They patented this when there was no application for it. ie they patented an idea for which at the time there was no application, so how could they have a patent?
They are crooks, no inventors.
Hope Eolas lose. And I hope Microsoft don't get their money back.
It seems to me they should be able to get a lot more than 22 companies. I would say several thousand. From what they were able to get from Microsoft, this company can hope to make trillions from a lousy plugin patent.
It's funny that from all computer manufacturers only Apple infringes!
Apple and MS are the only commercial OS with browser developers. My guess is that the newer patent, which might not hold in court, is only there as a bargaining chip. They will probably tell the defendants if you license the "906" patent we will include the newer patent.
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! \
Patent holders won't spend the time and money to sue every infringer, only those large enough to make it worth their while. Smaller companies would likely receive a cease and desist notice.
It's great they have a patent and demonstrated it in the past. But some of these patents need to be scrutinized more ... and so should the lawsuits brought by holders who had no intention of ever actually producing a product. The USPO is not capable of dealing with the patents today and needs to be reformed significantly.
I am not sure about this patent itself, but since it took so long to come to some sort of resolution, it probably was not obvious and now that MS lost the case they are just going down the food chain. It is sometime better to go after the big guy win or get him to settle and all the rest fall.
The problem with a number of these patents is the person with the idea does not have to show or prove it can be done to be awarded the patent. It as simple as saying I came up with the ideal of creating a blackhole, I have not idea how to do it but rest assure if you figure out how to I came after you.
Long ago in order to patent something you actually had to make it and show it did what you claimed. Not the case today.
It's great they have a patent and demonstrated it in the past. But some of these patents need to be scrutinized more ... and so should the lawsuits brought by holders who had no intention of ever actually producing a product. The USPO is not capable of dealing with the patents today and needs to be reformed significantly.
Well, in their defense on that point, they did try to license the patent to, at least, Microsoft, fairly early on, I believe. Not everyone can bring their inventions to market and licensing them is a legitimate way to profit.
I think the important issue here is whether they should have been granted a patent in the first place, and, if the PTO were up to speed in science and technology, they would not have been. This is a significant problem in these areas, and large numbers of patents are granted for things that either should not be patentable at all or for things that apparently appear to PTO examiners as "novel" inventions but are actually just incremental evolutions of existing technologies or are otherwise obvious ideas to anyone involved in tech.
Agreed... I dont' think MS should have lost either. I hope Apple doesn't loose too (...
Please, the word is "lose" not "loose". I'd be less likely to complain but this instance is the second time already for this thread. One of the words is a verb and the other is an adjective. If you lose a shirt you can not find it, but if a shirt is loose then it is too large.
From what I've read Eolas seems to have a valid patent and case here.I guess Mozilla is happy because they will not be sued
Nasser, Eolas' patents could conceivably cover any web application if the patent is allowed to be interpreted as broadly as it is at present. This is a very dangerous precedent with far reaching consequences, not just surrounding this case, but in terms of where it sets the bar for other companies who exist for the sole purpose of milking companies for payments on IP established through overly-broad patent grants. This is becoming big business, and it is costing us all dearly. First, it increases the cost of product development, which decreases the cost of the product when passed on to the consumer. Second, it creates a chilling effect that moderates tech development, essentially constraining it and preventing advances.
I absolutely believe in protecting intellectual property. That said, some of these patents are so vague they read like fortune cookies; they could be interpreted to mean almost anything within their domain.
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.
Patents need not be complex at all.. I remember (YEARS AGO) when I was attended a Comdex in Las Vegas.
IBM made a smart move and had an exclusive deal to give away something very unique.
If you never attended a comdex it was about ten thousand miles of walking and putting litature into a bag (those were the normal giveaways most companies distributed -- the bigger the bag the more people would use it to stuff full of useless paper that they'd likely not read.
ANYWAY...
A company designed a BOX with a shipping label area on 3 sides (the small sides) and the faces of the box had a big IBM printed on it. What made the box unique is it had a 'drop slot' big enough to fit an unfolded piece of paper and the box size was 'a full sized briefcase' (perhaps a little larger).
Well EVERYONE used them exclusively! When you filled the box you put your return address put a piece of tape on the slot and one to close the lid (remove the plastic handle) and ship it home right from the floor of the show. (there were shipping kiosks usually at the larger locations).
So... Some other company had a similar box with a different logo on it and I picked one up and someone spotted me from the company responsible for the IBM box and asked if she could buy the box and where I got it... She said she had a patent on the design and IBM was their exclusive client using the box. So yea... you wouldn't think cutting a thin 11" flap in the side of a box would be an idea worth anything BUT it clearly was making SOMEONE a TON of money.
I hate companies who live off others success. This is like the guy who invented the first car filing suit against ford, gm,and dodge for making other cars with wheels. I don't like Micro$oft at all and usually laugh when something bad happens to them but I seriously can't believe they had to settle with this company over Internet Explorer. I hope Apple doesn't give in to this crap.
Nasser, Eolas' patents could conceivably cover any web application if the patent is allowed to be interpreted as broadly as it is at present. This is a very dangerous precedent with far reaching consequences, not just surrounding this case, but in terms of where it sets the bar for other companies who exist for the sole purpose of milking companies for payments on IP established through overly-broad patent grants. This is becoming big business, and it is costing us all dearly. First, it increases the cost of product development, which decreases the cost of the product when passed on to the consumer. Second, it creates a chilling effect that moderates tech development, essentially constraining it and preventing advances.
I absolutely believe in protecting intellectual property. That said, some of these patents are so vague they read like fortune cookies; they could be interpreted to mean almost anything within their domain.
I agree with you that there are patents trolls and I agree with you that something need to be done about it. However, when this patent was filed in 1994 there was no such thing as web apps, IE, or Safari and the internet browser as we know it today did not exist. The patent is owned by University of California and I think Eolas is basically acting on their behalf. If you did some research you will see that there is a way to create a web browser without infringing on this patent, which MS did after the court ruling, but others choose not to. MS now hold a license to use the technology in this patent, after a settlement.
The patent seems broad because it defines what an internet browser is. They patented the internet browser as we know it today more than 15 years ago. As I said before, the W3C and everyone else knew about it but chose to ignore it for the past 10 years and this is not an excuse.
I think this is a case where the patent "906" should be upheld and saying it should not because it will bring down the whole system is not valid legally.
The patent seems broad because it defines what an internet browser is. They patented the internet browser as we know it today more than 15 years ago. As I said before, the W3C and everyone else knew about it but chose to ignore it for the past 10 years and this is not an excuse.
I think this is a case where the patent "906" should be upheld and saying it should not because it will bring down the whole system is not a valid point.
The patent simply extends in a trivial way functionality that was already in web browsers at that time. It should never have been granted in the first place, and there is something seriously wrong with the patent system that it's been upheld. That the software based on this basic primitive and obvious idea has become incredibly rich and complex does not make the original idea, as expressed in the patent at the time of filing, any less trivial in relation to, or less dependent on as prior art, what came before it.
The patent simply extends in a trivial way functionality that was already in web browsers at that time. It should never have been granted in the first place, and there is something seriously wrong with the patent system that it's been upheld. That the software based on this basic primitive and obvious idea has become incredibly rich and complex does not make the original idea, as expressed in the patent at the time of filing, any less trivial in relation to, or less dependent on as prior art, what came before it.
Can you name the browsers that uses plugins that existed at that time (1993)?!
the only difference was that the content was usually displayed in a separate window (and the "plugins" were often called "helper applications"). See also his comments regarding prior art in other applications like MS Write (there's no reason why the class of application should make any difference here) where the content was, previous to this patent application, displayed inline through the use of a "plugin" (MS Paint), as well as the remarks that this was a common topic of discussion in the literature at that time. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in previous comments here, the functionality they describe is not significantly different than that already (at that time) provided by ISMAP and USEMAP.
the only difference was that the content was usually displayed in a separate window (and the "plugins" were often called "helper applications"). See also his comments regarding prior art in other applications like MS Write (there's no reason why the class of application should make any difference here) where the content was, previous to this patent application, displayed inline through the use of a "plugin" (MS Paint), as well as the remarks that this was a common topic of discussion in the literature at that time. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in previous comments here, the functionality they describe is not significantly different than that already (at that time) provided by ISMAP and USEMAP.
That already went to court and did not satisfy the requirement of prior art.
Technically this affects Apple due to Quicktime, but WebKit would be free if it proves it to be a non-profit organization.
And I find it funny that Mozilla sided with Microsoft on the issue of "open standards" when Microsoft and others clearly saw the technology and didn't feel like paying for it.
Hey, they sued Google and YouTube! Redundant redundant!
the only difference was that the content was usually displayed in a separate window (and the "plugins" were often called "helper applications"). See also his comments regarding prior art in other applications like MS Write (there's no reason why the class of application should make any difference here) where the content was, previous to this patent application, displayed inline through the use of a "plugin" (MS Paint), as well as the remarks that this was a common topic of discussion in the literature at that time. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in previous comments here, the functionality they describe is not significantly different than that already (at that time) provided by ISMAP and USEMAP.
If it was as easy as that then MS wouldn't have paid millions of dollars to settle. As I said before, there is a workaround, which Opera uses, and if there is a workaround that means there is way to develop an alternative.
Look, I am not defending the patent or Eolas but I am irritated that everyone knew about it and took no steps to avoid the problem. The W3C wanted to take steps to avoid infringing the patent but no one really cared hoping that MS with all their money and resources will win the case. Instead Microsoft, being Microsoft of coarse, preferred to save the a$$ knowing that by doing so everyone else will get the shaft. Now, Apple and others can either drag this thing another 12 years or settle, which I think they will fight it and drag it for another 12 years. The patent if I am not mistaken will expire in 2014.
That already went to court and did not satisfy the requirement of prior art.
Yes, we know that. The point is that there is something lacking in the workings of the PTO and in the interpretation of patent law that it did not.
I also have a problem with the holder of this patent, The University of California. It's very likely that any work related to the development of this patent, and perhaps the application itself, were funded at least partially, directly or indirectly (meaning, "indirect costs" that these institutions siphon off the grants they receive, and mix with their general funds) with federal dollars. And this is not an uncommon situation at all. I don't believe that institutions accepting federal money that funds in whole or in part research that leads to any sort of "product" development should be allowed to patent the resulting "discoveries", except to release them to the public domain. I think it's outrageous that the UC is now engaged in a course of action that will ultimately cause harm to the consumers who funded their research.
Obviously these are issues that need to be addressed legislatively, and doing so is long overdue. And, while they are at it they can specifically put an end to the idea that a naturally occurring gene may be patented.
Comments
They are crooks, no inventors.
Hope Eolas lose. And I hope Microsoft don't get their money back.
It seems to me they should be able to get a lot more than 22 companies. I would say several thousand. From what they were able to get from Microsoft, this company can hope to make trillions from a lousy plugin patent.
It's funny that from all computer manufacturers only Apple infringes!
Apple and MS are the only commercial OS with browser developers. My guess is that the newer patent, which might not hold in court, is only there as a bargaining chip. They will probably tell the defendants if you license the "906" patent we will include the newer patent.
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!
Patent holders won't spend the time and money to sue every infringer, only those large enough to make it worth their while. Smaller companies would likely receive a cease and desist notice.
The problem with a number of these patents is the person with the idea does not have to show or prove it can be done to be awarded the patent. It as simple as saying I came up with the ideal of creating a blackhole, I have not idea how to do it but rest assure if you figure out how to I came after you.
Long ago in order to patent something you actually had to make it and show it did what you claimed. Not the case today.
It's great they have a patent and demonstrated it in the past. But some of these patents need to be scrutinized more ... and so should the lawsuits brought by holders who had no intention of ever actually producing a product. The USPO is not capable of dealing with the patents today and needs to be reformed significantly.
Well, in their defense on that point, they did try to license the patent to, at least, Microsoft, fairly early on, I believe. Not everyone can bring their inventions to market and licensing them is a legitimate way to profit.
I think the important issue here is whether they should have been granted a patent in the first place, and, if the PTO were up to speed in science and technology, they would not have been. This is a significant problem in these areas, and large numbers of patents are granted for things that either should not be patentable at all or for things that apparently appear to PTO examiners as "novel" inventions but are actually just incremental evolutions of existing technologies or are otherwise obvious ideas to anyone involved in tech.
Agreed... I dont' think MS should have lost either. I hope Apple doesn't loose too (...
Please, the word is "lose" not "loose". I'd be less likely to complain but this instance is the second time already for this thread. One of the words is a verb and the other is an adjective. If you lose a shirt you can not find it, but if a shirt is loose then it is too large.
From what I've read Eolas seems to have a valid patent and case here.I guess Mozilla is happy because they will not be sued
Nasser, Eolas' patents could conceivably cover any web application if the patent is allowed to be interpreted as broadly as it is at present. This is a very dangerous precedent with far reaching consequences, not just surrounding this case, but in terms of where it sets the bar for other companies who exist for the sole purpose of milking companies for payments on IP established through overly-broad patent grants. This is becoming big business, and it is costing us all dearly. First, it increases the cost of product development, which decreases the cost of the product when passed on to the consumer. Second, it creates a chilling effect that moderates tech development, essentially constraining it and preventing advances.
I absolutely believe in protecting intellectual property. That said, some of these patents are so vague they read like fortune cookies; they could be interpreted to mean almost anything within their domain.
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.
Patents need not be complex at all.. I remember (YEARS AGO) when I was attended a Comdex in Las Vegas.
IBM made a smart move and had an exclusive deal to give away something very unique.
If you never attended a comdex it was about ten thousand miles of walking and putting litature into a bag (those were the normal giveaways most companies distributed -- the bigger the bag the more people would use it to stuff full of useless paper that they'd likely not read.
ANYWAY...
A company designed a BOX with a shipping label area on 3 sides (the small sides) and the faces of the box had a big IBM printed on it. What made the box unique is it had a 'drop slot' big enough to fit an unfolded piece of paper and the box size was 'a full sized briefcase' (perhaps a little larger).
Well EVERYONE used them exclusively! When you filled the box you put your return address put a piece of tape on the slot and one to close the lid (remove the plastic handle) and ship it home right from the floor of the show. (there were shipping kiosks usually at the larger locations).
So... Some other company had a similar box with a different logo on it and I picked one up and someone spotted me from the company responsible for the IBM box and asked if she could buy the box and where I got it... She said she had a patent on the design and IBM was their exclusive client using the box. So yea... you wouldn't think cutting a thin 11" flap in the side of a box would be an idea worth anything BUT it clearly was making SOMEONE a TON of money.
They know people would use this technic in near future and they could earn big on it
if they owned the patent.
Nasser, Eolas' patents could conceivably cover any web application if the patent is allowed to be interpreted as broadly as it is at present. This is a very dangerous precedent with far reaching consequences, not just surrounding this case, but in terms of where it sets the bar for other companies who exist for the sole purpose of milking companies for payments on IP established through overly-broad patent grants. This is becoming big business, and it is costing us all dearly. First, it increases the cost of product development, which decreases the cost of the product when passed on to the consumer. Second, it creates a chilling effect that moderates tech development, essentially constraining it and preventing advances.
I absolutely believe in protecting intellectual property. That said, some of these patents are so vague they read like fortune cookies; they could be interpreted to mean almost anything within their domain.
I agree with you that there are patents trolls and I agree with you that something need to be done about it. However, when this patent was filed in 1994 there was no such thing as web apps, IE, or Safari and the internet browser as we know it today did not exist. The patent is owned by University of California and I think Eolas is basically acting on their behalf. If you did some research you will see that there is a way to create a web browser without infringing on this patent, which MS did after the court ruling, but others choose not to. MS now hold a license to use the technology in this patent, after a settlement.
The patent seems broad because it defines what an internet browser is. They patented the internet browser as we know it today more than 15 years ago. As I said before, the W3C and everyone else knew about it but chose to ignore it for the past 10 years and this is not an excuse.
I think this is a case where the patent "906" should be upheld and saying it should not because it will bring down the whole system is not valid legally.
The patent seems broad because it defines what an internet browser is. They patented the internet browser as we know it today more than 15 years ago. As I said before, the W3C and everyone else knew about it but chose to ignore it for the past 10 years and this is not an excuse.
I think this is a case where the patent "906" should be upheld and saying it should not because it will bring down the whole system is not a valid point.
The patent simply extends in a trivial way functionality that was already in web browsers at that time. It should never have been granted in the first place, and there is something seriously wrong with the patent system that it's been upheld. That the software based on this basic primitive and obvious idea has become incredibly rich and complex does not make the original idea, as expressed in the patent at the time of filing, any less trivial in relation to, or less dependent on as prior art, what came before it.
The patent simply extends in a trivial way functionality that was already in web browsers at that time. It should never have been granted in the first place, and there is something seriously wrong with the patent system that it's been upheld. That the software based on this basic primitive and obvious idea has become incredibly rich and complex does not make the original idea, as expressed in the patent at the time of filing, any less trivial in relation to, or less dependent on as prior art, what came before it.
Can you name the browsers that uses plugins that existed at that time (1993)?!
Can you name the browsers that uses plugins that existed at that time (1993)?!
As pointed out by Tim Berners-Lee in his letter to the PTO, many browsers used "plugins" at that time, the only difference was that the content was usually displayed in a separate window (and the "plugins" were often called "helper applications"). See also his comments regarding prior art in other applications like MS Write (there's no reason why the class of application should make any difference here) where the content was, previous to this patent application, displayed inline through the use of a "plugin" (MS Paint), as well as the remarks that this was a common topic of discussion in the literature at that time. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in previous comments here, the functionality they describe is not significantly different than that already (at that time) provided by ISMAP and USEMAP.
As pointed out by Tim Berners-Lee in his letter to the PTO, many browsers used "plugins" at that time, the only difference was that the content was usually displayed in a separate window (and the "plugins" were often called "helper applications"). See also his comments regarding prior art in other applications like MS Write (there's no reason why the class of application should make any difference here) where the content was, previous to this patent application, displayed inline through the use of a "plugin" (MS Paint), as well as the remarks that this was a common topic of discussion in the literature at that time. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in previous comments here, the functionality they describe is not significantly different than that already (at that time) provided by ISMAP and USEMAP.
That already went to court and did not satisfy the requirement of prior art.
Technically this affects Apple due to Quicktime, but WebKit would be free if it proves it to be a non-profit organization.
And I find it funny that Mozilla sided with Microsoft on the issue of "open standards" when Microsoft and others clearly saw the technology and didn't feel like paying for it.
Hey, they sued Google and YouTube! Redundant redundant!
As pointed out by Tim Berners-Lee in his letter to the PTO, many browsers used "plugins" at that time, the only difference was that the content was usually displayed in a separate window (and the "plugins" were often called "helper applications"). See also his comments regarding prior art in other applications like MS Write (there's no reason why the class of application should make any difference here) where the content was, previous to this patent application, displayed inline through the use of a "plugin" (MS Paint), as well as the remarks that this was a common topic of discussion in the literature at that time. Furthermore, as I have pointed out in previous comments here, the functionality they describe is not significantly different than that already (at that time) provided by ISMAP and USEMAP.
If it was as easy as that then MS wouldn't have paid millions of dollars to settle. As I said before, there is a workaround, which Opera uses, and if there is a workaround that means there is way to develop an alternative.
Look, I am not defending the patent or Eolas but I am irritated that everyone knew about it and took no steps to avoid the problem. The W3C wanted to take steps to avoid infringing the patent but no one really cared hoping that MS with all their money and resources will win the case. Instead Microsoft, being Microsoft of coarse, preferred to save the a$$ knowing that by doing so everyone else will get the shaft. Now, Apple and others can either drag this thing another 12 years or settle, which I think they will fight it and drag it for another 12 years. The patent if I am not mistaken will expire in 2014.
That already went to court and did not satisfy the requirement of prior art.
Yes, we know that. The point is that there is something lacking in the workings of the PTO and in the interpretation of patent law that it did not.
I also have a problem with the holder of this patent, The University of California. It's very likely that any work related to the development of this patent, and perhaps the application itself, were funded at least partially, directly or indirectly (meaning, "indirect costs" that these institutions siphon off the grants they receive, and mix with their general funds) with federal dollars. And this is not an uncommon situation at all. I don't believe that institutions accepting federal money that funds in whole or in part research that leads to any sort of "product" development should be allowed to patent the resulting "discoveries", except to release them to the public domain. I think it's outrageous that the UC is now engaged in a course of action that will ultimately cause harm to the consumers who funded their research.
Obviously these are issues that need to be addressed legislatively, and doing so is long overdue. And, while they are at it they can specifically put an end to the idea that a naturally occurring gene may be patented.
who did RIM infringe on? there are several email server to phone products out there and they all use different ways of solving the problem
NTP, read about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTP,_In...ent_litigation