Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica)
Well, that was quick. The jury in a patent lawsuit against eight companies that use "interactive web" technologies has found the Eolas Technologies patent to be invalid, according to a report at ars technica. "[Tim] Berners-Lee took to Twitter to cheer the decision. 'Texas jury agreed Eolas 906 patent invalid,' he wrote. 'Good thing too!'
[...]
Companies that depend on the open Web hailed the verdict. 'We are pleased that the court found the patents invalid, as it affirms our assertion that the claims are without merit,' a Google spokesperson told Ars."
(Log in to post comments)
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 0:30 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
Actually, this patent is about as valid as other software patents. So why make an exception in this case?
Oh, and this must be the first acquittal from a Texas jury on patent cases.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 0:40 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Even in East Texas, most of the jury has used the Web, so the usual tactics plaintiffs use in the patent court there don't work. My adviser from grad school was an expert witness in a patent case there, and evidently it rapidly devolved into a bunch of ridiculous demagoguery about socialists from left-wing Berkeley (where my adviser teaches) and Cambridge (Mass., where the defending company is) trying to rob a good Texas company of its property. The expert testimony showing that the two companies were exploiting a different algorithm was ignored, because why should the jury listen to some commie professor?But in the current case, even high school graduates have a rough idea of what the Web is, and can grasp the basic functionality in the Web circa 1993, so the usual tactics, like trying to smear Tim Berners-Lee as a European anti-property socialist, weren't effective.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 12:02 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
Dude, I sincerely hope you are joking.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 19:39 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
He may be overstating it a bit but it's no joke. There's a reason so many patent lawsuits are heard in east Texas.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 11, 2012 1:05 UTC (Sat) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
Something is rotten in the state of Texas...
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 11, 2012 2:56 UTC (Sat) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
I was not joking at all. If it goes to a jury and the plaintiff is Texan, this kind of thing is typical. In theory, judges are supposed to rule this kind of thing out of order, but not in this one particular court, which is why the patent trolls all go there.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 11, 2012 5:02 UTC (Sat) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] Yeah, and part of the rot is that judges there are elected. It's a good bet that the patent trolls are helping to bankroll the election campaigns of judges in that area. Good luck getting blind justice when the judge owes his position to the plaintiff.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 11, 2012 5:12 UTC (Sat) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] Correction. Texas state judges are elected, but this case was in Federal court, where judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The problems of elected judges are real, but they weren't important in this case.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 17:26 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
In this case, wasn't it a company with an empty office in East Texas being robbed by good East Texas companies that locals had heard of? I remember hearing that the Eolas had stopped the venue getting changed by suing companies in the area, which is bound to have some downsides in a not-so-impartial jury trial.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 1:15 UTC (Fri) by jg (subscriber, #17537) [Link]
No, we beat a patent 18 months ago being asserted against Novell and Red Hat using X Window System and other prior art.
The legal team did a great job: among other things, they carried an Amiga in to demo some of what was claimed.
And in that case, the patent was invalidated.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 8:58 UTC (Fri) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link] Did the extortionist have to pay the costs of his victims' defence?Will there be a criminal prosecution for fraud? If the answer to both of those isn't "yes", then this is at best a draw, not a victory. Yeah, I suppose it's nice to see one of the few occasions when the legal system of Texas doesn't make it the laughing stock of the world, but that's about it.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 9:41 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
Agreed. It says a lot about the priorities of our civilisation when the people actually responsible for improving the lives of everyone on the planet - those who actively work, day after day, on the systems that make such societal development possible - have to face a parade of accusations of "theft" from a bureaucracy appointed to tax and restrict the exchange of knowledge, and are presumed guilty unless they go to great lengths to demonstrate their obvious and undeniable innocence in front of an authority that has a perverse amount of influence but no moral legitimacy.
And yes, if anyone claimed "theft" repeatedly in any other context, they would probably end up being charged with an offence themselves. Why this isn't the case with patent litigation would appear to have something to do with the whole field being government-sanctioned opportunism with no penalties for wrongdoing. And people dare to use the term "piracy" for things like taking a copy of a piece of music.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 9:54 UTC (Fri) by slashdot (guest, #22014) [Link]
Maybe it's the patent officers that granted the patent that ought to be prosecuted and be on hook for the legal expenses?
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 10:01 UTC (Fri) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link]
That might be negligence, but it isn't fraud. Fraud is the act of making a misrepresentation for financial (or other) gain.
Applying for a patent on something which you know to be trivial or obvious is a very straightforward example of fraud.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 10:34 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
A year of salary deprivation for negligence would be a good corrective.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 13:13 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
Read Groklaw. Apparently (a) patent officers are expected to examine, on average, one patent a day. How they can do a good job I do not know.
And (b) there have been quite a few cases where a patent officer has tried to reject a patent, and the applicant has gone to court and forced the patent to issue.
So there you have it - the officers have no time to do a good job, and are afraid of their objections being over-ruled by a court.
Cheers,
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 14:46 UTC (Fri) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link] "…there have been quite a few cases where a patent officer has tried to reject a patent, and the applicant has gone to court and forced the patent to issue."All the more reason, perhaps, for us to restore the balance by also going to court and forcing them not to issue inappropriate patents.
What next? Posted Feb 11, 2012 4:37 UTC (Sat) by RogerOdle (subscriber, #60791) [Link]
The possibility that your work may be overturned by others is no excuse for not doing the best you can. Those who do not strive for excellence will never achieve it.
When it comes to patents (or intellectual property in general for that matter) is the change in the nature of our work. When productivity was low, most people spent their lives in farming or raising live stock to produce food. Innovation seldom happened because people had little education and little time to invent anything. Now mountains of food can be produced by a few people. Now the work of only a small percentage of the people is needed to produce all the things that we need to survive. This has freed up so many people to exercise their intellectual muscles.
There is less need for a patent system to motivate inventors any more. The major problems of common life in the developed nations were effectively solved decades ago. The time freed up for the common man has created a situation where there is a surplus of inventors. We have more patent problems because we have more eyes looking at the same problems and coming up with similar solutions. Patents should not be granted if they are obvious to someone learned in the art. Now there are so many people learned in the art that the amount of information to sort through is too vast.
The Internet creates two problems It never really forgets anything so if someone is determined enough, prior art can be found for just about anything you can think of. Then communication is so easy that the people inventing things are bouncing ideas off each other some much that it would seem almost impossible for there not to have been a "public" disclosure of some kind that invalidates a patent. It is hard to imagine a creative person in today's world working in an intellectual vaccume.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 15:57 UTC (Fri) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652) [Link]
True, specially the way patents are worded, by reading them you think there is an actual tangible device with all sorts of gears and handles.
Also the timeline is important, Web might have been more obscure at the time the patent was granted.
What next? Posted Feb 11, 2012 20:25 UTC (Sat) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> afraid of their objections being over-ruled by a court.
Really?? This is news to me. Examiners are the first instance and in many countries and regions there is a second instance for appeal that is part of that patent office but is expected to be objective and independent of the first instance. Additional mechanisms may also apply.
If you have exhausted these means you can then go to court with the full set of appeal mechanisms the legal system provides.
In no country and in no region I know of are examiners afraid of being overruled by court or even by the second instance. Examiners at the USPTO are known to have been reversed on many occasions but appear to be in no danger of being fired.
So please enlighten me as to where this fear exists.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 14:00 UTC (Fri) by kskatrh (subscriber, #73410) [Link]
But negligence is a tort, and if it can be proved that someone, e.g. a patent officer, acted negligently to cause injury, then it's possible to recover damages.
Perhaps if the USPTO were hit with enough negligence suits for software patents, maybe they'd just stop granting them (software patents) in general.
One can hope.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 15:07 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Perhaps if the USPTO were hit with enough negligence suits for software patents, maybe they'd just stop granting them (software patents) in general.
I suspect that someone would have tried that if there were any hope of it succeeding.
Negligence bad idea. Focus on fraud Posted Feb 10, 2012 16:02 UTC (Fri) by david.a.wheeler (guest, #72896) [Link]
I don't see how the patent officers could do a better job under the current (rediculous) system. If you only have about a day to do analysis, and "no" creates a lot of paperwork while "yes" does not, the answer is pre-ordained. It would not be fair to penalize patent officers for failing to do something that they cannot do. What's worse, the PTO would probably circle the wagons, and not invalidate any patents on review.
Sure, there's a problem that the patent officers don't have enough time to review, but they're completely deluged, because we allow software patents at all. If we brought patents back to their original scope, which didn't allow for software patents, business process patents, and so on, then they would have enough time to do a good job. In the long term, that's the right answer.
In the meantime, I think focusing on fraud by the companies who put in patents that are obviously fraudulent would be a good start. If people stopped sending in what, to my eyes, are fraudulent patents, the PTO would have a little more time to examine the rest.
Negligence bad idea. Focus on fraud Posted Feb 11, 2012 20:46 UTC (Sat) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> If you only have about a day to do analysis, and "no" creates a lot of paperwork while "yes" does not, the answer is pre-ordained.
I don't like to make assumptions but if you suggest that the USPTO grants patents because it is easy I can assure you that is not how it works. First of all the USPTO has a point system for various kinds of actions, balanced not to skew the system towards excessive granting. Secondly there is something called work ethics. Examiners and patent attorneys/agents frequently disagree but lack of moral compass is not an issue I have come across.
> If we brought patents back to their original scope, which didn't allow for software patents, business process patents, and so on, then they would have enough time to do a good job.
After KSR and Bilski old style software patents and business method patents are mostly dead.
> If people stopped sending in what, to my eyes, are fraudulent patents,
Fraud on the USPTO is a serious accusation. Do you have good examples?
On a less controversial note, it is known that the computer system at the USPTO is slow, inefficient and far from user friendly. An improvement here will ease the workload over all arts, not just those relating to software.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 17:20 UTC (Fri) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
US Federal Employees are immune to lawsuits for actions performed in the due course of their job.
A suit against a patent examiner would be tossed almost immediately after it was filed. Honestly if they had to fear being sued over stuff like this they simply couldn't do their job, thats why they have immunity.
I'm not a fan of software patents but blaming the people doing their job as instructed isn't the solution. The reason all these bad patents were issued is because the Supreme Court caused them to be by setting the bar so low that basically you could patent anything. The most recent ruling re-raised the bar substantially but all the patents issued in the interim 20 years now have to be tossed out one by one. Hopefully they will raise the bar even more with future cases and the patent system can return to some level of sanity once all the chaff in the system is exhausted.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 18:45 UTC (Fri) by faramir (subscriber, #2327) [Link]
Or we can just wait the 20 years or so for them all to expire. Unlike copyright, we still allow patents to expire.
What next? Posted Feb 11, 2012 15:40 UTC (Sat) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
I'ts not true that SCOTUS has blessed SW patents. That's FUD the pro sw patent forces want you to believe.
The source of this (false) meme is one quote from one Justice in one case that had nothing to do with software patents. It was the case Diamond v. Chakrabarty which found in a 5-4 split that GMOs (genetically modified organisms) were statutory subject matter, that is, patentable.
The Justice in question , Warren Burger wrote that courts "should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed." and that Congress had intended patentable subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man,".
From this single quote on a non-software case, pro software patent people argue that software patents must therefore be allowed.
There are so many things wrong with that line of reasoning it's hard to know where to begin. Moreover it's hard to believe that any lawyer making this claim is doing so in good faith.
First, this is one expression of an idea of one member, albeit a member of the majority, of SCOTUS on a different issue at a different time.
Second, proponents like to gloss over the part of the decision which reads: "which the legislature has not expressed" part of the statement. Of course Congress is free at any time to circumscribe the scope of patentable subject matter to bring such scope in line with the intention of the patent system- to promote the useful arts and sciences.
Third, extrapolating this reasoning to all future human activity is reckless in the extreme. Each question of 101ness- patentability has to be considered on its own merits and by the yardstick of whether it promotes the useful arts and sciences. There is nothing to say that certain types of human activity-almost all of which is novel, useful, free invention of the human mind and non-obvious -should not be patentable. If this were otherwise, then we wouldn't have any even the concept of determining eligibility any longer; it would have already been established once and for all and no further discussion on the matter would be necessary.
What next? Posted Feb 19, 2012 18:14 UTC (Sun) by java_developer (guest, #82469) [Link]
Wrong. you can't sue a federal employee who was doing their job even if they did it poorly.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 10:35 UTC (Fri) by fandom (subscriber, #4028) [Link]
They were granted a patent of their 'invention' that's a pretty good 'reasonable doubt' defence when it comes to fraud charges.
Even patent trolls have a right to due process.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 11:58 UTC (Fri) by Otus (guest, #67685) [Link]
> They were granted a patent of their 'invention' that's a pretty good
> 'reasonable doubt' defence when it comes to fraud charges.
+1
If there would be a penalty somewhere for 'fraudulent' patents, it should be a fine for wasting the patent office's time when you file for it.
If the patent was something completely unrelated to what the defendants do, it would be a different matter, but as I understand that wasn't the case here.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 18:32 UTC (Fri) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
There already is something called Inequitable Conduct. The sanctions were serious with loss of force of patent, loss of license for the patent attorney involved and in practice most likely also job and career.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 13:01 UTC (Fri) by simlo (subscriber, #10866) [Link]
Maybe sue to patent office for granting to patent?
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 10:47 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] >...the legal system of Texas doesn't make it the laughing stock of the world... Technically, it's the legal system of the USA, but such software patent infringement lawsuits usually take place in the district court of East Texas because of an impressive record of plaintiff-friendly outcomes and a court that seems all too willing to take on these types of cases. Remember that this is a civil lawsuit trial (as opposed to a criminal trial). As I understand it, these can be filed in any district court in the country. As a Texan, I'm disappointed and appalled that this happens here, especially when you consider just how big a tech-savvy knowledge and labor pool exist in Texas' major metropolitan areas (Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin, and San Antonio in particular). One of these days those East Texans will come around to understand the silliness of software patents (and how they've been exploited for their ignorance for all these years). Sigh.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 12:39 UTC (Fri) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]
Well, coming from a country where we don't have quite so many bad software patents, isn't it the liability of the patent office for issuing a patent on something trivial and obvious in the first place ? You can't blame the troll for litigating rubbish patents issued by a negligent patent office.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 14:38 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
"But the ATM kept producing banknotes! How was I supposed to know that it wasn't my money?"
If it were the case that someone in complete innocence approached the patent office and said, "I don't know if this is really innovative or not; could you issue a patent if it is?" and then fully believed the patent office's assessment (with an accompanying, heartfelt "Thank you so much! I never knew!"), then maybe you could shift the blame away from the troll, but I certainly don't believe that this is how people use the system.
What next? Posted Feb 10, 2012 18:40 UTC (Fri) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
The normal case is that one looks over the invention, makes a brief check for prior art, draft the application and file it in the hope of it being inventive. Examiners at the various patent offices are the experts on searching for prior art and will decide if a patent can be granted or not.
It does indeed happen that unexpected and fatal prior art comes up, wiping out the application.
This is how the system is used normally. Filing an application knowing of fatal prior art is useful only in extremely unusual cases and a grant cannot be expected anyway.
"file it in the hope of it being inventive" Posted Feb 10, 2012 18:49 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
I think your own words stand on their own and so I've promoted them to the title of the post. Good to know that monopolies are issued on the basis of people hoping to, as would be said colloquially, "get in on some action". That is, if there is any "action" to be had.
"file it in the hope of it being inventive" Posted Feb 11, 2012 21:05 UTC (Sat) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
You can do all kinds of searches and file an application in good faith yet still discover fatal prior art comes up in a country whose language or even character set is unknown to you.
Once you file an application it remains unpublished and thus secret for 18 months in order to give the applicant a head start over a competition that might not respect your rights. This leads to all sorts of other complications, particularly for those that file an application for something very close within those 18 months in which case the fatal prior art will possibly be found perhaps 5 years later. The definition of prior art varies but in Europe there is no limit on age or language
This is in good faith, not to get in on some undue action.
"file it in the hope of it being inventive" Posted Feb 13, 2012 10:28 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link]
Firstly, I think you perhaps missed the connotations of the word "action" which I was using colloquially, as in "The ATM on Main Street is giving out free money: let's get a piece of that action!"
On the topic of whether something is perceived as being inventive, we are told over and over that patents reward people who, through their work, enabled something that otherwise wouldn't have been done. That brings up the issue of whether every little thing, while important to advancing the state of the art, is worthy of the granting of a monopoly as a reward to the person or organisation who decided to share their discovery with everyone else (through the patent bureaucracy).
If, indeed, every little thing gets its own patent and the smallest advance is considered "inventive", then it becomes a speculator's game in more than one sense: people try and do the least work for the benefit of a patent ("in the hope of it being inventive") and perhaps try and get as many as they can for the work they have done, seeking to have a solid obstacle in front of their competitors.
And as we all know, in fields where many people can be doing the same kind of work, I don't see how it can be ethical to grant a monopoly to people for something that could well be developed independently within those 18 months of secrecy, either.
"file it in the hope of it being inventive" Posted Feb 20, 2012 20:34 UTC (Mon) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> If, indeed, every little thing gets its own patent and the smallest advance is considered "inventive", then it becomes a speculator's game in more than one sense: people try and do the least work for the benefit of a patent ("in the hope of it being inventive") and perhaps try and get as many as they can for the work they have done, seeking to have a solid obstacle in front of their competitors.
As mentioned earlier, novelty is not sufficient to get a patent granted, there is a requirement for non-obviousness/inventive step, exactly to stop the smallest advance. As the premise fails the rest does not hold.
Nevertheless I would really like to know why you believe "try and get as many as they can for the work they have done" translates into "a solid obstacle in front of their competitors". A few quality patents or even patent applications tend to be better and also cheaper than a shotgun approach with many low quality patents or applications.
> I don't see how it can be ethical to grant a monopoly to people for something that could well be developed independently within those 18 months of secrecy, either.
Such cases (secret prior art) is handled differently around the world. In European practice secret prior art is novelty destroying but cannot be used against inventive step.
The question here isn't how many *could* develop the same thing independently but how many *would*. Do you have any figures for the frequency of this issue?
"file it in the hope of it being inventive" Posted Mar 1, 2012 12:58 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] As mentioned earlier, novelty is not sufficient to get a patent granted, there is a requirement for non-obviousness/inventive step, exactly to stop the smallest advance. As the premise fails the rest does not hold.The patent offices are doing a really bad job, then. It is routine (even in the pharmaceutical world, the sector always used by pro-patent people to indicate the goodness of patents) to apply for patents identical to about-to-expire patents with one or two tiny details changed. Bingo, extra twenty years monopoly. It is also not unknown for patents *identical in wording* to existing patents to be granted, often repeatedly. And as for 'prior art', as long as this is restricted purely to patent searches and searches of a few journals it will remain wholly inadequate for the software field, where most prior art consists of implementations and a lot of that is source-unavailable.
"file it in the hope of it being inventive" Posted Mar 9, 2012 22:16 UTC (Fri) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> The patent offices are doing a really bad job, then.
Feel free to give specific examples of cases.
> It is routine (even in the pharmaceutical world, the sector always used by pro-patent people to indicate the goodness of patents) to apply for patents identical to about-to-expire patents with one or two tiny details changed.
In that case their own patent becomes the closest prior art and they will have to show that what you call "tiny details" are novel and non-obvious in view of the existing patent. This requirement is not any lesser just because closest prior art is their own.
> Bingo, extra twenty years monopoly.
Really? If you could change trivial details and get another 20 years just like that you would have a fantastic career as a patent attorney in front of you. The rest of us would have to slog it out according to the laws, rules, guidelines and conventions. Also pharmaceutical patents are heavily contested by generics who would challenge patents.
> It is also not unknown for patents *identical in wording* to existing patents to be granted, often repeatedly.
It can happen in theory but I have not seen any such myself. And in what way do you mean this takes place repeatedly? Again I would appreciate some examples.
> And as for 'prior art', as long as this is restricted purely to patent searches and searches of a few journals it will remain wholly inadequate for the software field, where most prior art consists of implementations and a lot of that is source-unavailable.
Well, if you assume something sufficiently wrong you might conclude anything. In reality what you call "a few journals" is a large collection. For instance EPO has an agreement for exchange with IEEE and ITU. Also plain Google is used. You might wish to look into "NPL" - Non Patent Literature.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 10:14 UTC (Fri) by mgalgoci (subscriber, #24168) [Link]
I am not a lawyer, but it seems like the plaintiff should be on the hook for legal expenses for the defense. It would be nice to see Eolas run into the ground via expense claims. You know, some school yard justice. Plus maybe an atomic wedgie delivered during a webcast for each person behind Eolas.
Does anyone know if the case was dismissed with prejudice?
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 10:30 UTC (Fri) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] > Does anyone know if the case was dismissed with prejudice? After deliberation, the defendants were acquitted by the jury. In other words, no. But this is a Good Thing™ as it sets a precedent for future case law. Contrast this with the scenario in which the litigants settled; then future similar lawsuits could go forward (including the other defendants Eolas had "lined up"). And it says that the East Texas jurors aren't as tech-unsavvy as some patent trolls would hope.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 11:10 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
>> Does anyone know if the case was dismissed with prejudice?
> After deliberation, the defendants were acquitted by the jury. In other words, no.
getting a verdict against the plaintiff (as happened in this case) is better than 'dismissed with prejudice'. The defendant cannot be sued again over this case, just like with the dismissal, but even better, this clearly states that the plaintiff was wrong, where a dismissal could mean that there was just something technically wrong with their case (missed a filing deadline for example), so this not only protects this defendant, it will help anyone else that is sued over this matter in the future.
Status quo is undesirable Posted Feb 10, 2012 13:29 UTC (Fri) by job (guest, #670) [Link]
While I of course agree with pretty much everyone that the rejection of a bad software patent is a good outcome, I think the bad outcome would have been better in the long run.
All that is achieved now is status quo in an already unbearably bad situation. This patent was just a drop in the ocean, and there are literally thousands and thousands more yet to come.
What is means is that there is indeed a limit on how crazy software and business patents can get. When the legal institution sees that this particular patent very obviously would bring the high tech economy down on its knees, it is thrown out. But anything less than a large scale economic downturn is pretty much ok.
I believe it would actually be better if the patent was enforced just like any other software and business method patent, and get every citizen to realize that you actually need to pay a license to write a web page and see for themselves what that does to the economy. That would surely lead to much needed reform.
Yes, there would be an economic dent and a few might even be out of jobs before there it gets fixed. But it would mean so much more to the economy in the long run. Better get it over with, the sooner the better.
Status quo is undesirable Posted Feb 10, 2012 13:48 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] I believe it would actually be better if the patent was enforced just like any other software and business method patent Wouldn't that be "selectively, against parties rich enough to be worth chasing but not rich enough to contest the enforcement action for longer than the NPE's backers can get away with bankrolling it"?
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 19:27 UTC (Fri) by woooee (guest, #54179) [Link]
Let's not forget public opinion, re SOPA. East Texas is getting a reputation as a scammers haven. This should affect things as it becomes more widely known.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 10, 2012 21:53 UTC (Fri) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]
as a career-long opponent of software patents, i am actually displeased with this ruling. this case had such far-reaching implications that a jury award for the plaintiff would likely have resulted in a final and conclusive discussion of software patents in the press and in congress. this case literally was the "nuclear option". having declined to rule for the plaintiff, this only stops Eolas this one time. they'll be back, as will the thousands of other claimants.
i don't want periodic defeats for plaintiffs. i want the entire mechanism shut off. ALL patents, GONE. if merck or genentech want to throw a hissy fit and claim they will stop developing drugs, so be it. if they would rather try manufacturing cars or running yogurt franchises, their share values will go to zero even faster. they'd do what everyone else would do in the absence of patents: DEAL.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 11, 2012 1:27 UTC (Sat) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] I see your point, and I sympathize with you in this regard somewhat, but I suspect that even this jury saw just what magnitude of a "Pandora's Box" would have been opened had they sided with the plaintiff. Either that, or the defense legal team made a convincing argument in their clients' favor (or, more likely, the plaintiff's attorneys failed to do so). Imagine the implications of a ruling in Eolas' favor: every commercial organization with an Web page and online interactive content would have to fork over unknown sums of money to a small company with only a few employees (and whose local presence is merely a closet-sized office in town). Even the Eolas jury could see this as asinine. But I don't think the debate over software patents stops here; I believe there'll be continued discussion on their (in)effectiveness in our society. Stay tuned...
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 11, 2012 21:12 UTC (Sat) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
> would have to fork over unknown sums of money to a small company with only a few employees
Just curious here, would small size make a company unfit to hold patent rights in your view? Large companies seem to have such a view and I have experienced it more often than I had expected.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 12, 2012 23:50 UTC (Sun) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]
Kearns exemplify what is wrong with patents. Someone of his intelligence should not waste his life fighting for the property of a trivial idea. Sure he got some million dollars at the end, but where is the progress of art and science ?
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 20, 2012 20:13 UTC (Mon) by SecretEuroPatentAgentMan (guest, #66656) [Link]
Why do you find this invention trivial?
As for progress it makes driving safer since it keeps the wind screen clean without undue distractions. I would be surprised if any modern cars did not have intermittent wipers.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 21, 2012 15:12 UTC (Tue) by JanC_ (guest, #34940) [Link]
There are also cars with single, "expanding" windscreen wipers, so not all cars do have them...
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 17, 2012 23:46 UTC (Fri) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link]
No, size of company does not matter. The existence of monopolies on software ideas remains highly offensive and deeply unhelpful no matter what entity holds them.
In practice some entities are much better holders than others (OIN better than apple, for example), because they can probably be trusted not to use the patents for harm.
Jury rules that Eolas's "interactive web" patent is invalid (ars technica) Posted Feb 12, 2012 6:51 UTC (Sun) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]
but it will take something as far-reaching as (threatening to) "shut off" the web for the patent issue to come to a head. next week and next month it will be business as usual...companies trying to innovate will be cut to death slowly and surely by patent cases, in which other juries will periodically side with the patent trolls. in those cases, the individual implications won't merit a public outcry.
in the same sense, it took a bill as potent and far-reaching as SOPA to get the public to finally rally against the entertainment lobby. a series of smaller bills would have eluded the public gaze, while causing as much aggregate harm.
the patent scam is still ON.
An unlikely patent reform advocate blogs... Posted Mar 14, 2012 1:26 UTC (Wed) by pr1268 (subscriber, #24648) [Link] I realize it's been a month since this discussion took place, but I just now read this blog post by Mark Cuban and was immediately reminded of your posting. Summary: Cuban actually wants Yahoo! to win its patent-infringement lawsuit against Facebook (and win BIG, like $50 billion big), just for the simple fact that this kind of financial judgment would finally stimulate a sincere discussion on software patent reform. Plus, once people notice their beloved Facebook having to cut serious corners in order to pay the legal bills (to another online Web entity, no less), they just might get their legislators involved in fixing the system for once and for all. An interesting perspective from a man whose fortune came from Yahoo! (they bought his Web startup, Broadcast.com, in 1999 for billions). Another summary of Cuban's blog posting available here.
|
|||||||||||||