Patent holder that won against Microsoft now targets Apple
Apple and 22 other companies are the target of a new patent infringement suit over the use of browser-embedded interactive Web content.
Previous patent suits on behalf of Eolas have gone favorably for the company. In 2004, it was granted $565 million in litigation against Microsoft over one of the patents. In addition, the validity of the patent in question was reaffirmed in three separate proceedings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The latest suit alleges that Apple and other companies are in violation of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,838,906 and 7,599,985, which involve embedded Web applications. It was filed Wednesday in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas.
The suit notes that Apple's official Web site includes interactive content, and that applications like QuickTime and Safari, for both Windows and Mac, enable the viewing of such content. It also alleges that Apple's hardware that runs the previously mentioned software is in violation of the patents.
"Intellectual property is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy," said Dr. Michael D. Doyle, chairman of Eolas. "The primary reason for this has been the success of the U.S. patent system in allowing the innovative company in a field to develop and market its new inventions without having competitors unfairly profit from the innovator's hard work. We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely, years before the marketplace had heard of interactive applications embedded in Web pages tapping into powerful remote resources. Profiting from someone else's innovation without payment is fundamentally unfair. All we want is what's fair."
The company said its patents relate to fully-interactive browser embedded applications. The patent ending in 906 was granted in 1998, and the subsequent patent was issued this month. It covers embedded applications through the use of browser plug-ins and AJAX.
The long list of defendants, in its entirety, includes: Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Argosy Publishing, Blockbuster, CDW Corporation, Citigroup, Ebay, Frito-Lay, GoDaddy, Google, J.C. Penney, JP Morgan Chase & Co., New Frontier Media, Office Depot, Perot Systems Corp., Playboy, Rent-A-Center, Staples, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, Yahoo and YouTube.
Previous patent suits on behalf of Eolas have gone favorably for the company. In 2004, it was granted $565 million in litigation against Microsoft over one of the patents. In addition, the validity of the patent in question was reaffirmed in three separate proceedings with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The latest suit alleges that Apple and other companies are in violation of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,838,906 and 7,599,985, which involve embedded Web applications. It was filed Wednesday in a U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas.
The suit notes that Apple's official Web site includes interactive content, and that applications like QuickTime and Safari, for both Windows and Mac, enable the viewing of such content. It also alleges that Apple's hardware that runs the previously mentioned software is in violation of the patents.
"Intellectual property is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy," said Dr. Michael D. Doyle, chairman of Eolas. "The primary reason for this has been the success of the U.S. patent system in allowing the innovative company in a field to develop and market its new inventions without having competitors unfairly profit from the innovator's hard work. We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely, years before the marketplace had heard of interactive applications embedded in Web pages tapping into powerful remote resources. Profiting from someone else's innovation without payment is fundamentally unfair. All we want is what's fair."
The company said its patents relate to fully-interactive browser embedded applications. The patent ending in 906 was granted in 1998, and the subsequent patent was issued this month. It covers embedded applications through the use of browser plug-ins and AJAX.
The long list of defendants, in its entirety, includes: Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Argosy Publishing, Blockbuster, CDW Corporation, Citigroup, Ebay, Frito-Lay, GoDaddy, Google, J.C. Penney, JP Morgan Chase & Co., New Frontier Media, Office Depot, Perot Systems Corp., Playboy, Rent-A-Center, Staples, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, Yahoo and YouTube.
Comments
It sucks that MS lost this lawsuit. I'm not a fan of the Redmond gang but this is absolutely stupid. That patent should never have been granted.
The U.S. patent system is just - but offcourse not in all aspects - absurd!
I always laugh how when the shoe goes on the other foot, around here you get posts like this one.
The US patent system is responsible for setting technology back decades. Especially in ridiculous cases like this where companies are granted patents for technologies that are obvious progressions of existing ones.
It sucks that MS lost this lawsuit. I'm not a fan of the Redmond gang but this is absolutely stupid. That patent should never have been granted.
Agreed... I dont' think MS should have lost either. I hope Apple doesn't loose too (not that I'm a fan, but I'm more so against lawsuits like this)
How many sites do we know that use MySQL, Flash, or Javascript... I wonder if it considers those as web apps too?
There are some good patent lawsuits out there, and then there are a large majority of them like this. Of course, I really need to do my own research before making a definitive statement.
Looks like Eolas hit the jackpot. See kids, intellectual property really is property.
True that- now why again is Apple not sueing Palm for the Pre masquerading as an iPod?
The US patent system is responsible for setting technology back decades. Especially in ridiculous cases like this where companies are granted patents for technologies that are obvious progressions of existing ones.
A big part of the problem is that technology has far outrun the expertise of the PTO, and apparently the courts, and they simply do not understand what they are reviewing. The first patent, according to AI's article, was granted in 1998, well after embedded content showed up in browsers. The lack of ability to recognize prior art then and now is a serious problem that needs to be addressed either through legislation or major reform at the PTO. Don't even get me started on gene patents.
I'm applying for a patent soon, not joking. I'd tell you want the very simple product is, but then I'd have to kill you.
But they do have a valid patent. They patented the current web browser back in 1994 and they did offer MS a license back in 1997, which MS refused.
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi4075880729/
Gotta love that "Dragnet" type voice overlay, but hey, it is a 1976 movie!
A big part of the problem is that technology has far outrun the expertise of the PTO, and apparently the courts, and they simply do not understand what they are reviewing. The first patent, according to AI's article, was granted in 1998, well after embedded content showed up in browsers. The lack of ability to recognize prior art then and now is a serious problem that needs to be addressed either through legislation or major reform at the PTO. Don't even get me started on gene patents.
the problem is that 1998 is when the patent was granted, not when it was applied for. They do consider prior art, either prior to granting the patent, or certaintly when it goes to trial. In this case, the prior art likely came after the initial patent application.
Yes its a very general concept (now), but it wasn't in the early 90's and maybe these are the guys who figured out how to do it.
I'm applying for a patent soon, not joking. I'd tell you want the very simple product is, but then I'd have to kill you.
Just be careful what you name it- musn't have the word "pod" in it , nor the letter "i". It also mustn't resemble any round fruit with a stem on it- be it a peach or a kiwi.
How many sites do we know that use MySQL, Flash, or Javascript... I wonder if it considers those as web apps too?
Hmmm... That's a great point, I have a small simple website with Javascript apps... Should I be preparing for court?!
Of course, getting recourse from me is like getting blood from a turnip.
I can't go 565 million but I can do $5.65!
A big part of the problem is that technology has far outrun the expertise of the PTO, and apparently the courts, and they simply do not understand what they are reviewing. The first patent, according to AI's article, was granted in 1998, well after embedded content showed up in browsers. The lack of ability to recognize prior art then and now is a serious problem that needs to be addressed either through legislation or major reform at the PTO. Don't even get me started on gene patents.
The problem isn't the courts, they are charged to uphold the letter of the law & that is all that they are trying to do. The problem is the patent office granting obscure patents & laws that don't properly deal with idiocy. We need massive reform of the judicial & legislative systems in this country.
If this is indeed valid, say goodbye to all IT companies in the states and kiss your future economy goodbye.
You won't even be able to use your security devices/software connected to your bank to pay your bills or make transfers online. This kind of operation often includes a software to maintain a secure connection while you use your browser.
You will have to use a separate application for basically everything the rest of the world outside of the US use a standard browser for.
Another example. Anyone playing online poker? You won't be able to do this either.
Am I totally wrong in the way I read the patent? (I only quickly read this from cnet: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-10368638-264.html )
But they do have a valid patent. They patented the current web browser back in 1994 and they did offer MS a license back in 1997, which MS refused.
See, I gotta agree that in order to receive a patent an individual needs to be able to produce a prototype. If you have an idea for something but haven't a clue how to make it happen then you really don't have anything at all!
Hey, I got a great idea for a dishwasher that puts the dishes away for me. I could describe in detail ways it might do that but the thing about having a working prototype is that you have to actually make something that WORKS!
We need patent reform so that the people who actually work hard to advance technology are the ones rewarded & not these leeches who are sucking the life out of innovation.
the problem is that 1998 is when the patent was granted, not when it was applied for. They do consider prior art, either prior to granting the patent, or certaintly when it goes to trial. In this case, the prior art likely came after the initial patent application.
Yes its a very general concept (now), but it wasn't in the early 90's and maybe these are the guys who figured out how to do it.
Image maps (<img ismap src"...">) have been around since at least HTML 2.0, the work on which started well before this patent was applied for in 1994. Browsers were already supporting this by this time. I believe, although I am not 100% certain (~99.999% certain) that "usemap" (where the browser interprets the map coordinates directly rather than a server doing so) was also in use prior to the application.
From an image map to other "embedded interactive content" is not a very great leap. Thus, it seems obvious both that there was prior art and that the step from an image map to a "program" running embedded in a browser is an obvious extension of that prior art. Seriously, this is a case where the PTO people reviewing this patent had no idea about the what was going on in the tech world at the time.
Microsoft's legal department must have sunk pretty low from the days of Duke "Nuke'em".