 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Eolas wants Microsoft to stop browser distribution | |
|
||
| Time: 09:17 EST/14:17 GMT | News Source: ZDNet UK | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Eolas Technologies on Monday filed a motion to permanently enjoin Microsoft's distribution of its Internet Explorer browser amid a flurry of court filings by both sides in the pivotal patent infringement case.
Eolas, the sole licensee and sublicensor of a browser plug-in patent owned by the University of California, asked the US District Court in Chicago for an injunction against distributing copies of IE capable of running plug-in applications in a way the Eolas patent covers.
"If they're not going to pony up and take a licence under the patent, then they shouldn't be using it," Martin Lueck of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi said in an interview.
|
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 7 of 7 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at Thursday, October 09, 2003 09:32:14 AM |
|
Cause after all, Microsoft is making tons of money of Eolas' technology.
Wait... |
| #2 By 16302 (64.201.211.161) at Thursday, October 09, 2003 10:56:07 AM |
|
The patent office should immediately stop awarding patents for obvious processes. The regular mistakes by the patent office are putting a permanent strangle-hold on IT innovation for a very long period of time.
Just the other day Microsoft was awarded a patent for their IM feature of showing when the person on the other end is typing (to avoid cross-talk). Come on, that is plain obvious and should not be protected by a patent. We need a serious overhaul of the patent system. I personally believe that a patent should be effective only until the revenue from licensing reaches a predefined multiple of the R&D and registration costs to develop the patent. For example, if someone takes an hour to scratch down an idea, the patent will only be for a short period of time, where if someone comes up with a new compression algorithm after 5-10 years of R&D, the patent will last for a longer period of time. This approach will completely remove the abuse of the patent system and will remove artificial monopolies that are choking our industry. |
| #3 By 415 (199.8.71.121) at Thursday, October 09, 2003 02:02:00 PM |
|
The BS thing about this is that Microsoft (and all browser designers) implemented these features a long time ago, before the patent was issued, and these features also existed in the w3c HTML specifications. If this truly is patented technology, it should have been blocked from inclusion in those specs and products right from the get-go. This post was edited by IronCladLou on Thursday, October 09, 2003 at 16:03. |
| #4 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at Thursday, October 09, 2003 03:03:14 PM |
| ICL, you have that backward. Since those specs and implementations came first (prior art), the patent should not have been awarded. |
| #5 By 415 (199.8.71.121) at Thursday, October 09, 2003 04:11:57 PM |
| I meant that they (Crapolas) should have been defending their intellectual property this whole time. But either way of looking at it, Bob, this lawsuit should have been tossed out. |
| #6 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at Friday, October 10, 2003 05:03:05 PM |
|
I picked up a knife and stabbed my mother to death. This is a clear example of why knives are bad. They are only used for murder.
Do you see the problem here? Just because one stupid (or a 1000) software patent is awarded, isn't evidence that all software patents are bad. Just because one company (or a 1000) abuse their patents, doesn't mean all software patents are abused. First of all, if Eolas has a valid patent, then this isn't abuse. It is entirely legal and expected behavior. The issue is this: is Eolas's patent valid? Since there is prior art, I'd say it's not valid. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at Sunday, October 12, 2003 04:11:40 PM |
|
If an engineer process, say for making transistors, is patentable, why shouldn't software processes be patentable? Why shouldn't algorithms be patentable?
Could I name a good software patent offhand? Yes, LZW is a wonderful patent. Someone went to the trouble of thinking and developing an image compression algorithm (commonly used in the .gif format). Their investment should be protected. For those that think I'm just psycho, well, feel free to create and use your own format. A question for you - can you name any good patent for anything? If you nix the idea of software patents, it seems to me that you nix the idea of any patent. Perhaps the patent system needs some revision, I'm not too familiar with it, but I don't think it should be abolished with respect to software or any thing else. |
