Talk:Eolas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Someone who (unlike me) knows the least bit about any of these three things might like to make the listings a little more specific. - Hephaestos 18:17, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Doyle, do not stick your PR releases here. You know that your patent is under re-exam. You do not describe witnesses as 'discredited under the NPOV either. --Gorgonzilla 14:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't this page be split up into company information and then the patent dispute? Protiek 12:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It's true that this article seems to define Eolas strictly in terms of its patent claim. But others may easily add more. But, this article reads more like a news article than an encyclopedic one.x 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the company notable apart from this instance of patent trolling? --209.130.150.117 04:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest we rename this page to "Eolas patent", since it's more about the patent than the company itself. Anyone disagree with this? Gavin Compton 12:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Patent[edit]

The section on the patent needs to be expanded as it's currently somewhat unclear exactly the patent describes and perhaps more importantly parts of it are downright confusing. For example, it says found that Viola does 'not teach nor fairly suggest that instant 906 invention, as claimed' but what the heck is the instant 906 invention? My suggestion would be (all sourced obviously) a brief description of the patent, a brief description of the what it has been ruled to cover and a brief explaination of what is the innovation vis-a-vis the Viola browser that the patent office currently believes exists. For reference, this is the version I'm referring to [1] Nil Einne 10:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


I think I'll patent the use of electricity to power computers. Then you must all pay me royalties! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.224.194 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


Pro Eolas edits by anon[edit]

This anon hasn't edited much else.

The sentence added at the end of the lede is not a fair depiction of what actually transpired in the courtroom. MaxEnt (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


Citations[edit]

It's an informative and great article; I have no doubt that all of this is historically accurate as a matter of interest but it cites only one source, and that's a Microsoft source. I think that some of those "External Links" might be movable to the "References" bit in order to make up for it. As a combination of being on my way out the door and not being bold enough, however, I won't touch it. Of course, if I'm barking up the wrong tree, that's fine too :-) 125.236.211.165 (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of statements about patent trolling[edit]

I removed the following lines from the article, in light of the fact that the second contradicts claims that characterize Eolas as a patent troll:

Eolas itself never made a popular web-browser product utilizing its patent, which led many to use it as an example of a patent troll. Nevertheless, Eolas did release a historically-significant version of its browser, called WebRouser, for noncommercial use in 1995.

I've erred on the side of caution here; I'm sure the term has been thrown at Eolas before, but in light of no references provided, I removed the statement. If anyone wants to work it back into the article, that's fine, but labelling it outright as behavior from a patent troll is wrong, since the company did introduce a product incorporating the patented claims (almost immediately), and popularity of software doesn't fit into anyone's required criteria for non-trollish behavior, as far as I know. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

See [2]. FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

When does patent 5,838,906 expire? Kaldari (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

New lawsuits[edit]

See http://blog.seattlepi.com/microsoft/2009/10/06/after-beating-microsoft-eolas-sues-everyone-else/ This stuff is spread on three pages: this one, ViolaWWW, and Pei-Yuan Wei. I guess one page is not enough for an IP company. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Texas Jury Strikes Down Patent Troll’s Claim to Own the Interactive Web[edit]

According to Wired, a jury found the patents to be invalid. That seems to be important information.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/interactive-web-patent/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.62.114 (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

File:ViolaWWW plotDemo.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg

An image used in this article, File:ViolaWWW plotDemo.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:ViolaWWW plotDemo.gif)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)