The Chronicle of Higher Education
News Blog
In the Comments

"[I] don’t see many job or grad school applications from University of Waikato, but I’ll sure not trust a transcript or diploma from that institution ... who knows what it might mean?” --perplexed

Neo-Nazi Gets University to Pull Master's Thesis on His Views

Recent Posts

Hurricane Ike Caused $710-Million in Damage to University in Texas, Official Says

Higher-Education Groups Want to Watch Over IRS's Questionnaire for Colleges

U. of Missouri Says Classroom Photo of Obama Violates Ban on Political Advocacy

Georgia Proposes Merging Technical Colleges

Bus Carrying Thai Students and Faculty Members Crashes, Killing at Least 21


Most Commented This Month

Palin Attended 4 Colleges in 5 Years to Earn Diploma | 206

Priest Charged With Dealing Drugs out of U. of Illinois Student Center | 56

University Disciplines 4 Students for Hanging Effigy of Barack Obama | 53

Southern Cal Deletes Muslim Scripture From Web Site Following Complaint | 44

Cutthroat Competition for Textbook Sales Pits UMass Faculty Members Against Bookstore | 42

By Category

Athletics
Community Colleges
Government & Politics
Information Technology
International
Money & Management
Northern Illinois
Research & Books
Short Subjects
Students
The Faculty

Blog Archives

Search

Keep Up to Date

Daily news blog: RSS  / Atom

Daily news reported by The Chronicle: RSS

Contact us

June 3, 2007

New Review for Patent Disputed by Microsoft and U. of California

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will allow the Microsoft Corporation to make a case that it is not infringing a patent owned by the University of California.

The case revolves around browser plug-in technology that was developed by Michael D. Doyle in 1993, while he was a researcher at the University of California at San Francisco. The university was granted a patent for the technology in 1998 and licensed it exclusively to Eolas Technologies, which is owned by Mr. Doyle.

The university sued Microsoft for infringement in 1999, and victories in the case have gone back and forth ever since. In 2003 a jury ordered Microsoft to pay more than $520-million to the university, but an appellate court partially overturned that verdict. Meanwhile, the patent office has gone back and forth on the patent’s standing. In a preliminary ruling in 2004 it declared the patent invalid. But in 2005 the office reversed that ruling.

Last week the patent office agreed to revisit the question of who first invented the technology in question. Officials at Microsoft applauded the most recent development. Microsoft has maintained that it was the original inventor of the technology. —Scott Carlson

Posted on Sunday June 3, 2007 | Permalink |