Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

• 

  Rikko, 28 Sep 2005 @ 2:57pm

  
  

  A ray of hope...

  Were it my patent, I'd make it free use for all, except for ActiveX.. Then we're looking at $20/license/day.. And then we might finally be rid of that piece of shit.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Pete Austin, 29 Sep 2005 @ 2:37am

    
    

    Re: A ray of hope...

    Why stop there? Were it my patent, I'd make it free use of all, but only in states which voted for me as president.

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Justin Johnson, 29 Sep 2005 @ 8:42am

    
    

    Re: A ray of hope...

    agreed... active x blows ass

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Conchúr MacLochlainn, 29 Sep 2005 @ 9:09am

  
  

  Eolas

  Eolas is the Irish for Knowledge or Information
  
  :)

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Lawrence B. Ebert, 29 Sep 2005 @ 6:29pm

  
  

  Eolas patent not found obvious

  This re-exam was director-ordered, at the request of W3C. In the initial paper by W3C, Pennie & Edmonds argued that the claims were anticipated by(ie, were dead on) certain prior art. Even the examiner didn't buy that in the first office action. There was one obviousness rejection and then another obviousness rejection. The Eolas attorney filed a 30 page response, with three declarations from two professors.
  The Eolas v. Microsoft litigation remains, with the Wei browser as prior art.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]

  • 

    Jimbo, 2 Oct 2005 @ 9:13am

    
    

    Re: Eolas patent not found obvious

    The Wei browser was studied by the reexam examiner and declared to be irrelevant. This case will never go back to trial, since the PTO has just vaporized any arguments regarding Viola that could be made at trial

    [ link to this | view in chronology ]

    • 

      Lawrence B. Ebert, 14 Dec 2005 @ 8:29am

      
      

      Re: Eolas patent not found obvious

      First, decisions made in re-examination are not binding on the district court or the appeals court, so any vaporization at the PTO is not necessarily a vaporization in the courts.
      Second, publications concerning the Wei browser were not presented in the W3C re-exam request. Such documents were in a nether-world because they were presented at trial, but were [wrongly] not considered prior art [in a bad decision by the district court].
      Third, even if these documents [and possibly public use] did NOT establish invalidity, the failure to disclose to the PTO might establish unenforceability through inequitable conduct, an entirely different issue. Why the Berkeley prof failed to mention the Wei browser to the PTO is hard to fathom. Why the Berkeley prof tried to obtain a statement from Wei about the Wei browser seems an incredibly stupid thing to have done.

      [ link to this | view in chronology ]

• 

  Jimbo, 2 Oct 2005 @ 9:08am

  
  

  Trial transcrips show that they did steal it

  "Again, this isn't a situation where someone came up with an idea that was "stolen," but that those who were doing the actual innovating came up with the obvious next step, only to find someone sitting around claiming they owned a patent on that obvious concept."

  The trial transcripts indicate that Eolas showed their browser to both Andreessen and Gosling in 1993, and to Microsoft in 1994, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. And, the implementation that wound up in the various browsers is a direct rip-off from the IEEE paper that the Eolas guys published in 1994. Of course they stole it.

  [ link to this | view in chronology ]