Along with [Using Tcl to write WWW client side applications], Eolas [http://www.eolas.com/] is well known for inventing the Web plugin/applet platform, and the associated patent that they're currently enforcing against [Microsoft] [http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20021107.html]. Developer of the Eolas WebRouser [http://www.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1995q3/0566.html] [http://ksi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca/archives/HTML-WG/html-wg-94q3.messages/0059.html], which was cited by [Robert X. Cringely] as invalidating prior art [http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030130.html] for the infamous SBC Web patent. Cringely in other columns has written about how Eolas "is mopping the floor" in its judicial encounters with [Microsoft], by which he means that the company is winning court cases--maybe big and important ones. ... and has won! [http://news.com.com/2100-1012-5062409.html] (Well, subject to appeal). The W3C has issued this statement on the subject: http://www.w3.org/2003/08/patent And Eolas has issued this response: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1304252,00.asp In January, 2004, US District Court reaffirms the jury decision against Microsoft: http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,89086,00.html?nlid=AM In February, 2004, here's a blog discussing the fact that the patent is being reexamined in a prior art claim [http://weblog.siliconvalley.com/column/dangillmor/archives/001771.shtml#001771]. These articles [http://www.rkmc.com/pdf/ip_of_the_year.pdf] [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/02/technology/02patents.html], however, strongly suggest that the reexamination process will be futile, since the "prior art" that's been claimed was actually presented to the jury in the Microsoft trial. In March, 2004, the patent claim is "initially-rejected": [http://www.computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,90890,00.html?nlid=AM] [http://news.com.com/2100-1032-5173287.html?part=dht&tag=ntop] but the decision may not be final. Actualy, an initial rejection is the routine first step of a patent reexamination. The examiner puts up a straw man, consisting of the arguments presented, in this case, by the W3C, and then the inventor has an opportunity to rebut it. On May 11, 2004, Eolas submitted its rebuttal. [http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5210492.html] [http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5275745.html] Here's a mid-2004 article providing yet another person's opinion on the current state [http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/4994]. In August, 2004, things continue to roll along: USPTO rejects all 10 patent claims: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/19/0036217 MS files brief asking the infringement judgement be overturned based on Raggett's prior art http://news.com.com/Microsoft+appeals+Eolas+decision/2100-1032_3-5228882.html ---- [Clif Flynt] reported on his work for Eolas at the San Diego conference in 2000. [Michael Doyle] is Eolas' CEO. [Steve Ball] did a paper with Eolas at a Tcl conference: [http://www.usenix.org/event/tcl00/full_papers/ball/ball_html/]. [Steve Wahl] worked for Eolas on the [Spynergy] Toolkit and related projects. [Dave Roseman], of Eolas, sponsored the development of [TclCLIPS] ---- Check out [Slashdot] for ongoing debates on the subject - such as [http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/12/1613222] Computerworld covers Microsoft changing in acknowledgement of the patent: [http://computerworld.com/newsletter/0,4902,85804,00.html?nlid=AM] ---- [Jacob Levy] Sep 15, 2003: Ray Ozzie of Visicalc and Groove fame [http://www.ozzie.net/blog/stories/2003/09/12/savingTheBrowser.html] thinks he has prior art invalidating Eolas's claim. But it appears clear that his claims don't hold water: [http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78377&threshold=-1&commentsort=1&tid=155&mode=nested&cid=6953668], [http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78377&threshold=-1&commentsort=1&tid=155&mode=nested&cid=6954561] and [http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=78250&threshold=3&commentsort=1&tid=109&mode=thread&cid=6945536]. ---- Oct 31, 2003: the debate rages on - here are two new c|net articles (at one time, c|net used the Tcl version of Vignette - does it still do that?) [http://news.com.com/2102-7343_3-5099883.html?tag=st_util_print] [http://news.com.com/2102-1028_3-5100693.html?tag=st_util_print] http://chronicle.com/prm/daily/2003/11/2003111801n.htm ---- [Category Company]