

Patent troll may win ultimate web killing patent - grannyg00se
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/patent-troll-trial/

======
fpp
While there are 2 known workarounds for this "patent" (1. like MS did require
an extra click or 2. create the tags dynamically e.g. with JavaScript) one
should read Perry Pei-Yuan Wei (ViolaWWW) comments on that he wrote tmk when
the MS vs Eolas case was ongoing. Only available via I-Net Archive at
[http://web.archive.org/web/20100625180207/http://www.xcf.ber...](http://web.archive.org/web/20100625180207/http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/aboutEolasMicrosoft.html)

\---

"....My personal experience in this is highlighted as follows. I can fill in
the details later, but this will give you a quick idea. In 1991 I started
writing the Viola web browser. Starting at this time, on the public world wide
web development forum, and to some key players in web technology, I suggested
that I will be teaching my viola browser embedded interactive technology. But
of course it takes a while to just get the basic text/graphics browser
working, before the more advanced embedded-in-page interactivity can be built.
In April 1992, I made a released of the viola browser. By December 1992, I had
embedded objects working in the Viola browser. We at O'Reilly and Associates
gave demos to various people here and there. The best documented demo was in
May of 1993 -- We gave a demo and code to SUN Microsystems, of the viola
browser showing an interactive three dimensional plotting object (mathmatical
equation or 3D models) embedded inside a web page. I started releasing this
code around fall of 1993 and early 1994. Eolas filed the patent in November
1994.

Now, as you probably know, Michael Doyle (Eolas's CEO and sole formal employee
as I understand it), wrote to the net about his technology and eventually
intent to patent this. So of course people (including me) wrote back informing
him of prior arts. I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it one is supposed to
disclose to the PTO any relevant prior art for the PTO examiner to assess.
Doyle and I exchange letters, and I told him about this embedded capability in
Viola, gave him a paper on viola, which contains pointers leading to more
information including even the viola browser source code. Doyle ends up
mentioning the browsers Cello and Mosaic, but interestingly not Viola! Now,
Viola came before both Cello and Mosaic, and non of those two other browsers
had any kind of embedded interactive capability at the core of the
discussions...." "...Personally, perhaps the top two issues that strikes me as
odd, out of many in this case, are as follows.

Firstly, I was not allowed to demonstrate Viola to the jury. It was explained
to me that the judge had decided that my demonstration, of the Viola browser
from May 1993 showing interactive objects embedded in a web page, would have
been too "prejudicial" against Eolas. I was also not allowed to tell the jury
that Doyle knew about Viola. This I suppose is understandable but still
puzzles me a little and leads to unfortunate effects, as I imagine the Jury
ought to know these things. Lets not kid ourselves, everything said in court
by both sides were certainly aimed at swaying the jury. But facts are facts,
especially relevant ones.

Issue number two has to do with the Defense of the Inequitable Conduct
(Judge's ruling on the question of "Did Doyle know about Viola browser, and
intentionally not tell the PTO examiner about this prior art"). I felt that
this was just surreal, as put into the context of the history of the web and
this case. Suffice to say that it's amazing how people will believe whatever
they want to believe, even in the face of contrary evidence..."

\---

I guess the last 2 paragraphs of Perry Pei-Yuan Wei's letter tell it all -
there have been substantial issues how the law has been used in this case and
how evidence has been excluded in these previous rulings.

It also is interesting to look at other patents Doyle filed.

As always when you want to get a better understanding have a look at the
patent's file wrapper at uspto.gov to see the various communications during
the process of examining this patent. With that patent, particularly as Eolas
claims it was disputed since 1995, one would expect loads of communications
back and forward but there is less than with many others that are considered
undisputed.

------
samlev
One more reason why software patents are a toxic idea that should really just
go away.

------
DrHankPym
Why does it seem every patent troll case takes place in Texas?

~~~
clavalle
Here is a good answer: [http://www.quora.com/Patent-Litigation/Why-is-the-
Eastern-Di...](http://www.quora.com/Patent-Litigation/Why-is-the-Eastern-
District-of-Texas-the-venue-for-so-many-patent-cases)

