Could Eolas End Microsoft's Browser Dominance? 531
rustynail writes "The tiny Eolas web company is about to lock horns with Microsoft in a legal battle over a patent that Eolas owns covering all uses of plugins, applets, activeX controls and other similar technology. The difference here is that, according to
this article Eolas might not accept a payout: instead
they might exclude IE from using these technologies at all.. opening the way for a new browser war." We mentioned this dispute a few years ago, too, but an outcome to the Justice Department's case against Microsoft was far off in 1998.
Plugins??? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Plugins??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Plugins??? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the company was simply greedy -- greedy enough to exclude Mozilla and other free browsers -- they would probably just demand a large payout, then all the executives would retire, sickeningly wealthy.
This probably doesn't matter, though, because Microsoft is so big they will almost certainly find a way to prevent this from happening. It is even possible that Eolas is going public with their intention in order to scare Microsoft into accepting an even larger settlement. Even if Microsoft cannot brute-force the patent, they will probably try something like redefining "plugin" or somesuch, perhaps creating an easy way to statically link "plugins" on the fly. They would point this out (or whatever technique they could use) to Eolas, and then Eolas will either lose in the long run or simply accept a payout after all, for fear of losing anyway.
Still, wouldn't it be incredibly cool if Eolas could actually pull it off? Mike Doyle would be remembered as the hero of the entire computer industry, having done what the Justice Dept. and dozens of competitors could not do -- Ironically, using patents: The same system that has so often been wielded as a weapon to fight freedom and technology for simple profit.
Re:Plugins??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mike Doyle is the enemy. Software patents are so often abused, and everyone on slashdot knows it... How could anyone possibly view this as a positive thing?! If he wins this, Opera and Netscape will have to pay him too. Even if he makes exceptions for free browsers (something I haven't heard mentioned yet) it's still a dirty rotten evil software patent. "Bi-Directional communication with a webserver" could well even cover javascript-RPC tricks [apple.com]. Do I have to may Mike Doyle if I code something like that?
Re:Plugins??? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not, actually.
You see, the problem is that there is a really hard to define line between what is prior art and what is not. Most code is almost always in part using other pre-existing code, be it calls to OS functions or compiler supplied functions.
If I write a program that does something unique, using a whole mix of pre-existing function calls or even if doing nothing more than simply using a well established compiler, I'm still building my work off of other work.
If bar() is a function that returns an INT, and foo() is a function that takes and INT and returns a FLOAT, then is foo(bar()) something new because I put it together that way?
Let's say yes, for one moment. Let's say that I'm the first person ever to perform this combination to create a unique result. Then my patent obviously applies to the PROCESS of getting a FLOAT from an INT. This is a bad example because PRIOR ART already exists, but let's say it didn't.
Now, which do you patent, the whole idea of getting a FLOAT from an INT, or my exact way of doing it? If you patent my exact usage of the functions Foo and Bar then one could simply write another way of doing it. If you patent the ENTIRE process it's self, you might inadvertantly stumble upon prior art that you didn't know about, or someone later on might do the exact same thing for other reasons and then break your patent.
You are obviously then going to draw back on the argument that not all software is THAT simple. Some processes are NOT obvious and are VERY complex and should be allowed to be patented because they are more complex than either FOO or BAR or even FOOBAR. But then that changes this from a technical argument to a philisophical one. At which point does a method or process become so complex it warrents a patent? 10 steps? 30 steps? 50 lines of code? 100 words in the comments? 5000 dead chickens? 1 million dead lawyers?
Trying to define that becomes the whole problem with defining a clear cut answer to whether or not software patents should be legal. So in the end we're going to have to decide, is the entire computer world a mish-mash of interlocking patented ideas where everybody will always owe everyone else something, or is software an intangible expression of speech that can only best be protected through existing copyright laws, and patents simply can not apply here?
Re:Duh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Most software patents are utility patents. The problem is that patents are designed to protect an implementation, not an idea. Herein lies the problem.
For example, compare the patent on the first steam engine to the LZW patent. If I remember my history correctly, the first practical steam engine was not invented by James Watt. Someone else invented it and patented it, something like "Method and apparatus for converting steam pressure into mechanical energy". Watt wanted to build steam engines, but was blocked by this patent. So he modified the design a bit and ended up developing a better engine and dominated the market. This is the patent system at its best, protecting an implementation and simultaneously promoting an idea.
Contrast this with the LZW patent, something like "Method and apparatus for compressing and decompressing a stream of bits". Suppose I came up with a program which can decompress an LZW bitstream. Suppose further that my decompressor software is significantly different from that which was patented. Say for instance, that it reuires only 1/10th the memory and runs twice as fast on the same hardware as the patented implementation. I should be able to do this.
However, Unisys interprets its patent as covering the bitstream format, and any program I write which works with the format infringes. This is like saying that any machine which uses steam pressure infringes on the original steam engine patent. This is obviously (patently) incorrect.
A software patent should be like any patent on any physical object, IE a protection of the implementation, not the idea. A program which does the same thing in a different way should not infringe. This concept of software patent is sounding more and more like conventional copyright. Any program which is sufficiently similar to the patented program to infringe the patent also infringes on the copyright.
Patents exist to protect physical objects, since you can't copyright an object, only a document. Copyrights offer equivalent protection to documents as patents do to objects. Therefore, software patents are redundant and should be disallowed.
Well... that's the way it should be.
Re:Plugins??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't wait! Finally, we can actually look at actual *gasp* content!
It'll be like we can browse the web with just a web browser.
-transiit
End of the internet? Are you on crack?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, I wanted to moderate this discussion, but I couldn't help but respond to this one.
If you think the internet is based on browser plugins, then you are on crack. If not being able to use browser plugins would ruin your "internet experience" then you really have a problem. Embedding things into the browser was just a convenient way to use external programs from within the browser experience. That is all. This wouldn't mean that you couldn't download and use external programs. I am trying, but I can't think of how this would greatly impact ANY significant user of the internet.
Although I hate stupid patents, I have to kind of cheer about this one a little, only because it sounds like these guys might not take the payoff. I know, it is highly unlikely that they would turn down a huge settlement, but I think the article is asking the question "what if they don't?". Yeah, patent law sucks, but it ain't changing. The patents are out there, and people are getting new ones. As long as they take the payouts, the system won't change. SOMETHING needs to happen to wake people up to patent reform. If not, it will only get worse and worse. So I am kind of hoping this case will be a nightmare for everyone, for the eventual greater good.
Plugins, I can do without them (Score:4, Interesting)
Example PDF, I always disable the plugin and have acrobat launch externally. Inside the browser you don't have much control and the menu is not or only partially visible.
Same can be told of applets, media plugins etc. They only remove end user control. External windows containing an app to display a certain media type (whether a java app, audio or video) gives more control (you can close the app or iconize it and continue reading the page).
Some plugins are so irritating, such as shockwave which is almost only used for advertising, that I have fully disabled them. I can't stand reading a page with blinking and moving parts that I cannot click away.
Yes, even though I am principally opposed to patents, in this case I want to make an exception
Shockwave IS useful (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Shockwave IS useful (its not) (Score:5, Insightful)
Webbased chats ? like that one above ?
Needs no java, maybe some basic Java Script support if at all... There are alternatives you just have to look around and dont put a blindfold for
RANT STARTS HERE:
And for webdesign, maybe i am a geek or something but flash or shockwave sucks! html is easy and fast and with a good designer it can look and feel great. And i think even faster developed too.
( but its just a way of thinking, since i dont like moving things on sites, i like content and moving thigns dictract me from the content. )
Though i think for example movies in flash are oke, but not as a browser plugin, create a seperate protocol or something with a nice client around it if you like, but keep things simple.
it's not just design, it's ART (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Shockwave IS useful (its not) (Score:5, Funny)
joe cartoon [joecartoon.com] and Killfrog [killfrog.com]
Nomen est omen... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Nomen est omen... (Score:2, Interesting)
The US government and legal system has several times shown that Microsoft is above the law and cn pretty much do as they please. The times they have been found guilty, the sentences have been absurdely easy on them. What makes people think that all this would all of a sudden change just because a small company sues them?
Yes, their claim might be very correct, but imo sof was the claim of DOJ.
If the patent is as wide ranging as that... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:If the patent is as wide ranging as that... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:If the patent is as wide ranging as that... (Score:4, Informative)
It talked about excluding Microsoft. It said nothing about excluding the competition. His gripe is with Microsoft, since they stepped on his patent blatantly.
I also get the feeling that he hates MS, and will do anything he "legally" can to screw them. This has to be one of the best.
Hopefully Eolas is not a public company, for then they can fight this the way he wants, and not shareholders.
Re:If the patent is as wide ranging as that... (Score:3, Informative)
Infact, he'd be on even stronger ground.
Win/Win (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft will of course fight this, but what possible results will there be?:
1)Eolas wins, microsoft is crippled.
2)Microsoft wins, stupid patents are crippled.
Either way, we(the consumers) win.
NO! If microsoft loses this, it's very BAD!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NO! If microsoft loses this, it's very BAD!! (Score:5, Informative)
A patent which, if you check [eolas.com] was first demonstrated in 1993 (when WWW traffic was 1% of the whole backbone) and filed in '94. And what was the big Netscape breakthrough in 1995? SERVER PUSH.
Having everything integrated under one hood is only an obvious solution in hindsight.
--DocL---
Re:NO! If microsoft loses this, it's very BAD!! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Aren't we being a little two faced. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft is beginning to use legal pressure against Free Software. Their next strategy will be to discontinue the badmouthing of Free Software in the press (as that's backfired), and start patent lawsuits against it.
How do you fight a $40 billion bohemeth that's threatening you? How about with its own tools?
Re:Win/Win (Score:5, Interesting)
So speaks the optimist. In reality, it's a lose-lose situation.
(This ha-ha, only serious comment is brought to you by the it's-the-end-of-the-world department.)
Re:Win/Win (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Microsoft wins, no further comments needed.
Both are preferable to #3 - Microsoft buys Eola, and uses the patent against everyone else.
I'm firmly on microsoft's side, and I'd wager even RMS is.
Re:Win/Win (Score:5, Interesting)
If Eolas loses then nothing changes. If Microsoft loses probably nothing will change for a while, but then people's websites will start changing and Eolas will still be a nobody.
Re:Win/Win (Score:5, Interesting)
Web producers having to concetrate more on content than presentation, imagine that!
I'm not advocating flash and java free websites, but it would diminish the crap that's out there today.
Re:Win/Win (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the "dark ages" were when documents required arbitrary and/or proprietary programs and services to be located, transported and displayed. That's the problem the web was invented to overcome, and now you want to go *back* there?
Get your own damned port for Flash/Shockwave/Java applets or whatever other nonsense that amuses those who like bright shiny things. Port 80 is for HTTP and HTML. Maybe XML.
More and more organizations configure their firewall to disallow all this other brain-dead rubbish from being received, and a good thing, too. It's too much of a security risk, and there's no business case for receiving any of it that I've seen.
I'll allow Javascript through, but not everyone does. Of course, more and more Javascript weenies attempt to obfuscate their tags and code so that the firewall can't easily detect it. That's even more obnoxious than spam, and is just causing another arms race.
Re:Win/Win (Score:3, Interesting)
That Microsoft has integrated IE into the core of their OS.
If a Judge decides in favor of Eolas, and Eolas demands an injunction, you can expect Longhorn to go away, and you won't find any copies of Windows being sold on store shelves (either virtual or real). Furthermore, the Judge could demand that Microsoft release an operating system update that would force Windows to exclude all embedding functionality in existing versions of IE. Your next security fix could indeed be the one that brings IE (thus Windows) to a barely usable state.
This could be the patent that killed Microsoft.
Also, if Eolas were to enforce some kind of "GPL'd software only" restriction, Microsoft would be forced to free their Windows source code.
Puts an interesting spin on the whole thing, doesn't it
Stupid patents, so what? (Score:2)
Why do people, on slashdot of all places, lament the troubles a large company will have fighting these stupid patents? Why should we feel anything at all for these orginizations? Does it really matter if some company "steals" some other companies idea and makes a better product out of it? Oh sure on some emotional level it does, but if it gets us, the users/consumers the product cheaper, better, faster so what?
Now of course I know the above argument is faulty but really think about it for a second, when you complain about the patent system... why exactly are you complaining? and for whom?
Re:Win/Win (Score:4, Insightful)
2)Microsoft wins, stupid patents are crippled.
Well, in response to 2 - it is not a stupid patent. This is a case where patent laws are a Good Thing - this patent was shown to Microsoft 2 years before M$ implmented the code, so it probably was "novel, and not obvious to someone versed in the art *at that time*".
And if M$ win, will it be because finally stupid patents have been realised to be bogus, or M$ has so much money to pay lawyers, that they just had to pay enough money to get the case struck down - or bought the judge or politicians?
I somewhat doubt it will be based on merit - but you probably know the US justice system more than me - fortunately, I only have to *hear* about the horrors....
Re:Win/Win (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, possibly a win/win (Score:2)
If Eolas wins, the dream scenario is that Microsoft start effective lobbying against software patents, and we get rid of them once and for all.
The nightmare scenario is that Microsoft buys Eolas, and any hope of ever challenging Microsofts browser dominance is gone.
The Question now for the /. crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
(Personally I'm against such a hypocritical move. The law should apply to all of us or it applies to none of us).
Re:The Question now for the /. crowd (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course it all sounds absurd to begin with. You cannot specifically exclude a company from licensing your patents (it's one of the fundamentals), and furthermore you have to set a equitable and constant, non-discriminatory licensing fee. Personally I think Microsoft will ground these guys into the ground, and given my feelings on absurd patents that add absolutely nothing to the general pool of knowledge (but merely describe the obvious and then hope for the checks to come rolling in), I'm very happy about that.
BTW: The Patent Itself (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Question now for the /. crowd (Score:2, Informative)
Since when was RAND licensing mandatory, except as a condition imposed by certain standards bodies and the occasional court order? Go find me a reference please, I'd very much like to see it.
Re:The Question now for the /. crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Question now for the /. crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
- The patent is upheld.
- Microsoft offers n billion $ for an exclusive license.
- The money finally corrupts the patent holders and they grant the exclusive license.
- Microsoft offers to license the patent "on reasonable terms" to anyone, thus not breaking the law.
- The side effect of this is that no usable open-source browsers can be made any more.
- Microsoft thus crushes the open source movement (at least at the desktop).
People who are saying "great!, let's use a stupid software patent to get Microsoft" are making an argument like the "good king" argument, which goes something like: "Yes, arbitrary power is bad, but there were good kings."
Sure, and they were followed by bad kings. The only answer is to get rid of the flawed institution, not hope for a good king.
What do you mean, "our stand"?! (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't speak for me.
Re:What do you mean, "our stand"?! (Score:5, Informative)
If you mean to say that everyone who reads Slashdot doesn't necessarily have the same view, then of course you're correct. But then your comment about political parties would be wrong, since in any party there are always dissenters about platforms central to the party (consider say, abortion, or capital punishment, or welfare, and the Democratic and Republican parties).
Almost certainly the original poster meant his comment as a form of shorthand, a reference to the dominant view (or at least the most vocal or up-moderated). Not everyone has the same view here, certainly. But there is a prevalent opinion that is propagated by the most up-moderated posts and the editors. If you can't see that, you're just blind.
Re:What do you mean, "our stand"?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, when I ask questions to the
Hell, the parent probably does agree that the patent system is flawed, he just resents being grouped with everyone else.
"Yes, we are all different."
--"I'm not."
How about you?
I'm going to cheer anyway. Here's why (Score:3, Insightful)
As a developer of open source software, I rely heavily on software concepts, some of which may have been patented at some point or other. Bad patent law kills software development, so it makes my job harder. If MS wins this battle, it'll be a blow struck against bad patent law. It'll also piss MS off quite a bit. MS doesn't try to profit from its patents too much; it uses them defensively against Eolas and its kin by doing patent swaps; the result of this case might be an MS lobby against software patents. This would make me really happy.
I don't see how I can lose this one.
No, you fool, think it through (Score:3, Insightful)
Generally we have to devote energy to combating both. Now, the two will combat each other. It's beautiful, really; all we have to do is sit back, and one, or the other, or both, will come out of this fray the worse for wear. If only this sort of "hypocrisy" could happen more often.
Won't end MS's dominance (Score:5, Insightful)
I very much doubt if Eolas' holding these patents would end Microsoft's dominance of the web browser. As long as future versions of Windows include Internet Explorer, the masses will continue to use it. It doesn't bother Joe Consumer what his browser does, whether it supports ActiveX et al. As long as he can double-click on "The Internet" he'll be happy.
Tim
Re:Won't end MS's dominance (Score:4, Informative)
> As long as future versions of Windows include
> Internet Explorer, the masses will continue to use
> it.
Windows XP very nearly didn't include Internet Explorer. Longhorn will probably not include Internet Explorer. It will be replaced with MSN Explorer.
The masses will be browsing Microsoft's network, not the internet.
"At this moment, it has control of systems all over the world.
And...we can't do a damn thing to stop it."
Miyasaka, "Godzilla 2000 Millennium" (Japanese version)
Re:Won't end MS's dominance (Score:2, Insightful)
Perfect. More bandwidth to us! And less IEML sites.
Re:Won't end MS's dominance (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows has pretty much adopted a total ActiveX stance. Its "Windows Update" is ActiveX. The desktop since Win98 has been ActiveX enabled. Browsing your own hard drive through Explorer uses those same ActiveX libraries.
Not to mention how many sites use Flash and Java, that the patent would also cover.
What makes me curious is that statment that they said. The publically claimed to be seeking to knock Microsoft off its high-horse.
Can Microsoft use that statement against them in court, claiming that they arn't even seeking a reasonable resolution?
They are publicly claiming to be trying to cripple Microsoft, knowing fully how well they rely on ActiveX for buisness. Isn't
If they win, it would certainly change the way MS works. But I've yet to see someone stick to thier guns when offered a billion.
Re:Won't end MS's dominance (Score:2)
They are publicly claiming to be trying to cripple Microsoft, knowing fully how well they rely on ActiveX for buisness.
Chicken and the egg. The patent was already there. If MS truely relies on that technology for business then they really do owe it to the patent holder. They took someones patent idea and used it for themselves.
claiming that they arn't even seeking a reasonable resolution?
Again. If MS was able to further corner a market and make a few billion dollars off of someones patented technology I believe that the patent holder would be well justified to expect a few or more billion dollars in return.
If MS was the holder of this patent would you expect them to act any differently?
Re:Won't end MS's dominance (Score:4, Interesting)
I hate reading this double standard bullshit ad nauseam.
I rarely reply to trolls, but I will this time.
When I first read the article, I came away with the same opinion-- This is a very bad abuse of the patent system. However after reading a few other comments, I realized that it's actually a very GOOD abuse of the patent system.
Here's the thing-- Microsoft has no problem using the current patent law against others. So, by facing this suit, Microsoft is forced to either a) stop making IE, or b) activley oppose the patent system. As others have stated, either outcome is acceptable. Either way, the long term result will probably be a massive reform of the patent system.
So, if you think about it, there is no double standard. Just a nice bit of "what goes around comes around".
Re:Won't end MS's dominance (Score:3, Informative)
Assuming the patent is upheld, and assuming Microsoft is found to be in violation, the law says the "resonable" resolution is that Microsoft cannot use the patent without permission. Period. They would have to pay damages and cease producing any product that violates the patent.
Microsoft is perfectly free to ASK for permission in exchange for money, but the patent holder is perfectly free to say "no thanks, I don't like your offer", no matter how much cash Microsoft offers. There is no law saying anyone has to licence their patent AT ALL, much less one that says they must do so in a "reasonable" manner.
-
Prior art? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft-bashers might think that this court case is a Good Thing, but really, having such wide-ranging patents is most definitely a Bad Thing.
Re:Prior art? (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft-bashers might think that this court case is a Good Thing, but really, having such wide-ranging patents is most definitely a Bad Thing.
Don't worry.
American (and worldwide) Economy depends so much on Microsoft that they just can't be defeated in court (remember the anti-trust case?) If Microsoft goes down, lots of mutual funds go with it. Think:
- 401(k) funds
- Pension funds
These two would impact people directly and in a terrible way, unfortunately.Sad, isn't it? Get used to having Windows & IE around for a long time...
Re:Prior art? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Prior art? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that is, alas, all too likely.
Re:Prior art? (Score:3, Informative)
I think Microsoft's in the clear on this one. ActiveX is based on COM and OLE technology, which has been around since at least Windows 3.1, which predate the patent's 1994 filing date.
Well, I for one hope Microsoft win... (Score:5, Insightful)
...since it really does sound like the kind of software patent all free programmers hate...
In any case... I really can't see Microsoft losing over something like this, to be honest. I mean, they're pretty much above the law, right?
We can look forward to a junk patent being overruled, wich is always a good thing...
Who owns Eolas? (Score:5, Insightful)
By the sound of the article, Mike Doyle won't be selling out any time soon, but he might not be the only one in this descision.
Re:Who owns Eolas? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, a search on Yahoo Finance for Eolas [yahoo.com] doesn't turn up any publicly owned companies that include that name.
But that doesn't necessarily mean that Doyle owns a controlling interest in the company. He could be answering to venture capitalists or other private investors and we'd have no way of knowing.
Re:Who owns Eolas? (Score:3, Informative)
*********
Investment Opportunities
Although Eolas Technologies inc. is privately funded at present, from time to time there may be opportunities for certain qualified investors to invest in the company. If you would like more information on investment opportunities in Eolas, please send an email to invest@eolas.com. Please make sure to include your personal contact and background information, as well as your investment history.
********
Re:Who owns Eolas? (Score:5, Insightful)
The great irony would be that Microsoft, who came late to the browser game, could then sue Netscape/Mozilla out of existence for patent infringement, even though it predates IE (unless you consider IE's NCSA Mosaic roots, though that, of course, was not created by MS).
I'm reminded of Douglas Adams' "Sirius Cybernetics Corporation", which, if I remember correctly, came to prominence by using time travel to go back in time and file patents so they could sue the original inventors for infringement.
Re:Who owns Eolas? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Who owns Eolas? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the outcome of such a sale would be that Microsoft owned the patent to plug-ins. If Moz & Netscape had to pay Microsoft royalties for use, then suddenly those browsers are non-free. Now, Microsoft can charge money for its browser if it wants. The end result would be that the rest of us would have to start paying to use a plug-in compatible browser.
Re:Who owns Eolas? (Score:3, Interesting)
Years ago, Microsoft's troubles with the US government had just began. Microsoft's strategy, and challenge, during this legal battle was to appear less aggressive and point out competition that could overtake Microsoft at any time. Microsoft entered a phase where they had to be less the domineering monopolist and more the successful business fighting for survival in a quick, highly competitive market to bring positive change for the consumer.
That phase is almost over.
In fact, if one accepts that the newest leaked strategy documents (aka Halloween VII) are genuine, there is proof that patent strategy idea is still very much alive within Microsoft. We've seen strategies outlined in previous leaked memos come to life. It is very possible we're about to see a new strategy deployed.
Microsoft welcomes this because its good for .NET (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's why. First suppose they fight hard and lose. Now the patent is entrenched. This hurts Netscape, Sun, Apple( via quicktime), KDE, and IE equally. In fact its a body blow to all of them. But now what, well two things can happen
Scenario 1: Microsoft Buys the company to get the now validated patent (say for 1 billion), and then puts JAVA and Netscape out of the embedded app bussiness. .NET strategy. .NET escapes this patent. And by abandoning IE's EMBED and APPLET tags who do they hurt? JAVA and Quicktime get hurt. MS who does not get hurt. All of their embedables work fine under .NET. And as far as browser wars go, this is great for Microsoft since Netscape wont be able to use Embeds. Everyon will want to use .NET.
MS wins.
Scenario 2: Microsoft is unable to but the patent. But they dont care! why because they have the
Am I crazy? No. Microsoft has already abandon support for the APPLET Tag in windows XP. And they have announced they will not be supporting the Quicktime EMBED's too. Basically they are phasing out everyone eleses Embedable objects as they prepare the way for .NET. This is also why it was critical for MS to say IE was "an integral part of the OS" despite the fact that it wasn't. It's going to be under .NET.
So their optimal strategy is to fight it n the grounds that OLE preceeded this and thus was prior art. If they win, there's also a good chance they could effectively own the patent itself since they would now have shown that EMBED's are covered under their OLE patent. On the other hand if they lose after fighting a good fight, no one elese will have stronger grounds for Prior art claims, the patent will be in force. and as explained above MS wins under that scenrio too.
Fat chance (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft has argued [wired.com] in the past that "Internet Explorer" was a generic term and hence can't be trademarked, while at the same time arguing [com.com] that "Windows" is not generic and hence can be trademarked.
Don't expect Microsoft to roll over and play dead. They'll just file a 1000 lawsuits in a 100 different jurisdictions against Eolas, and eventually bankrupt them.
Re:Fat chance (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone really believe that somone would turn down (say) $5,000,000,000 and choose to fight a legal battle that would inevitably destroy you?
I'll let the rest of you choke on the idea of Microsoft owning that patent...
Query: (Score:3, Interesting)
I need more information before I start caring one way or the other.
Meaning of Eolas (Score:3, Interesting)
I support MS here (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get suckered in by people who want to see MS suffer. Just remember that the only reason company X with abstract thought patent Y doesn't go after your little OS/FS project Z (or just take away your right to use a computer at all since you violate TONS of abstract thought patents every time you turn on your computer) is that you aren't worth it. Support MS on this one all the way.
Re:I support MS here (Score:4, Interesting)
Abstract mathematical thought isn't patentable and all software is abstract mathematical thought.
Nope, you're wrong. Software is the electronic equivalent of gears and pulleys. Put it this way: I can take any program and make a mechanical equivalent. That mechanical equivalent would be patentable. So why shouldn't software?
The cotton gin was nothing but an algorithm expressed in mechanics. If you can patent cotton gins, then you can patent software.
That said, my take on software patents is that it's such a new science that patents should be suspended until all the "obvious" inventions have clear prior art, say 2050. By then, anything new should be novel enough to deserve a patent.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I support MS here (Score:3, Insightful)
How about GPP (Score:5, Interesting)
Err.. this may not quite work out.. (Score:5, Interesting)
It looks like what these people are planning to do is merge with someone who produces a browser and in doing so block the others. All of the others.
Say they were bought out by AOL, and so Netscape/Mozilla were allowed to use the plugin concept, wouldn't this mean Konquerer, Opera et al. were also well stuffed?
Now let's look at the situation with IE. A lot of the plugins most IE people use are either created by Microsoft (ActiveX, various Media Player plugins), or companies such as Macromedia (Flash, Shockwave). It won't take too much to actually turn Media Player into a part of the browser, and it's in Macromedia's interests to let MS incorporate their technology too since not doing so would reduce the amount of people interested in producing content using their development tools.
It's no longer a 'plugin', it's integral to the browser. Less flexible, but a lot of end-users won't really notice. They'll stick with IE anyway since it's 'Part of the OS' (And no, I'm not arguing that one way or another here).
Opera, and especially Konqueror, don't have this degree of whack with Macromedia, and don't really have too much money to throw at them. Second tier support, at best, I'd reckon, especially is MS begin to play their "Deal with us, or deal with them. Your choice" card.
Microsoft end up controlling the web technologies that IE supports more so than now, people remain too apathetic to change, other browsers cannot keep up, the Browser War II is a resounding MS victory.
ah MS uses Netscape' splugin api..is anybody awake (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ah MS uses Netscape' splugin api..is anybody aw (Score:4, Informative)
Re:ah MS uses Netscape' splugin api..is anybody aw (Score:3, Informative)
False.
When it comes to patents you are perfectly free to allow some poeople to use your patent unchallenged while prosecuting anyone you like.
-
Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)
All they're doing is using their patents to try and start another browser war, knowing that whoever wins has to pay them anyway to use the patents.
Wouldn't this be a bad thing if it were anyone other than MS? If so, perhaps you should focus less on attacking MS and more on improving your own side of the fence.
Eolas doesn't have the money to win (Score:2)
I mean, duh. That's a to the letter account of exactly what happened to the US DOJ when they brought the antitrust charges against MSFT. You think the DOJ had shallower pockets than Eolas does?
Re:Eolas doesn't have the money to win (Score:2)
Re:Eolas doesn't have the money to win (Score:3, Interesting)
MSFT bought the support they needed from the Republicans, and when GWB got elected, sure enough, the whole tone of the case changes. That's not supposed to happen -- justice is supposed to be politically blind -- but that's what happened.
Besides, who knows, maybe MSFT *can* get W. chopping at the Eolas lawyers' knees. How hard would it be to imagine Eolas's financials being frozen because they're suspected of being linked to Al Qaeda?
(I seriously doubt that would actually happen, but it's pretty easy to imagine it happening.)
OT But...Who Plugged the Judge? (Score:2, Interesting)
"Eolas might not accept a payout:..." (Score:5, Funny)
How about Macromedia? (Score:2, Insightful)
Pronunciation guide (Score:5, Informative)
This is hardly the most important issue, but it occurs to me that the pronunciation of the word 'Eolas' (which is the Irish word for 'knowledge') might not be obvious to non-Irish-speakers. To assist you in participating in heated verbal debate on this topic, I offer the following pronunciation guide:
For those of you who don't speak IPA, this means it almost rhymes with 'toeless', and begins with a sound similar to the English word 'owe'.
I hope this will spare you the embarrassment of using pronunciations such as "Yo-lass" or "Ee-owe-lass".
Re:Pronunciation guide (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the important question to ask here is, will other browsers owe less than Microsoft if this case is decided in Eolas's favor?
Re-define "browser", or use Plugger (Score:3, Interesting)
I may not be up to speed on the official definition of "browser", but web apps don't necessarily need IE, Netscape, Mozilla, etc. to run. Just about any application that is capable of parsing XML and speaking HTTP can handle web applications. So the processing of content distributed over HTTP may not be completely covered by this patent. I seriously doubt that a C++ application that speaks SOAP could be considered a browser. Just a guess.
Also, it sounds like the patent is limited to inter-process communications between a "browser", an embedded application running in the "first window", and a "hypermedia server" running somewhere out there on a network. It seems to me if web browsers spawn an app like plugger that does NOT communicate with a hypermedia server and does NOT run embedded processes that communicate with the browser (plugger is all the browser speaks to; the application running inside of plugger, whether an applet, ActiveX thingy, document viewer, whatever, has nothing to do with the web browser that spawned plugger, right?) you should be fine.
I'm sure I'm missing something here. Friendly, informative clarifications are welcome.
Selective Patent Enforcement (Score:3, Interesting)
MS is essentially doomed if this lawsuit goes through. They may recover, but they'd have to change so much technology, that, in the meantime, many people would migrate to alternative technologies, marginalizing MS.
Just speculation, though. Don't mind me.
Eolas' acquisition strategy = they'll take cash (Score:3, Interesting)
Doyle article from 1996 DDJ (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1996/9602/ [ddj.com]
Could end more than Microsoft's browser dominance (Score:3, Interesting)
So if Eolas wins an injunction, I guess that means that Microsoft has to stop distributing Windows, too.
Sigh. We can dream, can't we?
yeah, it would help Microsoft (Score:3, Funny)
GPL'd Patents (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What a situation (Score:2, Funny)
Re:BT and hyperlinks? (Score:2)
Good luck to these folks. You figure, they settle out of court for a modest heap of cash, Redmond jacks up prices to cover the costs, more people turn to Open Source in disgust. Not a bad scenario...
Re:Yikes (Score:2)
Before we start cheering, perhaps someone good at deciphering patent claims should check just how broad these claims are.
Re:Yikes (Score:5, Informative)
His "invention" appears to be when these plug-ins perform work on another machine and then return the results. i.e. An embedded window in a "hypertext document" that requests information from a networked computer and then displays it. This seems to be the kind of patent that infuriates Slashdot normally, so it's perplexing how anyone would lines up to cheer them on, or to pretend that they're underdogs
Re:Problem with that plan. (Score:3, Insightful)
You can't refuse to license it at all, but you can refuse to license it to particular entities and set just about whatever license terms you want. For example, it'd be entirely legal to license a patent only to software distributed under an open-source license, or to license it to Netscape, Sun, etc. but refuse to license it to Microsoft.
Frankly I think a variation on that idea would be a good thing: the patent would be licensed royalty-free, but only to companies who in turn allow royalty-free licensing of all of their patents.