsoft to step up its evil campaign to acquire bogus software patents. Does anyone know where the money goes if Eolas wins?

    • Re:Indecision 2004 (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I just don't know who I want to see get screwed more: Microsoft, or Eolas.

      If we are gonna stick with that metaphor I want Microsoft to get screwed and Eolas to get an STD.

    • Re:Indecision 2004 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Atrax ( 249401 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:37PM (#11048582) Homepage Journal
      "Does anyone know where the money goes if Eolas wins?"

      the lawyers. on both sides.

      / cynicism

    • Re:Indecision 2004 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FrYGuY101 ( 770432 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:42PM (#11048608) Journal
      Look at it this way.

      If Microsoft wins, they have keep millions, and Eolas gets screwed.

      If Eolas wins, Microsoft STILL has billions in reserve, has a legit reason to patent everything under the sun, and Eolas has filled its legal coffers for an attack on another browser which can take plug-ins, like Opera or FireFox

      • Re:Indecision 2004 (Score:3, Interesting)

        by khrtt ( 701691 )
        In other words, I'm getting screwed anyways, since I don't have money for bogus patents. Nor for non-bogus patents, for that matter.

        Not that there is such a thing as a non-bogus software patent. Tell me, people, can one of you come up with a single example of a non-bogus software patent? Like something you'd look at and think "Ah, clever!"?

        Because any software patent I had the honor of reading so far was bogus, wicked, money-grabbing, asshole-lawyer enriching, not-worth-paper-it's-printed-on, trivial p

        • Re:Indecision 2004 (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Otter ( 3800 )
          Let's start with an easy one -- would you consider LZW compression a "bogus, wicked, money-grabbing, asshole-lawyer enriching, not-worth-paper-it's-printed-on, trivial piece of crap, that any sophomore Comp.Sci. student would come up with in 30 minutes or less"? How about RSA encryption?

          If that's an hour's work for you, I'd be curious to hear what you accomplish in a 40 hour work week. If you worked for EA, we'd be living on Mars by now.

          (Note: the above remarks do not take a stand on whether software patent

      • Perhaps if MS loses they might start lobbying with their vast sums of money to change patent law...something the rest of the world already thinks needs doing.

        On the other hand it is MS...so whatever they do will probably screw the rest of us.
    • Does anyone know where the money goes if Eolas wins?

      The only thing Eolas is setup for now is to try and collect money from patents. Therefore I would expect the money would be distributed to whatever investors there are in the company.

    • Re:Indecision 2004 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rosyna ( 80334 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:46PM (#11048643) Homepage
      I worry that if MS loses they might make yet another lame "standard" that further fractures the internet and prevents good, mostly standard compliant browsers like Safari and Firefox from rendering the majority of websites because they use some MS propriety junk.

      It's bad enough ActiveX exists in the first place, imagine how much worse it can get.. or don't if you want to sleep at night.

    • Movin On Up.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by oobob ( 715122 ) *
      As far as I heard (here in a previous post of the story), it was some professor who holds the patents, and I'd imagine both he and the university share the money. He's doing this as retribution towards Microsoft, and since he's a professor, he's not pressing the OSS alternatives. Shouldn't you like that someone who actually created something get money from Microsoft, whether or not it was done in a fair system? Are we going to be stupid enough to let people like MS manuiplate patent law and bitch when so

      • Re:Movin On Up.... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bm17 ( 834529 ) *
        While I hope that the money goes to good use, no, I don't think the idea is worthy of half of a billion dollars. It's an obvious outgrowth of the browser field, something that even a normally skilled practitioner of the art would have developed independantly. Look at the precedents: callbacks, pipes, child processes. It was simply a matter of time before someone applied those concepts to a web browser.

      • Money vs. freedom (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Old Man Kensey ( 5209 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @11:03PM (#11048710) Homepage
        oobob wrote:

        Shouldn't you like that someone who actually created something get money from Microsoft, whether or not it was done in a fair system? Are we going to be stupid enough to let people like MS manuiplate patent law and bitch when someone little gets his?

        NO!

        It does matter how the outcome is achieved. The ends do not justify the means, not even when it's a university professor trying to extort money from Microsoft. One reason we have the (few, and eroding all the time, but still meaningful) civil liberties we do in America is because the whole foundation of our legal system is the idea that there must be a fair process, not just a fair result.

        To throw that away for the sake of dinging MS a paltry couple of billion is to undercut the foundation of our own remaining few liberties. I don't know about you, but to me that's destroying the village in order to save it.

        • Re:Money vs. freedom (Score:4, Informative)

          by oobob ( 715122 ) * on Friday December 10, 2004 @12:07AM (#11048976)
          It does matter how the outcome is achieved. The ends do not justify the means, not even when it's a university professor trying to extort money from Microsoft. One reason we have the (few, and eroding all the time, but still meaningful) civil liberties we do in America is because the whole foundation of our legal system is the idea that there must be a fair process, not just a fair result.

          What I was getting at in my post is that the fairest process is one equally applied. To let Microsoft game the industry and then have Eolas not get their due according to the rules of the industry isn't right either. We should be happy that if something unfair goes around, it comes around, unless you'd rather we shrug off the only sense of justice we'll likely have in IP law for years (besides the impending implosion of SCO). If we're opposed to it all we're opposed to it all, but remember, I said nothing about the fairness of the claim within the system. I only mentioned the fundamental fairness of the system, which most people here are opposed to. You seem to have confused the two.

          This is how the patent system works (check slashdot anyday for examples). We shouldn't bitch if a company that is known for manuiplating the system finally becomes the victim. You seem to have overreacted to the suggestion that we should be happy when immoral procedures finally punish those whom they usually benefit. Excessive idealization and abstraction of morals does that to people. Now, sit back and enjoy the fireworks!
          • If MS gets screwed by this, and if if prompts them lobby for change to the patent system, ultimately putting an end to frivolous software patents, then there will be reason to be happy.

            Somehow I doubt it.

            Eolas doesn't deserve to win. Somehow prior art is not being allowed in this case. Is the justice department clouded by their prior MS cases?

            The patent system is broken. It needs to be fixed. As much as I hate defending Microsoft, I want to see them get busted when they are gaming the system, not whe
      • Are we going to be stupid enough to let people like MS manuiplate patent law and bitch when someone little gets his?

        Yeah.

        If Microsoft loses, and is forced to change their browser, whatever they change to will quickly become the standard and you can kiss interoperability and standards goodbye. There is a reason the W3C has urged the USPTO to reexamine the 906 patent.
    • This is bad irregardles.. MS may be the evil, but whoever "wins" is goign to be a great loss for all of IT. I hope the case just gets thrown out. THAT woudl send a message to future submariners, and greedy lawyers.

  • Would this also affect firefox? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Atrax ( 249401 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:30PM (#11048546) Homepage Journal
    " The school and its spinoff company called Eolas share the rights to a patent that they claim covers plug-ins and applets that are invoked through a Web browser."

    It sounds from the article if it would, and I'm sure it's been discussed before - what's the concensus?
    • Basically, certainly a stupid patent, but under current law Eolas has a decent case. It is an incredibly stupid patent though.

    • Re:Would this also affect firefox? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by periol ( 767926 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @11:02PM (#11048709) Homepage
      This would affect all browsers that use embedded plug-in and applet technology. Opera, Firefox, Netscape, IE - they're all in the same boat. In the past, Eolas has claimed they would only go after Microsoft, in order to give Mozilla a boost, but I'm sure that wouldn't last long.

      The sad thing is that the real loser if Eolas wins is the end user. Rather than license the Eolas patent, browsers would most likely switch to an interface of some sort that forces the user to choose to use the plug-in or applet to view a site.

      • I get annoyed when firefox decides to download a file when the application I want to open it in supports streaming, I know I can probably fix it, but I shouldn't have to.

        I get pissed of when I accidental click on a pdf file and then have to wait for a week because the browser has let Acrobat embed itself.

        We don't need less choice we need more choice...

        Now all the browsers have to do to work around the patent (and do some innovating at the same time) is use heuristics on the choices that I've made to pick

        • I think you're missing the problem.

          "Now all the browsers have to do to work around the patent (and do some innovating at the same time)"...

          Lets think for a second. Most People (99% of Non-Geeks) Use what comes on their computer. Which is of course IE. These people think that "Blue E" is thier internet. If IE looses the ability to embed Java applets, Adobe PDF's, and anything else that can load in IE, then any no websites will use them (yay, no ActivX) but still, no Java applets, no Flash (not all bad) an

      • Re:Would this also affect firefox? NOPE (Score:4, Informative)

        by BobPaul ( 710574 ) * on Friday December 10, 2004 @12:16AM (#11049019) Journal
        Hmm.. what I remember from the last time this came up was that it would only affect Microsoft's ActiveX implimentation. Opera and Mozilla both use the origional Netscape Plugin Architecture (compatible with netscape 4.7x still, I believe) which is not affected by this patent.

        Plugins are used in many applications, and they don't simpley have a patent on plugins. They have a patent on the way Active X does things. Whether it proves valid in court or not, I don't care. I don't like Active X.

        Look back on the origional mention [slashdot.org].. that's what I got out of it, at least..

      • I know he won't leave the others alone (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday December 10, 2004 @01:10AM (#11049211)
        Because, if his real intent was to give a boost to Mozilla, it would have been done differently. First he'd contact the makers of the browsers he wanted to boost, and offer them a license. It could be for free, you don't have to charge for a license (well actually because of the nature of contracts it would probably be a one time fee of $1 for a perpetual license). With those secured, he'd then go after Microsoft for an injunction, to stop them from distributing a browser with the patented technology.

        That would really put MS in a bad spot (supposing the patent wasn't garbage, which it is). The others would have licenses and continue happily, while MS would be barred from distributing IE until they removed the patented feature. They couldn't do anything about it either, you don't have to license to any particular company if you don't want.

        No, it's pretty clear his one and only goal is to make himself rich. The open source line is probably just to try and get the OSS people to buy in and help him out.

        This is why patent law really needs (among other thigns) a use-it-or-lose-it clause like trademarks. Basically, it should require that when a product comes to market that uses your patented technology that you should reasonably be aware of (meaning it's not brand new or really small or something) you are required to either enforce your patent, or it'll become invalid.

        It's stupid that people and companies can get a patent that they have no intention of developing, sit on it when a product comes out, sit on it while that product grows, and just wait until everyone is using it, then suddenly try and extort money. The requirement should be that, if you want to actually use your patent, you have to do so when the product using it starts to come to market, so they person bringing it can decide if they want to pay you, or change their product.
        • I am not a lawyer, but I would imagine that if you offered all M$'s competition a licence for $1 and went after M$ for $500M then they might rightly say that you wheren't playing fair, and that they should be offered the $1 licence too.
          Of course you could always 'do a SCO' and say you're going to sue the ass off everyone but only actually sue the big money.
  • that we use these things for years and then someone claims they invented it?

    I mean, if people were flying for years and I suddenly looked up and went...OH! look! people have been using my invention for years and I never noticed! ...I would think I were a pretty unobservant guy :/

  • Viola Author's Thoughts (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:31PM (#11048549)
    http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/aboutEolasM icrosoft.html [berkeley.edu]
    • Knowing of prior art he still applied for his patent and specifically ignored Viola in his application even though he was corresponding with the guy?

      This reeks.

      Worse than that a Judge actually ruled against possible evidence because it might actually damage Eolas's case? Isn't that what court is all about? Showing ALL relevant evidence?

  • incompatible (Score:5, Funny)

    by barista ( 587936 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:31PM (#11048552) Homepage
    Microsoft could be forced to change Internet Explorer and make it incompatible with some web pages

    They're presuming it's compatible in the first place.
    • Microsoft could be forced to change Internet Explorer and make it incompatible with some web pages

      That's not even correctly worded though. back when this story was new, MS released a preview of IE which conformed and didn't violate the terms of the case. all it did was throw up a message box saying "do you want to load this plugin content"

      so it doesn't actually make the browser "incompatible", just makes flash content infinitely more annoying when viewed in IE. note the "without prompting" bit on this s [mvps.org]

  • Need to support MS (Score:4, Insightful)

    by deep_magic ( 137913 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:35PM (#11048572)
    No matter how you feel about M$, this is a case that hopefully goes in their direction.


    If Eolas wins this case, expect a massive deluge of Patent suits across the entire industry.


    And you thought SCO vs IBM was wild....just wait, methinks it will get worse before it gets better.

    • Would this potential deluge give us the impetus to get things changed?

      Most lawmakers probably don't know (or care, or whatever) how screwed up the patent system is, so we need something major to happen (like massive corporate attrition) in order to get patent reform on the agenda.
    • I see this as the greatest argument for open source distributed development.

      Look at it like this. If IE is determined to violate this patent, am I liable for using IE? I don't see how. If they release a new version and I chose to keep using the old version, are they going to come after me? What if I'm a company who decides to keep using the old version? Can they sue me for using a patent violating browser any more than I would be expected to turn in my car if it violated a patent? Or a fleet of cars?
    • If Eolas wins this case, expect a massive deluge of Patent suits across the entire industry.

      Good! It certainly is the only way to convince the public at large, and a majority of lawyers and politicians that the patent system is indeed broken.

  • Yay for patent violations. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by standards ( 461431 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:37PM (#11048583)
    The best thing that can happen to patent law is to have a big player like MS get screwed by it.

    Then MS can start putting their lobbying bucks into fixing patent law.

    The only problem is that MS (with congress) will likely fix it in a way that only benefits MS.

    So I guess it's moot.
    • Then MS can start putting their lobbying bucks into fixing patent law.

      I kinda doubt that will be their reaction. The reaction of most people to violence is to make sure they are on the winning side next time, if anything I would expect this to cause MS to escalate their acquisition of patents.

    • I don't think they will fix patent law, they will just do what the company I work for is currently doing; patenting ground-breaking concepts like sitting in a chair to write code.

      This part is off-topic, but doesn't that picture of Larry Ellison that is floating around in Slashdot's banner ads look like the evil professor in Real Genius whose house is destroyed by popcorn?
      • >i>This part is off-topic, but doesn't that picture of Larry Ellison that is floating around in Slashdot's banner ads look like the evil professor in Real Genius whose house is destroyed by popcorn?

        You can see the banner ads? WTF?!? This place is for Geeks... get Firefox [mozilla.org] or get out! :D

    • Re:Yay for patent violations. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by theLOUDroom ( 556455 ) on Friday December 10, 2004 @12:28AM (#11049083)
      The best thing that can happen to patent law is to have a big player like MS get screwed by it.
      Then MS can start putting their lobbying bucks into fixing patent law.

      You don't get it.
      Microsoft can affort to get screwed by it.
      What happens when they want $400 million from the mozilla foundation?

      The patent system is currently set up much like the "mutually assured destrucion" fo the cold war. If you're big enough to have a significant patent portfolio of your own, you're pretty much invulnerable. You might loose a case every now and then but you'll also get money from your own patents. You can rape and pillage small companies as you see and their only chance for protection is to ally with someone else big.
      What patents are really doing is killing innovation and small companies.
      It's too risky to come up with a cool new idea and start selling it as a small company (the whole thing patents were SUPPOSED to protect). Even if your small business patents your idea, companies like IBM have about a bazillion patents which you probably violationg at least some of and they will be able to force you to either loose a bunch of money in court or "cross-liscense" your technology.

      This whole case is bullshit. Technology like this is fucking obvious. That fact that this patent was even granted shows the total incompetence of the patent office. See my opinion on them here. [slashdot.org]
      • "Cross-liscencing" is fine and dandy. Where this case, the kodak case, and a few others suck is that there is nothing they want from companies other than money. They came into owning a patent and now are using it as a weapon without actual work put into it minus a few thousand dollars it cost to buy the thing in the first place.
        • "Cross-liscencing" is fine and dandy.

          No, it's not.

          Say I spend two years researching and developing an actually new idea:

          I start my small company selling my new idea. Suddenly, XYZ corp starts claiming I'm violating their patent on "subtracting two numbers with a computer" or some other bullshit and demands we cross-liscense each other's patents.
          Now XYZ corp has a royalty-free liscense to my tech and can use their massive resources to squeeze me out of the marketplace.

          Cross liscensing of this for
          • Yes, in your analysis cross liscencing is bad. I agree. I was meaning in the more general sense of scummy business practices that companies who have acquired patents and are using them as weapons are dangerous because they can't cross-liscence but only destroy.
      • What happens when they want $400 million from the mozilla foundation?

        The Mozilla foundation distributes only on servers outside the USA.

  • Judge's Name (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jazzer_Techie ( 800432 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:38PM (#11048591)
    If you RTFA, you'll discover that the judge's name is S. Jay Plager.
    It seems to me that someone whose opinion is guaranteed to be "Plager"-ism isn't the best person to be judging an intellectual property case.

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

  • backlash (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cambipular ( 787309 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:42PM (#11048610)
    I'm taking bets on how long it will be until Microsoft auditors show up at UC and Eolas to make sure they don't have any pirated copies of Windows.

  • Public funds used? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by slapout ( 93640 )
    patent rights held by the University of California

    What is a public institution doing patenting things? Shouldn't their research be used for the public good? Is money made from this patent being used to help further educational programs?

  • $565 million? (Score:3, Funny)

    by rubee ( 826908 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @10:56PM (#11048686)
    only $565 million? just sneak into his house and scavenge his couch for change that slipped out his pockets.

  • Honest, we stole it from someone else... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DumbSwede ( 521261 ) <slashdotbin@hotmail.com> on Thursday December 09, 2004 @11:05PM (#11048716) Homepage Journal
    Pei Wei may not have persuaded a patent, but it still sounds amusingly like a we-stole-it-from-someone else defense. Relating to the previously posted Patent overhaul article, there needs to be a way to compensate prior art originators when their insights makes corporations millions down stream. Maybe if this were the case people and corporations wouldn't be so rabid to patent every little thought no matter how trivial.

    But of course then lawyers would switch to suing who had first prior art rather then first valid patent.

    • Whoa. I'm sorry friend, but this post just doesn't make sense at all to me.

      Pei Wei may not have persuaded a patent, but it still sounds amusingly like a we-stole-it-from-someone else defense.

      You mean Microsoft stole embedded objects not from Eolas, but from Viola? I don't think so - I think that doing this in a web browser, given current coding techniques, is obvious and trivial, which are the two tests that must be passed before an object or process can recieve a patent. If anything, Microsoft basicall

  • I'd like to see Microsoft win this one.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by qtp ( 461286 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @11:05PM (#11048720) Journal
    If it is true that Microsoft was barred from introducing Mr Wei's object oriented ViolaWWW browser, then it does seem that Microsoft has a good case. Prior art such as this is essential to prevent the enforcing of unreasonable patents on ubiquitous technologies.

    Mr Wei's page about the Viola engine [berkeley.edu] (and it's use as the base for the ViolaWWW browser) has what appears to be a clear example of using a plugin architecture to support filetypes that are not supported by the browser natively:
    The ViolaWWW browser application has provisions for treating viola application files just as any WWW document-- transport via HTTP, and render mini viola applications as if they're any web data.


    It does seem to me (although IANAPL) that this very clearly describes an implementation of what was later called a "plugin". I certainly hope that the courts do rule in favor of Microsoft's appeal, as the enforcing of this patent could seriously hurt the Mozilla based (and possibly other) Open Source browsers (and the platforms we use them on.

    A lot of people seemed to be rooting for Eolas on this one, but that is short sighted and misguided crap in light of the fact that Microsoft can afford to pay nearly any award granted that might be.

    I'm just surprised that they didn't swallow the "poison pill" in order to push whatever new, license encumbered, replacement for plugins that they might have waiting in the wings (or alternatively, not introduce any replacement, but agree to pay the royalties on the technology in order to de-comoditize the browser market in thier favor). So now I say to Balmer and Co, "Keep fighting the good fight. For once you're fighting to keep the web Free".

    • If Microsoft has unlimited legal expenses and a crack legal team, how is it that Mr. Wei's testemony got blocked?
    • It does seem to me (although IANAPL) that this very clearly describes an implementation of what was later called a "plugin".

      A "plugin" is something you obtain by some means (maybe download, maybe CD) and install permanently on your machine; a plugin extends what your browser can render (new image types, video, etc.). Some plugins enable your browser to run applets (e.g., the Flash or Java plugins).

      An "applet" is code that is downloaded into the browser and executed there as you browse.

      The Viola browser

  • It's never Microsoft's fault..... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hans Lehmann ( 571625 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @11:05PM (#11048722)
    Microsoft could be forced to change Internet Explorer and make it incompatible with some web pages.

    Since Microsoft has the defacto standard for web browsers, right or wrong as it might be, then the no-longer-working web pages will be looked upon as the ones that are broken. Their owners will have to make them compatible with the new "standard".

  • ... plugins in IE are merely an offshoot of the system developed for Netscape all those years ago. ... applets are of course inventions of Sun. So is the lawsuit to do with some technical detail in ActiveX? Surely if can't be for something as vague as "applets and plugins".

  • Near criminal abuse of patent system. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bifster ( 697408 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @11:14PM (#11048754)
    This case is almost totally driven by Doyle and his lawyers, UC is not really pushing this matter.

    As I understand it, the patent involves the plain obvious notion of running active elements inside web pages. But Viola, a number of other technologies, and even discussions of the old WWW mailing list of which Doyle was a part all established prior art efforts of developing this notion before Doyle ever filed his patent.

    But the judge in the MS case did not permit effective testimonies to the jury about all this prior art, particularly Viola, based on ridiculous technicalities, essentially exposing himself as a nonrational anti-MS activist. The judge just seemed to be soley focused on sticking it to Microsoft.

    But instead what he's done, I believe, is established a precedent where now one man and his team of lawyers get to rape and pillage anyone who has developed some kind of active web page element technology over the past 10 years. This may well include Sun, Macromedia, and Adobe, for example.

    Doyle took an obvious idea and has succesfully manipulated the half-witted patent system into netting himself hundreds of millions of dollars of other people's hard work in good faith based on public technology concepts and he's not gonna stop there.

    • "essentially exposing himself as a nonrational anti-MS activist."

      This sort of thing happens in many patent cases. The judge probably made serious mistakes, but that doesn't make him an anti-MS activist. In fact, I seriously doubt the judge cares at all about MS, one way or the other.

      There does exist anti-MS activism, but it is a rational, justified reaction to Microsoft business practices, like forced bundling agreements, Microsoft marketing FUD, and lousy security in Microsoft products. That kind of "

  • Juries (Score:2, Interesting)

    by HumanTorch ( 568372 )
    Do you think the Jury system is outdated enough already? Please tell me how 12 or so people picked off the street (figuratively) can honestly make the correct decision about a technical subject this prickly.

  • Oh? (Score:3)

    by Ryosen ( 234440 ) on Thursday December 09, 2004 @11:52PM (#11048891)
    >>Microsoft could be forced to change Internet Explorer and make it incompatible with some web pages.

    And this is different from present day.....how?
  • You guys just don't realize that if Microsoft loses the battle, then it would become a huge precedent for other software which could be in similar situation that Internet Explorer.

    This is, people, either small or big, will start suing software producers around the world (either commercial or OSS), for stupid patents that got granted by an unfair patent system.

    Maybe Microsoft or SCO could precisely cite this case against Linux. Don't you realize that? *one* single patent is all they need.

    In this case, we need to support... not Microsoft, but the web community. Microsoft happens to be on our side of the fence (just by coincidence, but still). If we let Microsoft lose, we're practically letting all the stupid patent holders ruin the web, and maybe the entire Open Source efforts. Do you REALLY want that?
    • The law is ugly and broken, but we'll sort of excercise rational thought and ignore it when it's affecting everyone and out where we can see it, we'll just enforce it in little cases where only a few people get screwed at a time. That will be better.

      How about "enforce it in its ugliest possible ramifications so that it gets fixed"? You go support what you're going to support... I want to see the whole goddamned web broken, and in a way that cannot be fixed until intellectual property law is changed. I'l

    • Re:The enemy of my enemy is my enemy. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Rsriram ( 51832 ) on Friday December 10, 2004 @02:57AM (#11049516)
      What is to stop Microsoft from hiring a lousy lawyer just so they will lose this case and 500 million but use this case as precedent to go after linux (thru SCO). Afterall MS can afford 1/2 a billion and they would love to get a precedent like you mention.
    • will start suing software producers around the world

      Assuming other country's laws are as stupid as American law. In most countries, even if there are software patents, you cannot patent the obvious, and where several people have come up with the same idea, that is prima-facie evidence that the idea was obvious

  • Patent in Question? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Matrix5353 ( 826484 ) on Friday December 10, 2004 @12:16AM (#11049022)
    I was curious and did a search on patents held by Eolas and invented by Michael Doyle, and I found this patent
    http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=EPODOC&IDX=US66 16701&F=0 [espacenet.com]

    Entitled "Method and apparatus for identifying features of multidimensional image data in hypermedia systems", it only seems to be a patent describing ways to view or manipulate 3 dimensional images in a web brower, the method of which being execution of a "Program action"

    The program action can include, for example, browser redirection, encapsulated HTML, dynamic HTML and downloading and running full-frame applets in the user's Web page.

  • Ummm.. good? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by QuantumG ( 50515 )
    I don't want Acrobat reader embedded in my web page. I never have. When I look at a web page I wanna see html. I don't wanna see Macromedia Flash or a Java applet, or any of that other crap. If you wanna give me the option to run an app with your downloaded junk, fine, I'll happily press yes when I want it and no when I don't.. but don't embed it in the web page.

  • Will Eolas actually target the other browsers? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Artifakt ( 700173 ) on Friday December 10, 2004 @12:27AM (#11049077)
    Probably Not! (Here's why).
    The general trick if you are going for maximum profit is to first sue a small company, and get a successful precident. It costs you less to fight the action against a smaller company, and improves your chances of getting the really big money later by giving you some already recorded findings that the court will generally accept and not let your opponent delay over. Taking on Opera (for example), first, and Microsoft second or later makes more sense if it's all about the cash.
    For a publicly traded company, this is even more plausable. Winning a small decision that seems to forshadow a bigger win can really drive up the price of stock without costing much at all to implement.
    The chief reason people are concerned that this lawsuit might be the first of a series is probably SCO's lawsuits. After all, SCO avoided going after smaller fry first and went for IBM. However: 1. That doesn't seem to be working too well, and other companies are at least as likely on observing it to avoid the strategy as imitate it. 2. There's no indicators that Eolas has been secretly coached in this strategy, backed by (say) the veiled resources of the powerful Lynx Megacorporation in an attempt to regain browser dominance for Eolas's hidden puppeteer.
  • Just because Microsoft cannot introduce Viola does not mean others cannot if they are sued. It all depends on the reason for rejection of introducing Viola's prior art. If it is only because of late filing etc., I say let Microsoft be screwed and we already have a good defense.
    Don't tell me this will make Microsoft start collecting patents, they will do that no matter what. It is a very efficient, and indeed a legal, way to maintain a monopoly, which Microsoft loves.

  • Eminent Domain or a Statute of Limitation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug@@@geekazon...com> on Friday December 10, 2004 @12:55AM (#11049171) Homepage
    What if the principle of eminent domain were applied to some of these sleeper patents? In cases where IP rights have been unenforced for years and a thing has come into widespread use, the public good should outweigh belated claims of infringement. Alternately, a statute of limitations on infringement would force IP holders to either exercise their rights in a timely fashion or not at all. Products that are on the market for say two years with no infringement claims against them should become immune to such claims. That might make it harder for patent holders to wait in the shadows for somebody else to do all the hard work before snatching a share of the profits.
    • This is Microsoft's own game getting used against them. Both sides are pretty bad for going after patents that should never be granted, but they are playing by the rules as they exist. Microsoft can file for all kinds of worthless (and obvious) patents, and they do, for approval. It isn't their fault the patent office is approving crap patents.
    • This concept exists in (US at least) Trademark law. You have to prove you're using it to keep it in force/keep from letting your brand name get diluted. I'm having trouble thinking of any famous marks that have been lost because they weren't enforced at the moment. But that's why you have to do the little "is Pepsi(tm) okay" dance with waitresses in half the restaurants where you order a coke.

      Xerox had a tough time with this too. People wanted to make "xeroxes" of everything for a long time until they

    • I don't know if it applies here, but the concept you're looking for is "laches".

  • Excellent! (Score:4, Funny)

    by The One and Only ( 691315 ) <[ten.hclewlihp] [ta] [lihp]> on Friday December 10, 2004 @01:40AM (#11049293) Homepage
    If I'm sued for patent infringement when I punch my way out of my coffin when they bury me alive, I can mention Pai Mei's prior art!

    Oh wait, different guy...

  • Change? (Score:3, Funny)

    by zoeblade ( 600058 ) on Friday December 10, 2004 @02:23AM (#11049416) Homepage

    Microsoft could be forced to change Internet Explorer and make it incompatible with some web pages.

    Trust me, they don't need to change IE in order to make it incompatible with a lot of web pages.

  • Dont forget, the patent itself is reconsidered (Score:3, Informative)

    by cyberjessy ( 444290 ) <jeswinpk@agilehead.com> on Friday December 10, 2004 @02:23AM (#11049417) Homepage
    This is being fought on two fronts

    1. They(MS) have appealed the decision by the lower court in favor of Eolas.
    2. The patent itself is under dispute.

    The patent has so much negative consequences that even W3C is supporting the Microsoft case.
    http://www.w3.org/2003/10/28-906-briefing [w3.org]

    Hope the web stays intact.
  • Both still take a few chips in their pockets to feed the lawyers. Yes, the lawyers are evil, yes patents are evil... but really I wouldn't mind at all if several hundred companies through themselves at MS with possibly-legit patents, bogging down their legal teams (so that they can't sue others for awhile) and putting whatever drain on the pocketbook they can.

    I wouldn't feel bad if Eolas loses in the end, but I'd be more than happy to see this case drag itself along for several years.

  • Change internet? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by TakaIta ( 791097 )
    First of all this is a USA thing. I am in Europe and I could not care less. This whole patent thing is just another case of spending efforts on stuff that isn't doing anything else then reducing the value of the US Dollar.

    I don't see how this would change the internet. Does one really think that users will exchange their "old" browser that supports plugins for an "upgraded" version that does not support plugin? Or will we have a US version of browsers without plugin-support?

    The best would be if all soft

  • At the end of the day the patent war really wont benefit the end user as much as many of the companies claim to thier investors/stock holders. Many software patents really should exist as there is just about no way for the joe-home programmer to know if they are breaching patents the way they are writing code. At the end of the day when you click on the start button in windows or the K icon in KDE does it come up and say.. patent pending or patent xyz... nope.. and really at the end of the day can joe-prog
  • Finally, the UC system can have an excuse to lower tuition, but you know, the damn economy...

  • ViolaWWW Features List (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dark-br ( 473115 ) on Friday December 10, 2004 @06:23AM (#11050100) Homepage


    Fundamentally HTML 3.0 (ie: highly container based), plus many extensions for richer formatting capabilities. Extensions such as for multiple columns formatting, document insertion (client side), and dynamically collapsable/expandable list.

    Sidebar panel: for displaying "meta" information, or for intra document navigational links, etc. The panel is engaged and disengaged by the presence of the document that is associated with the sidebar document.

    Dynamic toolbar: document engaged tool applets (ie: navigational aids).

    Rudimentary stylesheet mechanism for attaching styling information to a document. For changing document's fonts, color information, alignments.

    A scripting language that is accessible from the HTML, such that an HTML document can embbed highly interactive scripts/applets.

    Miscellaneous niceties: hotlist facility; shows HTTP loading progress in a pie chart (when it has the information).

    An experimental platform. It's source available, even most of the browser is constructed in a highlevel scripting language; and is very customizable to someone who understands the scripting language.

    Motif front-end. The X11 (non Motif) version is also available.

    Self contained single binary for easy installation, unlike the old ViolaWWW which required setup of various viola application files.

    Holly cow! That's for a 1991 app!

  • Mosaic (Score:3, Interesting)

    by deanj ( 519759 ) on Friday December 10, 2004 @10:17AM (#11051385)
    The original Eolas browser their work was done in, and distributed with was done in Mosaic. They should lose just on those grounds, since they never licensed Mosaic... and they should have because it was only free for non-commercial use.

  • Oh the irony of Slashdot . . . (Score:3, Insightful)

    by werdna ( 39029 ) on Friday December 10, 2004 @10:46AM (#11051683) Journal
    Just hours after reporting that the patent system is utterly skewed to the advantage of large corporations, it is observed that Microsoft continues its appeal of a huge 9-figure judgment against it.

    This article doesn't begin to describe how bad it has been for Microsoft, who has been the successive record holder as a patent defendant against comparatively tiny companies (or residual shells of them) since the cases brought years ago by tiny STAC. And now Eolas.

    What is more, that wasn't the only bad verdict against Microsoft in recent years. A recent listing of the top 100 major verdict in civil actions included more than a dozen IP verdicts, all against huge companies, with Microsoft appearing on the list more than a few times.

    Yeah, its terribly skewed against small companies and in favor of big ones, except for when it isn't.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Someone's been mean to you! Tell me who it is, so I can punch him tastefully." -- Ralph Bakshi's Mighty Mouse

Close