Re: [Patents] Microsoft to pay .5 bn for license to extend web-browser

[Gregory Aharonian <srctran@world.std.com>]

Hartmut asks about the Eolas patent:
>... I wonder why the Univ. of California didn't file it at the EPO.
>... Were they deterred by Art 52 or by the EPO's "technical
>... contribution" junktalk?

Probably neither of those reasons.  Most of the potential licensing and
litigation monies that Eolas can earn by asserting their patents will
come from companies in the United States (Microsoft, AOL, etc.).  Any
agreements can or will include their European operations enough that
having the European patent would not help them earn that much more money.
Also, as a startup years ago, Eolas had to manage their patenting dollars.
Getting a patent in Europe is still very expensive because of the language
translation problem (a much more effective deterrent than Art 52).  So by
avoiding spending a lot of money at a time when they had little money,
they give up some money later on.

The logic makes much sense for European software companies - maximize their
patenting dollars by applying for a US software patent.  But it is much
easier for European companies can do so if they can first file for a
software patent in Europe and then file a child patent application in the
United States.  The current nonsense about software patents in Europe,
and the extra hurdles European companies have to jump over, puts European
companies at a disadvantage.

So feel free to waste time proposing ideas like referring to IP as
"immaterial property", which I suppose would include the vast amount
of immaterial stuff that appears on this list.

Greg Aharonian