Microsoft is getting another chance to prove to the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that the disputed Eolas patent for browser plug-ins is invalid. The two companies have fought for eight years over the ownership of running executables in a web browser. US courts have awarded Eolas over $500m in the fight, but the ruling …
A crime has been committed
I don't care whether the patent was valid or not. ActiveX was a crime against humanity, and they need to be punished, preferably eternally.
I suppose it would depend how Wei released viola. Part of course/project work => belongs to UC. Done in own time as a personal project -> I think it belongs to him. If it was part of course/project work and therefore belonged to UC then can the prior art argument be used at all, seeing as they themselves owned it (by extenstion)?
The check finally cleared
This is doubtful at best.
M$ came in late on the Internet so if they do have a patent it would have been though acquisition.
Univ. of Calif. is not necessarily UC Berkeley
The University of California system has ten campuses with over 200,000 active students and over 1.4 million alumni. Unless the prior art was turned in as a major assignment, there's not really any reason for the Regents of the university system to have ever even heard of the project.
Better check the MS 'Evidence'
Microsoft is not above manufacturing evidence if it thinks it will help with it's court cases.
Remember the manufactured demonstrations from the IE-Bundling lawsuit(s) ?
- Xmas Round-up Ghosts of Christmas Past: Ten tech treats from yesteryear
- Analysis Microsoft's licence riddles give Linux and pals a free ride to virtual domination
- Review Hey Linux newbie: If you've never had a taste, try perfect Petra ... mmm, smells like Mint 16
- I KNOW how to SAVE Microsoft. Give Windows 8 away for FREE – analyst
- Geek's Guide to Britain How the UK's national memory lives in a ROBOT in Kew