Tim Berners-Lee In Court To Try To Prevent Patent Troll Eolas From Patenting Key Web Concepts
from the not-this-again dept
Remember Eolas? We've written about this infamous patent troll many times, mostly focusing on its big patent fight with Microsoft over the idea of browser plugins -- a case it eventually settled. In 2009, however, Eolas came back and basically sued the web, claiming that all sorts of very basic web technologies were, in fact, infringing on a brand new, ridiculously broad patent (built on the earlier patent), 7,599,985.However, that case has finally gone to trial, and Wired has sent Joe Mullin -- hands down the best reporter on all things concerning patents -- to cover the case. His initial report is worth reading. Unfortunately, he notes that many of the companies Eolas sued chose to settle, helping to fund Eolas' ability to take this to court. Eight companies remain fighting. Eolas is asking for $600 million from these companies -- including over $300 million from Google and Yahoo.
As he had done nearly a decade ago, web inventor Tim Berners-Lee was called to explain to the court that Eolas' claims are ridiculous and the patents should be tossed out due to tremendous amounts of prior art. Berners-Lee also pointed out that these patents "could be a serious threat to the future of the web." He didn't mince words, noting that all of this stuff was widely known in the community of technologists working on these issues well before Eolas ever came along.
Last summer there was tremendous attention paid to the problem of patents within the tech space, but much of that furor died down after the patent reform bill became law -- even though it addressed almost none of the actual complaints about how the patent system hinders innovation. Once fall came, a lot of focus shifted back to copyright issues around SOPA. But people should be very, very worried about the outcome of this case, because if it goes badly, it could lead to a massive tollbooth on internet innovation.
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: embedding, hyperlinking, obviousness, patents, tim berners-lee, web
Companies: eolas, google, yahoo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Earth, Wind, and
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Earth, Wind, and
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I tried to view the images for that patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(No offense intended towards Ebolas victims. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it possible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Texas jury agreed Eolas 906 patent invalid. Good thing too!
Tweet from 30 mins ago!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We should start a protest against them now demanding that they return any money the received from the settlements.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
�Texas Jury Strikes Down Patent Troll�s Claim to Own the Interactive Web�, by Joe Mullin, Wired, Feb 9, 2012 5:26 pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trolling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: trolling
But +1 for the Three Billy Goats Gruff. Except that it's actually "Tre Bukkene Bruse" in the original Norwegian! Gotta keep those languages preserved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only solution to trolls...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
another biased article
https://www.insightcommunity.com/cases.php?n=10&pg=1
They sell blog filler and "insights" to major corporations including MS, HP, IBM etc. who just happen to be some of the world�s most frequent patent suit defendants. Obviously, he has failed to report his conflicts as any reputable reporter would. But then Masnick and his monkeys are not reporters. They are patent system saboteurs receiving funding from huge corporate infringers. They cannot be trusted and have no credibility. All they know about patents is they don�t have any.
�Patent troll�
Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: �we�re using your invention and we�re not going to pay or stop�. This is just dissembling by large infringers to kill any inventor support system. It is purely about legalizing theft.
Prior to eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the Supreme Court decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now some of those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked their chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don�t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back in the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all inventors, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
For the truth about trolls, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: another biased article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
limits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
to pay the patent fees after one has money whilst reduce the examination demand
For a patent application, if it is published after 18 months from the filing date, then it should be examined only when the applicant make a request. While before the very time he makes the request, his application shall not be protected so everyone may use the published invention roylty free even it is granted sometime later. This bargin is to prevent the applicant to sell his patent application while without paying the patent fees for that time.
As a result, there are two merits:
For the poor individual inventors, he may request an examination when he has found the buyer of the invention.
For the USPTO, many applications which do not mean to be carried out at all shall not be examined at all to allow the USPTO have much more time to examine those really in a hurry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]