Go to Web Browser History The very first browser was WorldWideWeb on the NeXT in 1991three years before this nonsense was filed ViolaWWW used applets and dates from May 1992. Mosaic actually dates from 1993 and only went public in 1994.
The Hypercard stack HyperFTP from 1990 allowed you to do FTP through hypercard with all that implies and there were even primitive attempts to have Hypercard stacks communicate with each other through the networks as early as 1991 (not these attempts worked well). Nevermind that the 0.5 version back in 1988 of TEX for HC was called a "browser", TidBITS went to setext format on Jan 06, 1992 that via a setext "browser".
The point of that was that the idea clearly predates the 1994 date on the patent making is questionable if not invalid.
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.
... MS and all the internet community couldn't prove a prior art... The patent was valid... W3C wanted everyone to start looking for alternatives, which no one did.
I think you're overstating things a bit. We don't really know what happened at trial. (Unless you were there or have pored over the transcripts.) It's possible that MS just completely botched their defense. The patent has not yet been invalidated, but even if it isn't, that doesn't necessarily make it a valid patent (two different meanings of "valid"), it may just point to how screwed up the patent system is. The reason no one looked at other alternatives is that a) no one believes this patent is valid and b) the patent is so broad that there are no other workable alternatives.
Personally, I suspect that MS botched their defense, which will make it easier for The University of California to go after other people with their patent that should never have been granted.
I wonder if Microsoft deliberately botched their defence in order to lose, $500 million is a pittance to them in the grand scheme of things and now Eolas is cashed up and ready to wreak havoc among Microsoft's competitors.
It seems like a pretty effective and ruthless business tactic.
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 08.14.02)
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.
I really think we should stop talking about "Eolas". Eolas is simply a "front" for The University of California, and it is The University of California who is pursuing these shakedowns, not some small company, acting nobly to protect its interests.
Comments
deleted
BZZZZ WRONG.
Go to Web Browser History The very first browser was WorldWideWeb on the NeXT in 1991 three years before this nonsense was filed ViolaWWW used applets and dates from May 1992. Mosaic actually dates from 1993 and only went public in 1994.
The Hypercard stack HyperFTP from 1990 allowed you to do FTP through hypercard with all that implies and there were even primitive attempts to have Hypercard stacks communicate with each other through the networks as early as 1991 (not these attempts worked well). Nevermind that the 0.5 version back in 1988 of TEX for HC was called a "browser", TidBITS went to setext format on Jan 06, 1992 that via a setext "browser".
The point of that was that the idea clearly predates the 1994 date on the patent making is questionable if not invalid.
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.
... MS and all the internet community couldn't prove a prior art... The patent was valid... W3C wanted everyone to start looking for alternatives, which no one did.
I think you're overstating things a bit. We don't really know what happened at trial. (Unless you were there or have pored over the transcripts.) It's possible that MS just completely botched their defense. The patent has not yet been invalidated, but even if it isn't, that doesn't necessarily make it a valid patent (two different meanings of "valid"), it may just point to how screwed up the patent system is. The reason no one looked at other alternatives is that a) no one believes this patent is valid and b) the patent is so broad that there are no other workable alternatives.
Personally, I suspect that MS botched their defense, which will make it easier for The University of California to go after other people with their patent that should never have been granted.
It seems like a pretty effective and ruthless business tactic.
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 08.14.02)
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.
Eolas
I really think we should stop talking about "Eolas". Eolas is simply a "front" for The University of California, and it is The University of California who is pursuing these shakedowns, not some small company, acting nobly to protect its interests.