RSSYahoo, Apple, Adobe, others named in Eolas patent lawsuit blitz
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 6, 2009, 11:27 AM
It's the same technology that was at the heart of a news-making patent suit against Microsoft: the patent held by Eolas Technologies that defines how a Web browser plug-in can activate functionality. A trio of Eolas patents was upheld under scrutiny in 2005, resulting in a battle in the nation's higher courts over whether Microsoft owes someone else for the right to use what could essentially be described as an "on-switch." It was a battle that brought a premature, if welcome, end to the marketing push for ActiveX.
But the final round of that fight never played out, as Eolas and Microsoft settled for an undisclosed sum, just as Microsoft won the right to argue the invalidity of Eolas' patents anyway. Since those arguments were never made, the 2005 decision upholding their validity stood.
Today, Eolas is using that decision as a platform to press forward with a colossal patent suit against a parade of new defendants, all of whom have something to do with the triggering of active functionality through a Web browser -- from Mac maker Apple, Flash maker Adobe, and electronic retailer Amazon to Frito-Lay, JPMorgan Chase, and Playboy Enterprises.
"All we want is what's fair," reads a statement to Betanews this morning from Eolas chairman Dr. Michael 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."
The showdown will take place where all great US patent lawsuit showdowns take place nowadays: federal court in Tyler, Texas. The lawsuit itself contained merely boilerplate text, listing all the defendants, citing willful infringement on the part of each one, and pleading for damages.
"As a direct and proximate consequence of the acts and practices of the Defendants in infringing and/or inducing the infringement of one or more claims of the '906 Patent and one or more claims of the '985 Patent, Eolas has been, is being, and, unless such acts and practices are enjoined by the Court, will continue to suffer injury to its business and property rights," the lawsuit reads.
The complete list of defendants is as follows: Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Argosy Publishing (publisher of The Visible Body), Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, GoDaddy, J. C. Penney, JPMorgan Chase, "transactional" adult entertainment provider New Frontier Media, Office Depot, Perot Systems, Playboy Enterprises, Rent-a-Center, Staples, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, Yahoo, and YouTube.
Touting the high value of the portfolio it's defending in a statement to Betanews this morning, Eolas lead counsel Mike McKool said, "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 [US] Patent Office on three occasions."
Complete list of losers: End-users, Microsoft, Eolas, Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Argosy Publishing, Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, GoDaddy, J. C. Penney, JPMorgan Chase, New Frontier Media, Office Depot, Perot Systems, Playboy Enterprises, Rent-a-Center, Staples, Sun Microsystems, Texas Instruments, Yahoo, YouTube.
Complete list of winners: Lawyers for the above.
Score: 0
|obviously they were waiting to see how the lawsuit would pan out with MS. Now they are going after the rest of them. What still gets me is why the F* do they wait soo damn long to file the initial lawsuit in the first place? Still seems to me they were waiting to see how popular (money-wise) these companies would be so they can squeeze out as much as possible rather than deal with it in the beginning
Score: 0
|"...and YouTube."
They didn't actually name "YouTube", did they? Do they know Google bought 'em?
Score: 0
|The suit names YouTube LLC specifically, referring to it as "a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware."
-SF3
Score: 0
|have to wonder why they are naming the subsidiary and not the parent corp though.
Score: 0
|My guess is, it has to do with the willful infringement theory. If you sue the parent company, you can't hold the parent company liable for the willful infringement of the child company. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here.)
-SF3
Score: 0
|There's got to be some responsibility involved at the top. The excuse of "not being involved with the subsidiary" would be disingenuous at best. Most of us would know it as a flat-out lie. I can't believe the courts would see it any differently, but....I've not yet had to deal with anything regarding subsidiaries, so I'll just go with your theory, whether or not it makes any logical or rational sense to me specifically. ;)
Score: 0
|It was my assumption that when a parent company acquires a child company, they take the good with the bad, and assume all responsibility of the prior actions of the subsidiary.
If they (parent company) get to reap the benefits of past successes of an acquired company, they get to suffer the consequences of past screw-ups.
Risk is part of business.
Score: 0
|It's ridiculous how a company like Eolas can come along and tell a company like Microsoft, for example, that they have to pay them to use technology that they (Microsoft) worked so hard to develop. None of these companies copied Eolas technology. They developed their own version from the ground up. The interactive web plug-in technology being used by Adobe and the other companies is as different from Eola's tech as Phoenix's BIOS was from IBM's BIOS.
Score: 0
|I think there is a need for software patents to a certain extent, but I think patent hoarders like Eolas should not be allowed to exist(if what Ive heard is true where they collect patents that others outside the company has made.
My proposal would be that only the individual or company who had a hand in development of whatever is being patented should have the right to own the patent. If that can't happen then the patent should be forfeited. Obvious exceptions are if that particular company merges or gets bought out. If a company owns patents and that company goes out of business, no one should beable to buy those patents for themselves and profit from them because they don't deserve any money that they get from it or any money they receive from defending that patent in court.
Score: 0
|I thought patents expire after 7 years.
Score: 0
|They actually only got one of the patents they are using in the last few days.
Score: 0
|I hope they will take huge amount of cash from the world's crappiest company apple. I would love to see that
Score: 0
|This is what is wrong about US law.
Score: 0
|Will someone please get rid of software patents already...god this stuff is stupid.
Score: -3
|