Microsoft on Wednesday claimed a victory in a high-profile Web browser patent dispute, as an appeals court partially reversed a lower court decision that left the software giant exposed to $565 million in damages.
The case, brought by the University of California and its Eolas spinoff, had riled the Web community over potential ripple effects that could have forced changes in millions of Web pages. "Today’s appeals court decision...is a clear victory not only for Microsoft, but for Internet users as well," Microsoft said in a statement. "We have maintained throughout this process that the Eolas patent is not valid and today's ruling is a clear affirmation of our position.
News source: C|Net News.com
The case, brought by the University of California and its Eolas spinoff, had riled the Web community over potential ripple effects that could have forced changes in millions of Web pages. "Today’s appeals court decision...is a clear victory not only for Microsoft, but for Internet users as well," Microsoft said in a statement. "We have maintained throughout this process that the Eolas patent is not valid and today's ruling is a clear affirmation of our position.
News source: C|Net News.com
Speed and Cap information
Broadband enabled STB
1Mbps Download—100Kbps Upload—3GB Monthly Cap
2Mbps Download—200Kbps Upload—30GB Monthly Cap
3Mbps Download—300Kbps Upload—40GB Monthly Cap
Standalone Cable Modem (SACM)
1Mbps Download—100Kbps Upload—3GB Monthly Cap
2Mbps Download—200Kbps Upload—30GB Monthly Cap
3Mbps Download—300Kbps Upload—40GB Monthly Cap
Business Tarrifs
2Mbps Download—250Kbps Upload
3Mbps Download—300Kbps Upload
It is currently understood that if customers exceed the monthly cap limits as outlined above, their connection will be dropped to a speed of 56Kbps, although this isn’t confirmed.
It would have been nightmare to change all of the Web sites and several plug-in based applications if Eolas had won.
In essence, Eolas was just a frontman (company) for the University of California at San Francisco, who claimed to have patented the entire idea of using plug-ins in any internet browser, in order that they could adapt to 'future' technologies. (Read that as anything beyond html or javascript coding.) Their patent was issued prior to any browser ever having that ability (1993). Absurd on the face of it, to be sure.
In my opinion, the trial phase found Eolas in the right due simply to the date that the patent was issued. In the normal course of events, this would ordinarily be a good decision. However......
macrosslover,
You're correct of course, it was the ultra-long delay in enforcing the patent that did Eolas in. Why the trial court ignored this "little datum" (sarcastically spoken), I'll never figure out.
Express,
Sorry, but a body of people/citizens/users/etc. won't be enough to stand in the way of money. If the patent were to have been upheld (and barring any further appeal), then we'd all have to change. You will note, however, that we haven't yet. Even if Eolas appeals to the Supreme Court, we still won't have to make any coding changes unless and until that decision comes down in their favor. But if they do, and it does, then you better brush up on your applet writing skills.
Ghostdraconi,
I fear that you're correct - there's too much money on the table, and the lawyers haven't gotten it all policed up yet. <sour grin>
So opines
Da Judge
Last edited by 48166 on 02 Mar 2005 - 21:30
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.