Forum Moderators: open
A federal judge on Wednesday upheld a jury ruling that Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer (IE) Web browser infringed on a patent owned by Eolas Technologies Inc. and the University of California, and ordered the company to pay $520.6 million in damages.
[infoworld.com...]
If Eolas' judgment stands, they may go after some of the other companies and browser makers, but IMO they won't bother at all with individual end users. They asked for less than $4 per copy in use and were awarded less than $2 per copy.
This is one of the things that bothers me most. Patent in Jpg, patent on stream video, patent on cheese cake, yada yada.
There are even companies held only by lawyers that make their living this way. Buy Patent X - Sue companies x, y, z.
Sometime ago there was a company sueing small personal radios, and other things, because they had a patent on streaming audio.
Sometimes I feel I should only make things to my country, and forget my international sites. Iīm tired of some stupid laws (not just from US, in France are other stupid patents).
When will someone patent HTML? Just close the web...
[edited by: bluelook at 9:54 am (utc) on Jan. 16, 2004]
Bit like BT claiming that they had the patent on links. Which they did. But it meant that no other website could link to other pages. That would be the end of search engines, the end of websites with more than one page and thus the end of the internet. They could have sued every internet company in the world, plus those with websites. Fortunately, it was thrown out of the window in a legal case, otherwise we would not be reading this now!
The same should be of this case, the technology has been around for such a long time that they seem to have deliberately taken so long in order to get larger compensation from MS.
And for all of these that say > Yaaaay!: Your favourite browser could be next. And not many could sustain such a large financial loss; MS can but they won't like it and (for a change!) I think the public will be supportive of them.
Leave patents for other bigger things, like an engine that really replaces gas motors. Patents should be hold by people that really have some use to it, not just to sue people.
>>but "Yaaaay!" anyway
Not a good thing even if you don't like the company. Punishing a company over a bogus patent only hurts software developers. This also hurts web developers.
Greetings,
Herenvardö
I don't see why anyone is mad at Eolas. They are defending a patent which they got going thru the regular process. Without a patent system to protect inventors' ideas, we all wouldn't be enjoying most of the things we have today. IMO anger should be directed at Tim Berners-Lee, Microsoft, and other net companies for sitting on their hands during the patent's review process. They should have taken action to object and stop this back in the mid-90's.
BASIC: Succes for MS: the language was almost privatized
Huh? - There are many versions of BASIC, including the excellent and free WXBasic:
wxbasic.sourceforge.net/
Maybe you are thinking about MS' controversial licensing policies with their BASIC interpreter.
Visual Basic as a programming language is not considered a form of BASIC - you can learn more about the history of BASIC here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BASIC
MS tried to remove Java support from IE in the version 6.0.
Sun sued MS to have the MSJVM removed and replaced by the SUN JVM in all future Windows installations. During the case, MS annouced that they would drop JVM compatibility completely before the proposed deadline. Sun panicked and negotiated a deal to allow a transition period for any MSJVM developers - more info here:
microsoft.com/mscorp/java/
first versions of Windows were based on MAC OS
Maybe this is a language problem on your part - many people contend that Windows 95 GUI was a copy of the contemporary Mac OS GUI. No one disputes that classic Mac OS GUI was a direct rip-off of Xerox's PARC-developed GUI. The first versions of Windows 1.x-3.x bear no resemblance to the Mac OS.
Apple was a property of MS (until a judge made them separate).
?! - Maybe you are confused by the time in 1997 when MS invested in the severely faltering Apple corporation:
davenet.scripting.com/1997/08/06/MicrosoftBacksApple
The new versions are based on the old ones but they go on including ideas taken from unix and linux.
Mac OS X is based on a modified BSD, not UNIX.
It wasn't stupid in the 1960's, but by today's standards it is.
"The patent system has gone out of control. A closed community of patent lawyers is creating, breaking and rewriting its own rules without much supervision from the outside"
I absolutely agree. Maybe someone will patent "the act of inspire and expire" and we will all have to pay to breathe.
As I said, to patent something specific, but to patent a broad process? And no, this process sometimes doesnīt protect anyone. Many inventors donīt have money to get the worlwide patent, and only get a national one, so a big company, with money, can then get the worldwide... where is the justice on it? The one who have rights to a patent, isnīt always the one who created/invented it.
Him and his wife just pissed seven billion away on that stupid AIDs epidemic, vaccinating millions of children against diseases, and by buying computers for low income area libraries. That scum bag.
And where did Bill and his wife get seven billion dollars? Overcharging for software. Ripping off consumers and business's. Destroying other companies by creating a monopoly. Possibly holding back technology by keeping new ideas out of the market.
Why do I hate micro$oft? The college I attended, the next nearest college being 120 miles from my house, only taught microsoft. Why, because microsoft gave them their software for free. The only way to get a degree was to memorize useless microsoft software and jargon. I had to take a class in global domain setup. LOL, completely useless. What didn't I learn. Everything else. So I came out of college knowing nothing of php, linux, open source software, w3, or anything. Just a ton of one sided microsoft bs.
So this college is pumping out microsoft clones year after year. So what do local business have to use? Microsoft. So local business's must purchase expensive office software and other ms crap instead of openoffice and linux. Why, because they would have a tough time finding employees that could use them. So, first hand I get to see how bill got his seven billion dollars. Maybe these business owners could have given to charity, but they can't afford to because they have to keep buying the overpriced ms software.
So maybe bill is like our big daddy. He takes our money because we are too dumb to use it. He decides what charity our money goes too and for this you make him sound like a hero.
Nevermind me, i'm just bitter because I think of all the things I have had to learn on my own that I wish I could have been learning at college instead of wasting so much time preparing for the mcse. Oh yeah, another 700 bills in bills pocket. What poor college kid doesn't like to fork out $700 so that he can be certified to use microsofts products. I guess that free software he gave to the school got paid for in the end.
? Really?
I was under the impression that Apple was licensed to use the Xerox system. In other words, they paid for it. This is not a "rip off."
MS never paid a dime to Xerox or to Apple for this system -- they just used it. Cleverly, they slowly incorporated more and more features of the Mac system into Windows.
You are right, the early Windows systems did not look much like the Mac. By the time Windows had subtley absorbed sufficient GUI from the Mac that a suit could be launched it was too late.
Bill Gates has lots of great ideas, but he has done more harm for the future of computing than good by standing in the way of others.
However, the remainder of what I said still stands.
Eolas has been waiting almost ten years for their claim to go through, their frustration I uderstand, but in the meantime the web has grown around and integrated plug-in technology. I think they should step back and rethink their stance - a cash settlement would be fine if they drop the matter and let the web go on as it is. If not they will become 1) a major hurdle to every webmaster in existence and 2) a new tollgate which the web and software community certainly does NOT need.
As for 'prior art', if Microsoft did indeed already have a program working on Eolas' standards, I'm sure that if one looks back a little further he will find an even prior 'prior art' because Microsoft has invented nothing since Excel and Flight Simulator.
Bluelook, I also agree with you at all. But there is something where I have a question:
it isnīt only Microsoft under fire... itīs every company that have a browser.
Greetings,
Herenvardö
I heard that by US law Bill Gates has to give so much of his money away to charity.You heard wrong. While there might be tax advantages to giving chatity, there is no requirement.
Maybe this patent is not a good reason, but there are many other reasons to punish them.Irrelivant. What's at issue here is this patent and nothing else. even if there are other thing which they should be punished for (for which you're probably right), it should have no bearring on this case. When laws are applied incorrectly the rule of law breaks down.
MS never paid a dime to Xerox or to Apple for this system -- they just used it. Cleverly, they slowly incorporated more and more features of the Mac system into Windows.
I once read an article in WIRED that said Microsoft cleverly made an agreement early on with Apple to use any idea from its OS in Windows. Hence they can get away with copying the look and feel of Apple's OS (so long as Windows isn't identical of course).
I'm sure that everybody who work with Windows will be tired of seing blue screens, error messages, completely froozen screens, etc. The most funny issue came with WindowsXP. The system gets froozen less (but not the applications!), but when it gets froozen, it is worse. In too many cases I've had to unplug the alimentation and plug it again as the only way to unfreeze the system: not even the reset button of my box works when Wxp crashes!
This I find not true. Being built on NT, when XP crashes, it's able to halt the offending program and carry on. I've never seen XP itself freeze - except when restarting, but then my power button turned it off after a few seconds. The only time I've seen it 'crash' was when my old graphics card couldn't handle a complex (buggy?) piece of clip art. Even then, on reboot XP told me the likely culprit and all was well.
If your system is constantly crashing in fatal ways, it suggests you have hundreds of installed and removed programs, or perhaps never defragged, or the hard drive is too small, or the cache set wrongly, or something that's bogging it down. I'd suggest a full clean install of XP and only the programs you really use. That way it should carry on for years without problems.
I once read an article in WIRED that said Microsoft cleverly made an agreement early on with Apple to use any idea from its OS in Windows.
Never read that one- does Wired still cover anything to do with computers and the internet? :) Apple filed a lawsuit against MS regarding the look of the OS and lost. The law sided against Apple.
But really folks, why begrudge the man because he's rich? Some people will inevitably be rich so why not Bill Gates? If anyone's going to be rich I don't mind it being Bill Gates. What has he done to hurt anyone? Nothing.
He's fabulously rich. So what? It's not evil to be rich, so leave the guy alone already.
At the beginning of the twentieth century John D. Rockefeller had given over $350 million to charities. His donations to medical research and education would lead to the eradication of hookworm and yellow fever. Charities and individuals across the nation clamored to him with their causes, and he spent endless hours conspiring as to how to give his money to worthy causes without making them dependent upon him.At the same time his philanthropic efforts increased, ironically, his unscrupulous business tactics as the founder and manager of Standard Oil, which had brought him his vast wealth, were being exposed by journalists and challenged in the courts. The fortune he was donating had been constructed by a ravenous consumption of competitors and unfair business practices.
I guess history repeats itself,
What has he done to hurt anyone? Nothing. He's fabulously rich. So what? It's not evil to be rich, so leave the guy alone already.
So using illegal and shady practices in business to destroy your competition and drive possibly better more efficient companies out of business is perfectly alright if in the end you donate a small portion of your money which you stole from others to charities. I guess it even can make you into a hero to some.
Illegal implies criminal conduct. Bill Gates has not personally done anything criminal- if he did he would have been convicted and jailed or fined. He has not.
His company was accused of monopolistic practices by giving away IE, which back then seemed like a big deal but today is not. Giving away "free" software has since become a major industry. ;) Y
Anyway, this all off-topic and the point of my last post ("leave the guy alone, already) was to bring the attention back to the topic, which isn't a debate of whether Bill Gates is or is not a criminal. :)
they make their money because of consumer ignorance, not innovationbut it's not just MS doing this... its a global issue. I wouldn't panick about MS holding technology back, have you not noticed there are always several people who get the same idea at once (splitting the atom for instance) - it is only the ones who follow their intuition and idea's that get the credit. With several people having the same idea, someone is bound to publicise it...
I donīt know if the concept patented is "any process of making a browser use other smaller programs (plugins)". It it is, it doesnīt matter how you code. You just canīt call plugins from your browser. Unfortunately this is how it looks.
Open Source browsers would be risking it too :(
If it was a patent of a certain code or protocol, we must agree that it is possible. But if it is a patent of a concept...
Anyone who read the patent can explain this to us.
Microsoft can easily pay that amount, and I donīt believe that IE will be paid. They donīt want to loose their share of the market.
Iīm afraid for the little browsers. If most of them would be forced to disappear, IE would be the only one to stand :(
M$ will not really be the losers, the competitors that get dumped on by the precedence will be the real losers. MS will become the winners through their internal damage control.
Go Bill go!
Iīm afraid for the little browsers. If most of them would be forced to disappear, IE would be the only one to stand.
I had thought that this might actually be Microsoft's intention. So either way they win!
I donīt know if the concept patented is "any process of making a browser use other smaller programs (plugins)". It it is, it doesnīt matter how you code. You just canīt call plugins from your browser.
Someone said once that the war was the most strange game: the only way to win was do not to play. So if Eolas (an enemy) and MS (another enemy) begin a war, I only have to keep at the margin to win it at look they loosing :P
Greetings,
Herenvardö, Open Software forever
Who knows? Maybe XUL could be considerred a "plug-in". GIMP's power is in plugins, GIMP is no more.
Wouldn't it be ingenious is someone patented the concept of Object Oriented code sometime ago?
I don't like M$, but they have contributed alot of improvements. Generally, they force the little companies to rewrite to their standard, but sometimes their standard IS better. Rare, true...
But still, how small a jump is it to say "compiled code" to "scripts" to "methods". It COULD happen. And then what? Suddenly if I add a method/script/executable that a program can use it's a patent violation! Heh. This is why software patents suck. Did the EU end up saying "no"? Hope so. I wonder if they affect us Canucks...
Sometimes their is such a thing as a law thats "too ahead of the times". One that was put into effect before being thought out. Software patents are such laws, me thinks...
