Microsoft and the University of California are getting ready to make their respective cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals on Thursday in the biggest patent fight in Web history.
Microsoft will argue that similar technologies, or "prior art," were demonstrated before Eolas filed its patent application--and the software giant may find friendly ears on a key portion of its argument with the three-judge panel selected to hear its appeal.
News.context
What's new:
Microsoft and the University of California are set to make their respective cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals in a crucial Web patent fight.
Bottom line: Microsoft may find friendly ears on a key issue of the patent battle--and still dodge the UC-Eolas bullet.
"We respectfully contend that the district court committed multiple errors, and we've requested the court to reverse the judgment and remand the case for a new trial," said Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler in advance of Thursday's brief oral presentation before the court of appeals. "Microsoft has maintained throughout these proceedings that the Eolas patent is neither valid nor infringed, and we believe the lower court ruling should be reversed."
Eolas referred questions to its attorneys, who did not return calls. UC spokesman Trey Davis said, "We're happy to wait for the court to rule on this," and declined to comment further.
UC and its Eolas spinoff won a $521 million judgment--later upped to $565 million--against Microsoft last year when a U.S. District Court in Chicago ruled that Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser infringed on an Eolas patent for opening third-party applications, or "plug-ins," within a browser.
With their win at the district court, UC and Eolas set off alarm bells throughout the online community as Web developers faced the prospect of Microsoft's altering IE in such a way that would break millions of Web pages. The suit also heightened a long-running debate within the software industry over the role of patents and the whole notion of intellectual property on the Web.
"Microsoft has maintained throughout these proceedings that the Eolas patent is neither valid nor infringed."
--Jim Desler, spokesman, Microsoft
Microsoft's appeal rests on three arguments.
The first is the company's contention that the district court wrongly excluded from the jury's consideration certain evidence of prior art. While several technologies have been bandied about as potential prior art in the Eolas case, the technology Microsoft tried and failed to show the jury is an early Web browser called Viola created by a computer programmer and artist named Pei Wei.
Microsoft also will argue that the District Court improperly construed the claims of the patent. Microsoft contends that the patent examiner granted the Eolas patent only as the plug-in system related to standalone executable applications, and that only dependent programs are responsible for invoking plug-ins in IE.
"It is undisputed that ActiveX controls, applets and plug-ins are components and not standalone applications," Microsoft wrote in its brief to the appeals court. "This court--applying a proper construction of the claims--should therefore hold as a matter of law that the accused products do not infringe."
The last of Microsoft's three arguments may be well received by the court of appeals. The company will argue that the district court
This is one of the exciting issues around simply because it affects not just Microsoft but many big organizations as well like Sun, Adobe, Macromedia and W3C.
There are arguments around about software patents. Some groups are into the "no-to-software-patent" movements. But for as long as patents for software are welcomed, issues like this Microsoft-Eolas case are expected to happen.
Basically, this case shows clearly that intellectual property has value. Apparently, both Micro$oft and Eola$ know. Fortunately, both can afford their respective lawyers...
This is one of the exciting issues around simply because it affects not just Microsoft but many big organizations as well like Sun, Adobe, Macromedia and W3C.
There are arguments around about software patents. Some groups are into the "no-to-software-patent" movements. But for as long as patents for software are welcomed, issues like this Microsoft-Eolas case are expected to happen.
Basically, this case shows clearly that intellectual property has value. Apparently, both Micro$oft and Eola$ know. Fortunately, both can afford their respective lawyers...
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
Microsoft may find friendly ears on a key issue of the patent battle--and still dodge the UC-Eolas bullet. 
Anyone think that MS will practice what they preach? Me either. :(
Anyone think that MS will practice what they preach? Me either. :(
There are arguments around about software patents. Some groups are into the "no-to-software-patent" movements. But for as long as patents for software are welcomed, issues like this Microsoft-Eolas case are expected to happen.
Basically, this case shows clearly that intellectual property has value. Apparently, both Micro$oft and Eola$ know. Fortunately, both can afford their respective lawyers...
There are arguments around about software patents. Some groups are into the "no-to-software-patent" movements. But for as long as patents for software are welcomed, issues like this Microsoft-Eolas case are expected to happen.
Basically, this case shows clearly that intellectual property has value. Apparently, both Micro$oft and Eola$ know. Fortunately, both can afford their respective lawyers...