That was a different patent, though. That was 5,490,216, whereas this is 6,857,067. There are a couple of key differences between that situation and this one.
First of all, in the MS case, the patent was filed 1993, whereas this one is from 2001; prior art should be far easier to find for this one.
Also, in that case, apparently the inventor had shown Microsoft his idea and offered to sell it to them. They declined and then implemented it themselves. Now, regardless of whether the idea was obvious in the first place, that's not a story you want a jury to hear if you're Microsoft.
Than kyou for the voice of reason. Yes as the inventor of the 216 patent it was pretty ahead of its time... while I understand the companies position in executing patent rights for other patents they own I do appreciate it when people check and find that I am not the inventor of record and also am no longer in the management or board of Uniloc. The personal attacks sure get tiresome.
Since you're here, could you give a statement on this current suit versus Laminar Research? How do you justify suing an independent developer over a common technology provided by Google? Why aren't you suing Google instead?
First of all, in the MS case, the patent was filed 1993, whereas this one is from 2001; prior art should be far easier to find for this one.
Also, in that case, apparently the inventor had shown Microsoft his idea and offered to sell it to them. They declined and then implemented it themselves. Now, regardless of whether the idea was obvious in the first place, that's not a story you want a jury to hear if you're Microsoft.