Apple (and others) sued; Web Browser Patent Infringement

Print
(0 votes, average: 0 out of 5)

Written by Frank R | 07 October 2009
Posted in SOMM Blogs - Computer Technology

After tackling Microsoft in court over its patent 5,838,906, Eolas is going after Apple and others for the same patent infringement. Eolas’s lawsuit with Microsoft started in 1999, and finally settled out of court in 2007. Eolas alleged Microsoft infringed on its patent with Internet Explorer, a [web browser containing plugins].  
The defendants named in the suit are Adobe, Amazon, Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, Go Daddy, Google, J.C. Penney, JPMorgan Chase, Office Depot, Perot Systems, Playboy Enterprises, Staples, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, Yahoo, YouTube and of course, Apple. I am assuming that these companies provided either browser plugins or their own browser. The main problem for Apple and its co-defendants may be that Eolas’ patent has been repeatedly upheld in Eolas’ other court battle.
 
Frank’s Take
 
I think the implications of this suit, along with the results of Eolas suit against Microsoft, will cause a major change in the web browser market. Basically, Eolas patented the idea of a web browser plugin. This mean any company/individual that created and distributes web browser plugins can be sued by Eolas.
 
Why are non-profit organizations like Firefox browser maker, Mozilla not named as defendants? This suggests Eolas’ patent serves nothing but as a “sleepy suit” application, a way for the company to earn monies through lawsuits against profitable companies. Another reason why current patent/copyright laws need updates for modern times. I have always stated that in order for a company/individual to patent an idea, they must produce a working prototype within a year of the patent issued date or otherwise forfeit the patent. This simple amendment would decrease the amount of frivolous lawsuits and fuel deeper innovation.
 
While some will dispute my idea of a working prototype time limit, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. It will still give small garage inventors a chance to produce new products yet keep sleepy suits to a minimum. Another change to patent law is to throw out “logical path” patents. For example, the GPU industry is heading towards consumer grade “external GPU’s units” due to the power requirements/heating issues. I should not be able to patent that idea “a micro processor contained within its own enclosure to provide enhanced graphic capabilities”, as this patent alone would dwarf innovation.
 
Whether you believe Eolas has a solid case or not, the trouble lies within the implications of the results. Eolas is no doubt simply looking to cash in a bullshit patent, but do you think this would cause a major dip in web browser innovation or not? I do, but feel free to sound off on the comment area below. (Note: Well written comments that support your argument will earn a 50 SOMM Points Bonus!)
Related Articles
  • The Next Big Thing: 3D Multimedia Websites...
    While the majority of industries aimed at consumers are tightening their belts and reducing R&D costs due to the global recession, some are still lookin...
  • ISP Data Caps, Digital Censorship?...
    Some of you live with the monthly stigma of a Data (Bandwidth) Cap set forth by your ISP. While many users won't ever use the 250GB (Comcast), 200GB (AT&...
  • Discovery & Amazon.com, Round One....
    In an up and coming column I'm writing about the online distribution of literature, I write about the coming of age of the last major media source (literature) ...
Trackback(0)
Comments (0)Add Comment
feedSubscribe to this comment's feed
min/maxShow/hide comments

Write comment
feedShow/hide comment form

busy