mono

A few days ago, Keith Burgin wrote a good summary of the concerns raised by the Eolas vs. Microsoft case, and before that Eric Meyer and Jeffrey Zeldman did the same.

As this October 28 letter from Tim Berners-Lee, Director of the W3C, to the United States Patent and Trademark Office indicates, the Eolas case may not be over:

On October 24 2003, we filed a statement under 35 U.S.C. Section 301 presenting prior art not considered by the Patent and Trademark Office in issuing the '906 patent and explaining why the claims of the patent are invalid based upon that prior art. For the reasons given in our statement, we urge you to initiate a reexamination of the '906 patent in order to prevent substantial economic and technical damage to the operation of World Wide Web.

[...]

The impact of the '906 patent reaches far beyond a single vendor and even beyond those who could be alleged to infringe the patent. The existence of the patent and associated licensing demands compels many developers of Web browsers, Web pages, and many other important components of the Web to deviate from the fundamental technical standards that enable the Web to function as a coherent system. In many cases, those who will be forced to incur the cost of modifying Web pages or software applications do not even themselves infringe the patent (assuming it is even valid).

[...]

Global standards have been the basis of assuring interoperability on the Web. A patent whose validity is demonstrably in doubt ought not be allowed to undo the years of work that have gone into building the Web.

[...]

The barriers imposed on the information technology industry by the '906 patent are of such concern because they cause fragmentation in the basic standards that weave the Web together. Denial of access to any particular technology is a problem that engineers can successfully address, provided they have knowledge of the barrier before it becomes part of a standard. However, as the '906 patent threatens widely deployed, standard technology, the damage is magnified. If the '906 patent remains in force, Web page designers and software developers will face a dangerous dilemma. They may comply with globally-recognized Web standards resulting in an inadequate user experience of their content. Or, they may attempt to design to the various work-arounds chosen by different browser developers and face the uncertainly of not knowing who will be able to use their content or applications properly. W3C's development and the industry's acceptance of a single common base of standards for Web infrastructure arose out of a need to avoid just this sort of dilemma. The '906 patent is a substantial setback for global interoperability and the success of the open Web.

[...]

The '906 patent will cause cascades of incompatibility to ripple through the Web. I hope that you will take into account the fact that the material we have presented in our Section 301 filing bears directly on the validity of the '906 patent, that the merits of this prior art were not considered at trial, and that allowing the patent holder to control the use of technology required for compliance with World Wide Web standards is having a substantially disruptive effect on the Web industry and users both in the United States and around the world.

To be continued...

[via Molly.com]