<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/plain; charset=utf-8">

#dgW: The World Wide Web Standardisation Consortium W3C convened for a
crisis meeting after Eolas won against Microsoft in its lawsuit over
the web browser extension patent.

#Wne: Press echo of the W3C crisis meeting on the Eolas browser extension
patent

#oEe: Heise reports about verdict in Eolas vs Microsoft patent litigation.

#trW: A small company that has been litigating successfully against
Microsoft over broad and trivial software patents related to browser
plugins.

#cfe: Eolas extracted .5 bn usd from Microsoft by patent litigation based on
this patent

#Wcs: Article of german tv program echoes Eolas propaganda according to
which Microsoft %(q:incorporated Eolas technology in its browser). 
Also cites Microsoft spokesman who denies this.

#eWn: discusses a text by patent buster Gregory Aharonian, who discloses
that he checked the Eolas patent for novelty before it was filed, and
he feels proud that a patent which he checked also stood the test of
litigation in first instance.  Aharonian however stresses that
verdicts in first instance are often overturned and the CAFC might
decide otherwise.  See also ensuing discussion, including an answer
from Greg to questions as to why Eolas obtained its patents in US
only: apparently they were small and deterred mainly by the high
patenting costs.

#hWo: Paul Festa of ZDNet.com reports how the Eolas patent endangers not
only Microsoft but also companies such as Apple, Redhat and Opera, and
how O'Reilly helped Microsoft fight the patent by presenting prior art
in court.  KDE speaker says KDE would have to remove its plug-in
facility if this patent is asserted.  Author speculates that patent
owner might not go after small fish and that the %(q:opensource model)
is, at least for Microsoft, not an acceptable alternative to
%(q:intellectual property).  The author seems to have forgotten (1)
that %(q:IP) in software means %(q:copyright), not patents (2) that
the licensees might well want to go primarily after the small fish, if
Microsoft pays them well for an exclusive license.

#hfr: The patent on which the litigation against Microsoft is based.  Not
applied for in Europe.  Claim 1 reads:

#WaE: Eolas digital signature patent EP 1018239

#fnl: Applied for in 1998, still under examination by EPO.  Claim 1 reads:

# Local Variables: ;
# coding: utf-8 ;
# srcfile: /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/phm/sys/mlht.el ;
# mailto: mlhtimport@ffii.org ;
# login: phm ;
# passwd: YYYYY ;
# feature: swpatdir ;
# dok: swxai-eolas ;
# txtlang: en ;
# multlin: t ;
# End: ;