Originally Posted by NasserAE
Did you bother to look the case up or at least read the thread? MS and all the internet community couldn't prove a prior art. It is not as simple as that. One aspect of the patent is the word "automatic". As we said here and mentioned in Wikipedia
there is a simple workaround to avoid infringing this patent and it involves requiring a user interaction to run ActiveX. The patent was valid and this is why W3C wanted everyone to start looking for alternatives, which no one did.
I did read about the case and you seemed to have missed how KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) changed the rules on parents after MS exhausted its appeal options some two years previously.
This is like arguing that Plessy v. Ferguson still means anything after Brown vs Board. Eolas may have problems in the post KSR courts especially given that Atkinson has lamented "If I'd grown up in a network-centric culture, like Sun, HyperCard might have been the first Web browser. My blind spot at Apple prevented me from making HyperCard the first Web browser." (Kahney, Leander "HyperCard: What Could Have Been" Wired
However as I have shown with HyperFTP stack there were those as early as 1990 who didn NOT have this blind spot and were trying to get hypercard to talk with stacks through networks including ATG "spider project" which effectively ended in 1992 two years BEFORE
this patent. Since these ideas predate the 1994 date and were "obvious" as people as early as 1990 were trying them Eolas could get their heads handed to them under the new KSR rules.