W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-plugins@w3.org > August 2003

University of Calif. Q&A on the Eolas/Microsoft lawsuit

From: Richard M. Smith <rms@computerbytesman.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:45:16 -0400
To: <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006001c36ff0$05821070$550ffea9@rms>

Interesting reading........  

http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2003/aug11art1qanda.htm

Questions and Answers about UC/Eolas patent infringement suit against
Microsoft 

Q. What is the patented technology that was at issue in the case?
A. The patented technology is a key component of the interactivity
available on the Internet today. It allows web page developers to embed
interactive programs in Web pages. A browser, equipped with the
University of California's patented technology, is able to deliver that
interactivity to the user. For example, the technology is used often
with stock information, video players, games, virtual real estate tours
and other interactive content on the Web. The patent allows the Web to
be a platform for fully interactive embedded applications.

Q. How did this invention come about?
A. In 1993, as part of the Innovative Software Systems Group at the UC
San Francisco campus, researchers Michael Doyle, David Martin and Cheong
Ang were working to transform how scientific information was created,
accessed and published. As part of their research, they began to explore
the possibility of expanding the sciences by allowing scientists to read
not only what was published online but to interact with that data. While
early Web participants struggled to implement helper applications, Doyle
and his team were already examining the potential of the Web to become a
platform for fully interactive embedded applications. The UC patent
originated from this research.

Q. If the patent relates to browser technology, why was the Windows
product discussed during the case?
A. Microsoft bundled its Internet Explorer Web browser with its Windows
product and made them an integrated, single product. Microsoft viewed
bundling Internet Explorer with Windows as essential to garnering
browser market share, which Microsoft viewed as critical to preserving
its Windows franchise.

Q. Why wasn't UC a plaintiff at the beginning of the case?
A. UC joined the lawsuit when Microsoft made allegations that Eolas
could not proceed in its name alone. UC joined because it is an
important lawsuit. The University expects to be fairly compensated for
use of its patented technology. 

Q. Won't this patent put a stranglehold on the Internet?
A. UC seeks fair compensation for the use of the technology made by
Microsoft's Internet Explorer Web browser - use which has allowed
Microsoft to garner majority share in the browser market and, in so
doing, reap billions of dollars in profits.

Q. What is the relationship between UC and Eolas?
A. Eolas has had exclusive rights to the technology since 1994. Under
the terms of the license agreement with UC, Eolas is to pay the
University for products it makes under the patent and for licenses it
grant under the patent.

Q. Why didn't Microsoft license the technology from UC?
A. Microsoft was contacted in 1994, along with a number of other
companies, regarding the technology. UC cannot speculate as to why
Microsoft never pursued licensing opportunities then.

Q. Why did UC give Eolas exclusive rights to the technology?
A. In 1994, UC decided that Eolas, founded by Doyle, best understood the
technology and was in the best position to bring the technology into the
commercial marketplace. While the patent application was pending,
Microsoft and others adopted the technology for use in its products. The
result was that, by the time the patent issued, Eolas had been crowded
out of the marketplace.

Q. I understand that a key part of Microsoft's defense was thrown out of
the case?
A. One of Microsoft's defenses related to its claim that UC's patent is
invalid because a Mr. Pei Wei invented the technology prior to UC's
inventors. Following presentation of that evidence by Microsoft at
trial, the judge determined that, as a matter of law, no jury could find
for Microsoft on that issue.

Q. What happens next?
A. There will be post-trial proceedings, which will include an
accounting for Microsoft sales occurring after September 2001, the
cut-off date for damages determined by the jury. UC and Eolas will also
seek prejudgment interest. Microsoft will have an opportunity to appeal
the final judgment to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, although
university counsel feels confident that the Federal Circuit will uphold
the final determination.
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2003 14:45:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.29 : Thursday, 13 January 2005 12:07:55 GMT