From Barrons:
Rarely will you see a software developer shed tears for Bill Gates, but the Microsoft chairman is actually coming off as the sympathetic victim in the Eolas Technologies versus Microsoft patent saga.
In fact, Silicon Valley and the intellectual-property community has quietly rallied behind Microsoft's unusual bid to have a patent overturned. As we first reported (Plugged In, Oct. 13, 2003), Microsoft was considering altering its Explorer Web browser in response to a shocking patent-infringement judgment awarded last August by a Chicago jury to Eolas, which is based in Wheaton, Ill. The changes would have affected millions of Websites all over the world.
But about two weeks ago, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the patent issued to Eolas, which now has 60 days to file an appeal. It was a rare event. The patent office has reviewed only 151 existing patents out of nearly 4 million issued since 1988, according to InfoWorld magazine.
The University of California filed for the patent in 1998 -- about two years after Microsoft launched its Explorer browser. The patent was eventually granted to the university and licensed to Eolas. The patent covers interactive technology that delivers Web pages and other applications to computers via the Internet.
The rub is that most technologists and intellectual-property experts thought the patent shouldn't have been issued in the first place. Some accused Eolas founder and former University of California researcher Michael Doyle of opportunistically claiming rights to the technology with the intention of suing deep-pocketed Microsoft for infringement. Supporting that theory is that, several years after receiving the patent, Eolas reportedly has no employees and no products.
Still, as of last August, it appeared that the ploy had worked when an apparently confused jury ruled that Microsoft had to pay Eolas an astronomical $521 million in damages. It was one of the largest intellectual-property awards in history.
The key word: was. While the legal battle could endure for some time, many intellectual-property experts expect the Patent Office's decision to invalidate the patent to stick. This isn't good news for the Minneapolis law firm of Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, which represents Eolas.
In a fit of premature celebration and self-congratulation, Robins Kaplan partner Martin R. Leuck crowed to the National Law Journal: "We bad!"
Well, they certainly aren't as good as they thought they were before the Patent Office's rare reversal. In the recent law journal article, Leuck credited his firm's success to the due diligence it does before agreeing to take a case. "We do a good job in the intake stage," he said. Perhaps not good enough, as it turns out.
3:50:44 PM
|