The case dates back to 1999 when the University of California
and a tiny Chicago company known as Eolas Technologies sued
Microsoft, claiming that IE was infringing a patent for a method
that allows web browsers to access interactive application
programs.
The patent, issued to the
University in 1998, has been licensed exclusively to Eolas since
1994 but, according to Eolas' lawyer Martin Lueck, "Facing
competition from Netscape Navigator in the mid-1990s, Microsoft
updated its Explorer browser by using Eolas' technology and
subsequently bundled it with all of its Windows operating systems
since 1995."
The jury clearly agreed with him, and awarded damages of $520.6
million. Microsoft is to appeal the ruling, but confirmed to the
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) last month that it was making
contingency plans to alter Explorer, in case the appeal fails. Last
week a federal judge threw out Microsoft's argument that Eolas had
misrepresented facts at trial.
The W3C organised an ad hoc meeting of business and open source
representatives on 19th August to discuss the implications of the
case. A W3C report of the meeting reveals the fear that the patent
"may potentially have implications for the World Wide Web in
general, including specifications from W3C."
According to the report, Microsoft told the W3C that it "will
very soon be making changes to its Internet Explorer browser
software in response to this ruling. These changes may affect a
large number of existing web pages."
Jim Desler, speaking for Microsoft, told CNet News.com in late
August that no decision had yet been made as to how Internet
Explorer should be changed.
"We still feel there's a chance the judge may recognise
Microsoft's claim that Eolas involved itself in inequitable
conduct, as we believe Eolas had knowledge of... existing Microsoft
technology before submitting its patent application," said Desler.
"This discussion was excluded from the jury trial, and we think
it's a powerful argument."
Unfortunately this argument was rejected by the district court
last week and, while there are still several more post-trial
motions and the full appeal still to be heard, each failure
increases the pressure on Microsoft.
Last week Michael Wallent of Microsoft's Windows division warned
web operators that it might be worth using tools other than those
covered by the patent. He told CNet News.com, "There are
technologies that are already used today (that aren't covered by
the verdict) and all we are saying is, given the choice, use the
technologies that are already available to you."
