W3C sides with Microsoft against Eolas patent

Advertisement (Why?)

The World Wide Web Consortium has taken up Microsoft's cause in a patent infringement lawsuit by urging the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to invalidate the related patent "in order to prevent substantial economic and technical damage to the operation of (the) World Wide Web." In a long letter sent Tuesday by W3C Director Tim Berners-Lee to James Rogan, U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, Berners-Lee claims that "prior art" - a legal term referring to technology in existence at the time a patent is applied for - proves U.S. Patent number 5,838,906 (the '906 patent) is invalid and that the USPTO should therefore re-examine the case for issuing the patent in the first place.

Last August, a jury in Chicago ordered Microsoft to pay $520.6 million in damages to Eolas Technologies and the University of California at San Francisco, the holders of the '906 patent, which covers the technology allowing interactive content to be embedded in a Web site. Though the Redmond, Wash., software company is appealing the ruling, it is also making changes to Internet Explorer (IE) that may affect a "large number of existing Web pages," the W3C said in a statement Wednesday that accompanied a copy of Berners-Lee's letter. "Removing the improperly disruptive effect of this invalid patent is important not only for the future of the Web, but also for the past," Berners-Lee said in the letter. "The '906 patent is a substantial setback for global interoperability and the success of the open Web," he added later in the letter.

News source: NetworkWorldFusion

Notes:

You need to be a member of Neowin to join the chat
Warez & LH download are prohibited.

#1 Spyder on 29 Oct 2003 - 20:10

right on!

#2 dougkinzinger on 29 Oct 2003 - 21:09

YES!!!!!!!!!!

#3 bluebsh on 29 Oct 2003 - 21:32

all patents that pertain to something with a huge sum of money attached to them after the fact should be looked at very closely, a lot of patents where issued incorrectly and give false rights to the person, as of which happened in this case, now the judge that ruled against microsoft should of looked closely at the patent... he would of noticed some odd things about the patent which make it an invalid patent... anything that is over a few thousand dollars in patent infringment should really be looked at closely, and not just by compreing the patent to the case

#4 IGx89 on 30 Oct 2003 - 00:08

About time!

#5 nowimnothing on 30 Oct 2003 - 01:18

yay for w3c

(1 reply) #6 gameguy on 30 Oct 2003 - 03:07

good. eolas is totally wrong in this. even people who disagree with microsoft most of the time should see how stupid this is.

#6.1 em_te on 30 Oct 2003 - 21:42

Just to clarify. Which part of it is wrong?

1) Eolas patent doesn't apply to the case of browser plugins
2) Eolas patent is void by prior art
3) Eolas patent causes too much economic and technical damage to developers
4) These types of obvious patents are wrong

(6 replies) #7 MitchShrader on 30 Oct 2003 - 03:10

i really don't know the legal issues well enough to comment on the judge's decision. it's pure prejudice that makes me want VERY BADLY for microshaft to lose this case. for one thing, they can AFFORD it. for another, not a hope in hell there'll ever be any equity over the thefts they have committed (small and large) and gotten away with. so even if they don't deserve it, i hope they have to PAY IN FULL for violating this patent. bend over, billy, its YOUR turn this time.. sorta defines my feelings.

#7.1 bluebsh on 30 Oct 2003 - 03:30

i am sure you don't understand that this doesn't affect only microsoft, but almost every browser out there that uses plug in systems to display content. Microsoft is the published and attacked one because they have money. If Mozilla had a ton of money, maybe they would of sued them the same.

#7.2 p-xl on 30 Oct 2003 - 06:43

yeah, i agree with bluebsh. it would not only mean that every single browser application (mozilla, ie, netscape) would either have to stop enabling plug-ins or pay a fee (i feel it would be quite big, looking at the judge's judgement against microsoft). if browser companies stops supporting plug-ins as they currently do, you would have to change EVERY PAGE with plug-ins to whatever new standards they come up with...it is not good at all

#7.3 p-xl on 30 Oct 2003 - 06:46

and from the link provided by neowin for this full article, it may potentially affect OLE technologies too

QUOTE

"For example, more than a year before the claims of the '906 patent was filed, a word processing program called Write, provided with Microsoft Windows 3.1, enabled users to embed into Write documents graphic images created with the Paint program,"

#7.4 chilliadus on 30 Oct 2003 - 07:15

QUOTE (#7.0)

it's pure prejudice that makes me want VERY BADLY for microshaft to lose this case

Yeah you know your stand is questionable but you just can't help it to let your emotion to overrule your reasoning. Don't you find your logic has some common ground with the suicide bombers'?

#7.5 KCKitsune on 30 Oct 2003 - 12:39

I know that I am no Microsoft lover, but I can only hope that Eolas loses this case and then dries up and goes away. Too many damn lawsuits, and too many damn lazy people looking for a free lunch

#7.6 em_te on 30 Oct 2003 - 22:01

Like you, I also want Microsoft to lose this case. If they do, it can send a message around the world that the US Patent system does work and shows that the small players can win in a market dominated by big players. Also, Microsoft can afford the loss and can therefore walk away normally. If Microsoft learns from this, they would lobby for the US Patent office to strengthen the system to allow only valid patents in the future. If Microsoft wins this case, it would send a message that small players cannot win even with a patent so they shouldn't even try. The patent system would remain the same and continue to allow obvious patents to slip through. Microsoft and other big players would be more unconcerned about infringing on patents because they know that as long as a large part of the world depends on their technology, they can get away with it because removing them could cause "economic and technical damages".

(3 replies) #8 richcz3 on 30 Oct 2003 - 16:05

Eolas needs to face a counter suit on the part of developers and Web businesses. The dollar amount for MS to pay may not be much, but the impact on developers and business will be huge.

I have to laugh at all who write M$ or Microshaft. All of you will be pissin about the place when you have to pay for seperate modules like media player, Internet browser and all other types of components that were once integrated as part of the Windows package.

When and if that day comes, watch as these same whiners simply get louder. And we will all be able to thank you for having to pay more for less.

richcz3

#8.1 Octol on 31 Oct 2003 - 07:20

Ain't that the truth!

#8.2 KCKitsune on 31 Oct 2003 - 11:22

actually, you are dead wrong. For a browser we have Mozilla (Price: Free, GPL), for an office suite we have OpenOffice (Price: Free, GPL), for Media Players we have XMMS, WinAmp, etc, etc (Price: Free, some of them GPL), now what other software comes with WinXP that I forgot to include?

#8.3 Octol on 02 Nov 2003 - 15:19

No, you are dead wrong. If you want to use second-rate crap because it's free—that's your business. No doubt you'll get what you pay for.

Many of the rest of us, however, don't mind paying for value received. What we don't want is to pay off slimy little parasites like Michael Doyle and his "investors" simply because they've found a way to exploit the holes in our legal system.

If it were up to me, I'd have Doyle and his cronies prosecuted for attempted Grand Larceny and make their services freely available to Bubba the Serial Rapist in San Quentin.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net