Filed under: Business, Developer, Web services, Adobe, Google, Microsoft, web 2.0
Eolas v. Everyone you've ever heard of
The second patent, what Eolas refers to as "a continuation of the '906 patent" claims to hold as the sole intellectual property of Eolas, "fully-interactive embedded applications [...] through the use of plug-in and AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) web development techniques." The second patent is so far untested in court -- and ostensibly covers more popular websites than you can shake a knock-off Louis Vuitton handbag at.
I haven't had time to delve into the language of the patent, but this reeks of utter nonsense to me so far. In my layman's oppinion, Eolas may have made a crucial mistake however, taking aim at so many large targets at once -- with one untested patent, and another which Microsoft already came rather close to beating.
Take the leap to read the whole
Eolas Technologies Files Infringement Lawsuit
TYLER, Texas, Oct. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Internet technology provider Eolas Technologies Inc. is announcing a Texas federal lawsuit filed today to assert the company's intellectual property rights based on two groundbreaking patents, including one that has passed two separate reexaminations at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and resulted in a $565 million federal court judgment in 2004.
Eolas Technologies conducts leading-edge research and development to create innovative technologies in data analysis, visualization, collaboration and networking. During the past 15 years, Eolas' innovations have enabled corporations around the world to enhance their products and improve their customers' website experiences.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, includes claims related to two Eolas patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906 ('906 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985 ('985 Patent).
The '906 Patent embodies technology first demonstrated publicly in 1993, enabling Web browsers for the first time to act as platforms for fully-interactive embedded applications. This advanced browser technology provides rich interactive online experiences for more than a billion Web users worldwide. The Patent Office granted the '906 Patent in November 1998.
The '906 Patent was the subject of prior litigation against Microsoft Corp. that resulted in a 2004 federal judgment of more than $565 million in favor of Eolas. The USPTO has affirmed the validity of the '906 Patent in three separate proceedings, including two patent reexaminations, the most recent of which concluded in February 2009.
The '985 Patent is a continuation of the '906 patent, and allows websites to add fully-interactive embedded applications to their online offerings through the use of plug-in and AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) web development techniques. The Patent Office issued the '985 Patent in October 2009.
Dr. Michael D. Doyle, chairman of Eolas, says the lawsuit is an effort to protect the company's patented technology.
"Intellectual property is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. The primary reason for this has been the success of the U.S. patent system in allowing the innovative company in a field to develop and market its new inventions without having competitors unfairly profit from the innovator's hard work," says Dr. Doyle. "We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely, years before the marketplace had heard of interactive applications embedded in Web pages tapping into powerful remote resources. Profiting from someone else's innovation without payment is fundamentally unfair. All we want is what's fair."
Mike McKool, head of the national law firm McKool Smith and lead counsel for Eolas, says he hopes the lawsuit will put an end to the widespread unauthorized use of the company's technology patents.
"What distinguishes this case from most patent suits is that so many established companies named as defendants are infringing a patent that has been ruled valid by the Patent Office on three occasions," says Mr. McKool.
The lawsuit includes some of the world's leading companies based on their unlicensed use of the Eolas patents in websites and other products.
The companies named as defendants include San Jose, Calif.-based Adobe Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: ADBE); Seattle-based Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN); Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: APPL); Newton, Mass.-based Argosy Publishing Inc.; Dallas-based Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI); Vernon Hills, Ill.-based CDW Corp.; New York-based Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C); San Jose, Calif.-based eBay Inc. (Nasdaq: EBAY); Plano, Texas-based Frito-Lay Inc. [a subsidiary of Purchase, New York-based PepsiCo Inc. (NYSE: PEP)]; Scottsdale, Ariz.-based The Go Daddy Group Inc.; Mountain View, Calif.-based Google Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG); Plano, Texas-based J.C. Penney Co. Inc. (NYSE: JCP); New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM); Boulder, Colo.-based New Frontier Media Inc. (Nasdaq: NOOF); Delray Beach, FL-based Office Depot Inc. (NYSE: ODP); Plano, Texas-based Perot Systems Corp. (NYSE: PER); Chicago, Ill.-based Playboy Enterprises International Inc. (NYSE: PLA); Plano, Texas-based Rent-A-Center Inc. (Nasdaq: RCII); Framingham, Mass.-based Staples Inc. (Nasdaq: SPLS); Santa Clara, Calif.-based Sun Microsystems Inc. (Nasdaq: JAVA); Dallas-based Texas Instruments Inc. (NYSE: TXN); Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO); and San Bruno, Calif.-based YouTube LLC, a subsidiary of Google Inc.<
The case is Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al., No. 6:09-cv-446.
For more information or to interview Mr. McKool about the case, please contact REDACTED
Eolas Technologies conducts leading-edge research and development to create innovative technologies in data analysis, visualization, collaboration and networking. During the past 15 years, Eolas' innovations have enabled corporations around the world to enhance their products and improve their customers' website experiences.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, includes claims related to two Eolas patents, U.S. Patent No. 5,838,906 ('906 Patent) and U.S. Patent No. 7,599,985 ('985 Patent).
The '906 Patent embodies technology first demonstrated publicly in 1993, enabling Web browsers for the first time to act as platforms for fully-interactive embedded applications. This advanced browser technology provides rich interactive online experiences for more than a billion Web users worldwide. The Patent Office granted the '906 Patent in November 1998.
The '906 Patent was the subject of prior litigation against Microsoft Corp. that resulted in a 2004 federal judgment of more than $565 million in favor of Eolas. The USPTO has affirmed the validity of the '906 Patent in three separate proceedings, including two patent reexaminations, the most recent of which concluded in February 2009.
The '985 Patent is a continuation of the '906 patent, and allows websites to add fully-interactive embedded applications to their online offerings through the use of plug-in and AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) web development techniques. The Patent Office issued the '985 Patent in October 2009.
Dr. Michael D. Doyle, chairman of Eolas, says the lawsuit is an effort to protect the company's patented technology.
"Intellectual property is the lifeblood of the U.S. economy. The primary reason for this has been the success of the U.S. patent system in allowing the innovative company in a field to develop and market its new inventions without having competitors unfairly profit from the innovator's hard work," says Dr. Doyle. "We developed these technologies over 15 years ago and demonstrated them widely, years before the marketplace had heard of interactive applications embedded in Web pages tapping into powerful remote resources. Profiting from someone else's innovation without payment is fundamentally unfair. All we want is what's fair."
Mike McKool, head of the national law firm McKool Smith and lead counsel for Eolas, says he hopes the lawsuit will put an end to the widespread unauthorized use of the company's technology patents.
"What distinguishes this case from most patent suits is that so many established companies named as defendants are infringing a patent that has been ruled valid by the Patent Office on three occasions," says Mr. McKool.
The lawsuit includes some of the world's leading companies based on their unlicensed use of the Eolas patents in websites and other products.
The companies named as defendants include San Jose, Calif.-based Adobe Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: ADBE); Seattle-based Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN); Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: APPL); Newton, Mass.-based Argosy Publishing Inc.; Dallas-based Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI); Vernon Hills, Ill.-based CDW Corp.; New York-based Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C); San Jose, Calif.-based eBay Inc. (Nasdaq: EBAY); Plano, Texas-based Frito-Lay Inc. [a subsidiary of Purchase, New York-based PepsiCo Inc. (NYSE: PEP)]; Scottsdale, Ariz.-based The Go Daddy Group Inc.; Mountain View, Calif.-based Google Inc. (Nasdaq: GOOG); Plano, Texas-based J.C. Penney Co. Inc. (NYSE: JCP); New York-based JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM); Boulder, Colo.-based New Frontier Media Inc. (Nasdaq: NOOF); Delray Beach, FL-based Office Depot Inc. (NYSE: ODP); Plano, Texas-based Perot Systems Corp. (NYSE: PER); Chicago, Ill.-based Playboy Enterprises International Inc. (NYSE: PLA); Plano, Texas-based Rent-A-Center Inc. (Nasdaq: RCII); Framingham, Mass.-based Staples Inc. (Nasdaq: SPLS); Santa Clara, Calif.-based Sun Microsystems Inc. (Nasdaq: JAVA); Dallas-based Texas Instruments Inc. (NYSE: TXN); Sunnyvale, Calif.-based Yahoo! Inc. (Nasdaq: YHOO); and San Bruno, Calif.-based YouTube LLC, a subsidiary of Google Inc.<
The case is Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al., No. 6:09-cv-446.
For more information or to interview Mr. McKool about the case, please contact REDACTED
Get a WordPress.com Blog
So, just how good at time waster games are you? Think you've got the stuff? Well, The World's Hardest Game 2.0 doesn't think you do.
Yes, amazingly, it's possible to have a sequel to a game called "The World's Hardest Game". It doesn't seem logically possible, since if the first one was actually the world's hardest, how could another one come along and share the moniker? It made me doubt the name in the first place. That is, until I tried the game.
The mechanics of the game are very simple. You are a small red square, ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
DAJ said 11:29AM on 10-06-2009
American's are so litigious!
Surely a time must come when someone uses common sense and realises that not every concept/idea can be patented
Reply
Andrew said 1:25PM on 10-06-2009
Thanks for extrapolating one company's suckage to insult the entire country. How very diplomatic of you. -1
Jared said 2:24PM on 10-13-2009
I must say as an american, historically we have always been outrageously litigious. I think this just proves that we are still the same greedy fuckers we always have been.
God Bless the dollar.
r3loaded said 11:38AM on 10-06-2009
Software patents need to die!
Oh, and Texas needs to sort out its patent laws. Now.
Reply
SSG Monty said 12:20AM on 10-07-2009
For the record, the court is a Federal Court that just so happens to be located in Texas. States do not have their own patent laws.
However, I am in favor of relocating this court to another part of the country where it would fit in better...say California?
Grant Robertson said 12:21AM on 10-07-2009
Throw 'em up, represent for the 9th District, yo!
Armed said 1:02AM on 10-08-2009
I couldn't agree with you more. I live in Texas and I would love to make a quick drive over to Tyler and punch these guys in the face. This is such total and utter bullshit. I wonder if I could get a patent on a special software technique used to make the letter "E" appear on a computer screen. Then I could go and sue everyone on the planet for 40 Trillion dollars. These guys really need to be shut down and put out of business. Looking at their web site just proves they're only good at one thing. And that's coming up with loosely worded patents and bogus "technology" that they can try and pull shit kind of bullshit with. I hope these companies group together and hand their asses to them. This is insane, and this needs to stop once and for all. Oh... I should state that this is just my "opinion".... I wouldn't want to get sued for having one. This is still America right?
imma said 12:01PM on 10-06-2009
*sigh* IP needs to die ;-)
It seems to be used only to stop people doing things rather than as a protection of what is being done
Thus it has outlived it's usefulness :-(
Reply
ericloewe said 12:01PM on 10-06-2009
This is absurd. This is the list of companies being sued:
- Adobe
- Amazon
- Apple
- Argosy Publishing
- Blockbuster
- Citigroup
- eBay
- Frito-Lay
- PepsiCo
- Go Daddy Group
- Google
- New Frontier Media
- Office Depot
- J.C. Penney
- Perot Systems
- JPMorgan Chase
- Playboy (WTF?)
- Rent-A-Center
- Staples
- Texas Instruments
- Yahoo!
- Youtube
23 companies. That's a lot of lawyers. This McKool guy is off his head, I mean, come on, how the hell did Frito-Lay make them lose money off this stupid patent?
You had your chance to do this before everyone else guys, now step aside and don't try to sue every single entity to ever use your abstract concept on the internet.
Reply
Andrew said 1:29PM on 10-06-2009
Agreed. The terms of the patent are far too general. Maybe I should patent the process of changing your geographical location by "moving." Then I could sue GM, BMW, Honda, Amtrak, Boeing, Schwinn, etc.
ericloewe said 5:41PM on 10-06-2009
Oops, I skipped a company... CDW. 24 companies. I hope they have jumbo-sized courtrooms. What's next? They patent the concept of an operating system and suddenly everyone owes them money?
Grant Robertson said 5:43PM on 10-06-2009
Oooh, good idea. I'm calling my patent attorney -- at the reputable firm of Dewey, Cheatam and Howe -- immediately!
Michael said 3:12PM on 10-06-2009
So Eolas Technologies is claiming to own Web 2.0?
Somehow have a patent on "...fully-interactive embedded applications... through the use of plug-in and AJAX (asynchronous JavaScript and XML) web development techniques." Wasn't that the point of AJAX? How does Eolas own the patent of technologies they did not develop?
Oh yes, our wonderful Patent Office granting patents for overly broad ideas again :(
Reply
Mason said 7:00PM on 10-11-2009
Maybe they'll grant me the patent for "a method of circulating blood around one's body using only natural means."
All of you, hold your breath or pay me a dollar.
Reply
Armed said 1:11AM on 10-08-2009
Ops... SSG is right.... I feel better about Texas now..... Just not about who's living down the road. All of these companies need to start a countersuit for fraudulent activity on Eolas part, and the patent office for allowing such broad patents to be acquired. Maybe in the end we can finally see these junk patents tossed out on their butts once and for all.
Reply
dashmercatp said 4:22PM on 10-09-2009
I see where this is going. Next they're going to patent that browser they made back in 1995 and sue Mozilla, Microsoft, Apple, Opera, and all those other extensible browsers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebRouser
Reply
p-diddy said 8:10PM on 10-09-2009
How about a link to the patent? I mean, since everyone is up in arms about it, shouldn't we see what the claims say (rather than a layman's summary)? Not defending the trolls (E.D. Tex sucks), but I'd still like to have an intelligent discussion about the scope of the patent instead of the torches and pitchforks. I can see that stuff on slashdot.
-p-
Reply