Eolas Is Baaaaaaaaack; And It's Suing Everyone Over Embeddable Web Widgets
from the because-otherwise... dept
Well, here we go again. As you may recall, Eolas is a company that claimed to hold a patent (5,838,906) on browser plugins. The company sued Microsoft, and a long drawn-out battle ensued. Even though web inventor Tim Berners-Lee presented prior art and asked the USPTO to invalidate Eolas' ridiculously broad and obvious patent, the USPTO eventually upheld the patent (after initially rejecting claims). Even as Microsoft began presenting evidence that it actually had made use of the technology in question before Eolas applied for its patent, losses in the courts and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case eventually resulted in Microsoft agreeing to settle rather than continue to fight.Since then (two years ago), plenty of people have been waiting for the other shoe to drop, concerning Eolas' plans to sue others. Now we know why it waited. It's now received a new patent -- a continuation patent, which is often used to abuse the patent system by putting forth a broad patent, then filing for continuations to make changes that let an earlier "invention" cover technologies that later become popular. In this case, the new patent (7,599,985), which basically just extends the earlier patent on browser plugins, and extends it to javascript widgets. Yes, those embeddable widgets used all over the web? It appears that Eolas thinks that those are infringing and everyone should pay up.
The new lawsuit has been filed against Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, Go Daddy, Google, J.C. Penney, JPMorgan Chase, Office Depot, Perot Systems, Playboy Enterprises, Staples, Sun, Texas Instruments, Yahoo, and YouTube. Apparently, starting small isn't part of the plan. Not surprisingly, Eolas filed in Eastern Texas using McKool Smith -- one of the most popular law firms representing patent holding firms in East Texas.
I am honestly curious how patent system defenders, who are also programmers, can defend this. I'm sure non-programmers will claim that the patent is valid, but I can't imagine how anyone who has any knowledge of basic programming principles can claim that such a patent is valid. In the meantime, tons of companies doing an incredibly basic thing on the web will now have to waste millions of dollars fighting a ridiculous patent lawsuit. How is this promoting innovation in any way shape or form?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: browsers, embeddable, patents, plugins, widgets
Companies: adobe, amazon, apple, blockbuster, citigroup, ebay, eolas, frito-lay, godaddy, google, j.c. peney, jpmorgan chase, microsoft, office depo, perot systems, playboy, stabples, sun, texas instruments, yahoo, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Were I a tad less scrupulous...
I'd make sure it also covers "wheel shaped objects" such as tires and gears, pulleys and bearings... plus representations of wheels (Trademark, ya know).
And then, sue almost everybody for selling round things; or even for selling representations of round things! (power button, anyone?)
I'll be rich, Rich!! MWA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Were I a tad less scrupulous...
And I'd patent transporting stuff ON THE INTERNET!
Read it and weep.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Were I a tad less scrupulous...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Were I a tad less scrupulous...
All your bases belong to us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Were I a tad less scrupulous...
OMG!!!!!!!!! If you only got 1% of people who used wheeled shape things you'd be RICH RICH RICH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Were I a tad less scrupulous...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This group of people are stupid idiots ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two reasons why this lawsuit will fail:
and
2. JP Morgan
Mark my words, if they continue to be parties on the suit, it will be slapped down, no matter WHAT court hears the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't back down now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Swallowing horses and passing camels thru needles' eyes are requisite beginner courses for all lawyers.
(Followed by one-hand-clapping; theological proofs; and "How to Prove Logical Inconsistencies")
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How many lawyers can they afford?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
YOU FOOL!!!
This is the innovation the patent system is designed to encourage; innovating in how to exploit the patent system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
angry dude?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: angry dude?
....needless to say the proud land of Eire can be a tad prouder today!
Sláinte Mhath
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My Next Patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Metallica said it best -
Kill 'em All
I jest, but I can certainly tell you that I'll not stop using "plugins" in my day-to-day programming activities.
The USPTO is completely inept, and seemingly corrupt as well. There are, quite literally, stacks of prior art pertaining to both this and Eolas' previously contested patent (re: MS.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I swear, patent trolls are about as clueless as President Spaceball.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Common Defense
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Common Defense
What you are suggesting could open companies collaborating in this manner to civil & maybe even criminal RICO claims. This could be the key to finally put blood sucking thieving transnational companies in their rightful place.
One more point, the reason that inventors are moving their companies to Texas is that the court does not tolerate delaying tactics. Piracy Coalition members hate the court for this.
I expect that eastern Texas will see a huge influx of inventor-entrepreneurs as a result of attempts to stop inventors from accessing that court. Tyler Texas may become the next Silicon Valley while Silicon Valley may well wither because the Piracy Coalition pretty much owns the courts there.
This sounds like poetic justice to me.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.superspeed.com/desktop/ramdisk.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blood-Sucking patent TROLL...
mv -f /eolas /dev/null "BEGONE SATAN!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and software patents are a good thing?!?
* delete as appropriate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and software patents are a good thing?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Web
Where greed rules and lawyers drool and all the companies are run by fools....well, almost anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its about not having to innovate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
programmers on software patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: programmers on software patents
I'm extremely impressed. You just found the ONE single way that patents can be used to encourage innovation, though I'm fairly certain that's not how the founding fathers intended it to be done.
Mike, assuming this is true, such patent bonuses are something we ought to take into consideration when asking the question how do patents encourage innovation, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: programmers on software patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: programmers on software patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they approved a patent for embedded widgets, there's no doubt they would also approve a patent on Trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eolas
Perhaps the creators of the webserver they are hosting their site on should revoke their rights to use.
Interestingly enough... Eolas rescrambled is E-salo, as in Electronic Salo o' le 120 Giornate di Sodoma. Yep, happy faced fascist tyrants they are, and just about as harmful to the mind, in my opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
Sometimes it seems the Onion can predict the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This application is a continuation and claims the benefit of U.S. application Ser. No. 09/075,359, filed May 8, 1998 now abandoned, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 08/324,443, filed Oct. 17, 1994 now U.S. Pat. No. 5,838,906, the disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by reference.
Given that this patent is based upon an application originally fied on 10/17/1994, and given that the specification remains the same from one continuation to another (as distinguished from a continuation-in-part application), the subject matter being claimed is measured against prior art from the 1993/1994 timeframe.
Moreover, as has been stated repeatedly by others who have submitted posts to your site, whatever is patented is defined by the claims contained in the patent. Invariably they are narrower in scope than the specification filed in 1994, sometimes much narrower depending upon the prior art that is cited and applied against the claims during examination of the patent application by the USPTO.
Over and above that, patents such as this are not for "software" in the conventional sense that the word is used. They are typically for devices and methods implementing what is described in the specification of the application. The fact that someone can write code is interesting, but is not relevant to the question of whether or not the invention as claimed is novel and non-obvious as measured back in the 1993/1994 timeframe.
It is easy to say "This is obvious!" It is quite another matter for one who exclaims this to back up their claim with relevant proof.
You rightly demand those who may disagree with your views to cite "evidence". This applies with equal force when you and others disagree with the claims of a patent. If you have proof then cite it in support of your claim. Otherwise, you fall prey to the very thing you demand of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm impressed
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weak Argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak Argument
Continuations exist for any number of perfectly valid and non-nefarious reasons such as "restriction practice", the initial claiming of two separate and distinct invention in the original application. Still others transpire due to the application examination process itself where changes are made to an initial set of claims based upon prior art cited by an examiner. Of course, numerous other examples abound.
Opinions are only as good as the facts upon which they are based. I have searched this comment in vain for any such facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Weak Argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent Defending Programmers
I certainly can't speak for all programmers, but I'm quite sure that the subset of programmers who also support software patents is quite small. You simply can't be as shortsighted and oblivious to reality as you'd have to be in order to support software patents and still be a programmer at the same time.
The only way I could see that being true would be perhaps in the case of a novice programmer who "discovers" the binary sort or the linked list, and is naive enough to think nobody's ever thought of it before or that it wouldn't be obvious to the first person who developed a need for the algorithm. A child like that might believe he could run to the patent office and lock that little bit of prescience down in order to get rich, never realizing that it's the equivalent of giving someone directions to get from Michigan to Ohio. There are a million ways to do it; simply documenting the idea that you can do it is foolish in the extreme, and undeserving of patent protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, an application that is little more than documenting an "idea" will promptly be rejected under the "enablement" requirement specified at 35 USC 112.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop the shilling!!!
That's because they were found to not disclose the claimed invention. How the hell would you know what is "obvious"? Have you ever prosecuted a patent application? Are you a patent attorney? No. All you do is write a bunch of payola articles for Microsoft and their thieving pals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eolas is perfect example of an inventor with a solid patent.
I have done both hardware and software engineering. I have used more computer languages and dialects than I can count. I have programmed using manual compilation, assemblers, and high level languages.
Egos being what they are few programmers are willing to admit that they are on the wrong side of the Bell Curve in terms of their capabilities. Yet we all know that there are tremendous differences in programming capabilities. It is a fact that most programmers are drones doing repetitive and unchallenging work. They are not creative.
At the top of the heap you have honest to goodness inventors, the cream of the crop.
The inventor behind Eolas is Mike Doyle, a professor who invented while at the University of California. The invention and prior art have been reviewed with a fine tooth comb, and was tied up in reexamination for years. As a rule, no one licenses a patent while it is being reexamined but those who are infringing usually know they are and they do have the opportunity to actively seek out the inventor and settle up.
The Eolas patent is solid.
Eolas is suing and suing lots of companies because lots of companies are stealing and stealing on the grandest of scales. I expect that the theft amounts to billions of dollars.
Patent litigation is a direct result of disputable conduct by thieving large corporations. There would not be a market for patent enforcement companies if not for the fact that these companies intentionally infringe.
Eolas is not the bad party here. It is a company which produced inventions, taught those inventions to everyone via patents, took on the missionary job of marketing the invention.
This is what happens to many inventors. They show their invention to a number of companies who say they are not interested and then they use the invention without acquiring the rights to do so.
They count on the inventor not being able to afford justice, and that often works.
When the inventor does manage to get help enforcing their patent property rights the big company screams about trolls and there seems to be no shortage of people who buy their propaganda hook line and sinker. Of course, they are usually egged on by corporate shills, PR people operating as bloggers or posing as journalists.
Ronald J. Riley,
I am speaking only on my own behalf.
Affiliations:
President - www.PIAUSA.org - RJR at PIAUSA.org
Executive Director - www.InventorEd.org - RJR at InvEd.org
Senior Fellow - www.PatentPolicy.org
President - Alliance for American Innovation
Caretaker of Intellectual Property Creators on behalf of deceased founder Paul Heckel
Washington, DC
Direct (810) 597-0194 / (202) 318-1595 - 9 am to 8 pm EST.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]