- From: Kimberly J. Blessing <kimberly@kimberlyblessing.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2003 12:36:12 -0400
- To: public-web-plugins@w3.org
We don't know exactly what information Microsoft presented, but from UC's FAQ (at http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2003/aug11art1qanda.htm) we do know that Microsoft did refer to Mr. Wei. From the UC FAQ: "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." The NY Times also reported the following on August 12 (original at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F2071FFA3A550C718DDDA10894DB404482, copied at http://web.uccs.edu/ur/mediawatch/August2003/NYTimes_08_12_03.htm): "Microsoft called on another researcher, Pei Wei, who in the 1990's developed a technology called Viola at the Experimental Computing Facility at the University of California at Berkeley. The company argued that the Viola work predated Mr. Doyle's invention, but the judge ruled that the jury could not consider that issue in weighing the patent violation question." I'm no legal expert, so I am curious to understand why the jury was not permitted to consider the prior art argument in this case. Also, I am intrigued by the link that both Doyle (Eolas) and Wei share with the University of California. As the first post in this thread demonstrates, there has been an ongoing discussion on the Internet for some time surrounding who first demonstrated such a technology. We can only guess that some other politics are involved here... Kimberly Blessing
Received on Monday, 1 September 2003 12:39:14 UTC