The case dates back to 1999 when the University of California and a tiny Chicago company known as Eolas Technologies sued Microsoft, claiming that IE was infringing a patent for a method that allows web browsers to access interactive application programs.
The patent, issued to the University in 1998, has been licensed exclusively to Eolas since 1994 but, according to Eolas' lawyer Martin Lueck, "Facing competition from Netscape Navigator in the mid-1990s, Microsoft updated its Explorer browser by using Eolas' technology and subsequently bundled it with all of its Windows operating systems since 1995."
The jury clearly agreed with him, and awarded damages of $520.6 million. Microsoft is to appeal the ruling, but confirmed to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) last month that it was making contingency plans to alter Explorer, in case the appeal fails. Last week a federal judge threw out Microsoft's argument that Eolas had misrepresented facts at trial.
The W3C organised an ad hoc meeting of business and open source representatives on 19th August to discuss the implications of the case. A W3C report of the meeting reveals the fear that the patent "may potentially have implications for the World Wide Web in general, including specifications from W3C."
According to the report, Microsoft told the W3C that it "will very soon be making changes to its Internet Explorer browser software in response to this ruling. These changes may affect a large number of existing web pages."
Jim Desler, speaking for Microsoft, told CNet News.com in late August that no decision had yet been made as to how Internet Explorer should be changed.
"We still feel there's a chance the judge may recognise Microsoft's claim that Eolas involved itself in inequitable conduct, as we believe Eolas had knowledge of... existing Microsoft technology before submitting its patent application," said Desler. "This discussion was excluded from the jury trial, and we think it's a powerful argument."
Unfortunately this argument was rejected by the district court last week and, while there are still several more post-trial motions and the full appeal still to be heard, each failure increases the pressure on Microsoft.
Last week Michael Wallent of Microsoft's Windows division warned web operators that it might be worth using tools other than those covered by the patent. He told CNet News.com, "There are technologies that are already used today (that aren't covered by the verdict) and all we are saying is, given the choice, use the technologies that are already available to you."