Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Plans IE Changes Due to Plugin Patent
Posted by
michael
on Fri Sep 12, 2003 12:09 PM
from the hello-mozilla-anyone-paying-attention dept.
from the hello-mozilla-anyone-paying-attention dept.
aWalrus writes "Microsoft has outlined some of the strategies they may pursue for modifying the way Internet Explorer handles plugins (annoying the user may circumvent the patent) if they lose their legal battle against Eolas Technologies (which claims they invented the seamless procedure for running plugins). There has already been a previous ruling against MS which they continue to appeal. This is likely to have repercussions in the Open Source Community too. If MS is found to be infringing the patent, that ruling could be extended to other browsers like Opera and Mozilla. Usability expert Jeffrey Zeldman provides an in-depth commentary on this issue and its implications."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Plans IE Changes Due to Plugin Patent
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 803 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Opera is OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Opera is OSS (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.morbidgames.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 30 2004, @07:38PM)
This is likely to have repercussions in the Open Source Community too. [STOP] If MS is found to be infringing the patent, that ruling could be extended to other browsers like Opera and Mozilla.
2 sentences 2 different trains of thought.
Re:Opera is OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://overcaffeinated.net/ | Last Journal: Friday June 11 2004, @02:53PM)
You can take a look at the patent here [164.195.100.11].
Re:Opera is OSS (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://overcaffeinated.net/ | Last Journal: Friday June 11 2004, @02:53PM)
FAQ on Eolas/University of California patent (Score:4, Informative)
Who would have thought the organization behind BSD would screw software developers the world over in this fashion?
Bill Joy is rolling in his grave now.
BSD and the screws: A hopeful view (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://termwand.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 21 2005, @11:34PM)
Reason I think this is that (a) legally, it's a pain in the colon for lawyers to sue open sourcers; (b) it's horrible PR, just look at that company in Utah. Then again, lawyers tend to not give a flaming f--- about reasonable measures.
And to be clear, I hope to high heaven that they get as much of the $5 x 10^8 they can, because UC could _really_ use that cash to defray what the state's screwing them out of.
just don't mod me down, please.
Re:FAQ on Eolas/University of California patent (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Opera is OSS (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Monday December 06 2004, @10:11AM)
So correct me if I'm wrong:
We have a government-funded institution which exploits the laxness
of a government agency, in order to extort cash from industry.
Even to a Communist-Bleeding-Heart-Liberal like me finds that hard to swallow!
Your patent link is infringing (Score:5, Funny)
In order to read the patent, I must violate it.
Re:Opera is OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
Thus it won't have an effect on Opera.
If it does, it proves to me the the US is acting as a dictator in the world: Others' laws are irrelevant in the US, but its laws are forced down the throats of the rest of the world.
Re:Opera is OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:Opera is OSS (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 24, @08:16AM)
The prior art is the ability to view and launch programs interactively from a remote server (X can export its' display to your machine while running the app in the server. One of the claims mentioned in the patent application is the ability to run a program remotely and communicate with the client machine. X predates the patent by almost a decade).
hater's dilemma! (Score:5, Funny)
we hate patents, go MS!!!
umm... *pop*
Re:hater's dilemma! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://eric.halo43.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 16, @12:54AM)
Re:hater's dilemma! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://frymaster.ca/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15 2003, @12:58AM)
ridiculous of course. edison patented the light bulb, not the theory that electricity passing through resistance generates radiation!
Re:hater's dilemma! (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.wherethesundontshine.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday May 27 2003, @04:48PM)
Re:hater's dilemma! (Score:4, Informative)
(http://moonbase.rydia.net/)
It's from the stage play "A Man for All Seasons", which is about Sir Thomas More [luminarium.org], a lawyer and intellectual of the 15th-16th centuries.
There have also been several movies made of it, including the Oscar-winning classic [imdb.com] (recommended), and also a reasonably good TV movie [imdb.com] starring Charlton Heston.
Re:hater's dilemma! (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday September 24 2003, @10:01AM)
When Roper says that he'd cut down every law in Englend, he's actually being disobedient to God's law. So while this particular quote from the play indicts the common misperception of Christianity, real Christianity supports the same behavior More upholds.
NOTE: The above Bible passage is often misinterpreted to suggest that it empowers tyrants, etc. For example, some would say that the citizens of Nazi Germany were required, by the Bible, to support Nazi-ism. But that ignores a rather large, and obvious fact of life: Just because God ordains a person to a position, does not prevent that person from abusing their position or using their position improperly. God does not condone any authority that contradicts His own. So if you are trying to determine whether or not you should obey man's authority, the answer is yes, unless it contradicts God's laws as described in the Bible. If you're confused as to what those are, here's a good start. [biblegateway.com]
$.02.
Final (Score:5, Funny)
I hate patents: Go MS!
I hate flash: Go Eolas!
No flash...? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No flash...? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.milksucks.com/ | Last Journal: Monday September 15 2003, @12:30PM)
For some of us, those Flash sites are *already* inaccessible.
Re:No flash...? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Still, HR is the exception - most flash I'd be more than happy to see go bye-bye.
Re:No flash...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do i hear a HALLELUJIAH!?!? (even if i can't spell it).
While we are at it, i'd love nothing more than to ban HTML, Flash and embedded animated or static images from email and newsgroup postings.
The 160th person to send me 3 lines italicized, purple MS Comic Sans Font on a dark blue background, with 280kb of images IS NOT FUCKING CUTE ANYMORE!!!!!
Gawd, people.
Flash is for www.newgrounds.com
Re:No flash...? (Score:4, Funny)
Do i hear a HALLELUJIAH!?!? (even if i can't spell it).
While we are at it, i'd love nothing more than to ban HTML, Flash and embedded animated or static images from email and newsgroup postings.
The 160th person to send me 3 lines italicized, purple MS Comic Sans Font on a dark blue background, with 280kb of images IS NOT FUCKING CUTE ANYMORE!!!!!
Gawd, people.
*Warning - Satire intentional*
And while we are at it, we should abandon HTML on the Web as well. Terminal Screens and black and white were good enough for us in 1990 and it should be good enough for everyone now.
(Oh, scary new technology that makes things look pretty, me scared and don't understand.)
Maybe it was those darn XWindows developers that wanted to offer GUIs over a network that started all this silliness back in the 80s. Text is just good enough for everyone.
Damn those color loving, picture using liberals making the web look good and adding functionality. Maybe they are all terrorists and Commies anyway.
Give me a break...
Re:No flash...? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://example.com/ | Last Journal: Sunday January 30 2005, @05:19PM)
Re:No flash...? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.lp.org/)
What do you mean? I think the most fun aspect of browsing the web is when a website brings a 450MHz CPU to its knees while it draws its hand-rolled menu system! It's even more fun when the menu system doesn't even work! Oh boy, this is the end of an era.
Re:flash (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday July 09 2004, @02:18PM)
where would candystand.com be without flash and shockwave? homestarrunner.com?
If you don't use flash, you have animated gifs(not versatile) or movies.
I enjoy flash content. Who cares if it is in the page? I have a decent connection.
The only annoyance to me is popups and google is very effective at blocking those.
Re:flash (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No flash...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go to http://www.ninjai.com [ninjai.com], watch the 7 chapters that are available, and then tell me again you think the death of Flash would be the most wonderful day in web browsing history.
Flash isn't the problem, it's the gimmicky implementation of it. That doesn't mean it doesn't have some damn cool uses. Don't cure the disease by killing the man.
Flash is dead, long live SVG (Score:5, Insightful)
And since it isn't a proprietary standard, they don't need to latch it on through a plugin.
Everybody should take a look at SVG, it's really nice, and Mozilla already got some (basic) support.
Re:No flash...? (Score:5, Insightful)
"How shives a git?" Seriously this patent only affects American users as the patent is only registered in the US. My take is screw the Americans, and let the rest of world use plugins as normal.
MAYBE then the American law makers will see how truly dumb software patents truly are!
Re:No flash...? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Well, IE is developed in the US. The Mozilla Foundation is in the US. Safari is developed in the US. Konqueror gets significant development in the US (at the very least, due to Apple's contributions, if not others). That pretty much leaves Opera as the only significant browser that's in the clear. In the end, you're probably going to have to deal with the results of this lawsuit.
Re:Have you EVER heard of ... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://trolltalk.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 24, @08:16AM)
Re:No flash...? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.welton.it/davidw/)
[pbs.org]
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit200211
It's well worth a read, as it becomes apparent that maybe Eolas doesn't want to stop *everybody* from using the technology, or squeeze cash out of them.
In terms of Open Source involvement, Mike Doyle is actually a respected member of the Tcl comunity.
No flash...? Sounds like an improvement to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://trillian.mit.edu/~jc/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 14 2004, @05:03PM)
What I find really annoying is that current browsers insist that they are going to handle a list of file formats themselves, in their own window, and you can't do anything about it.
If they were forced to give me the option of saying to handle MIME type foo/bar in a separate app, that would be a huge improvement.
For example, on my cute new Powerbook, I've found that I can't feed things like Flash or XML to an independent app. The browsers (IE, mozilla, Safari) insist that they will handle those themselves, with their standard plugin. It doesn't matter whether I have an app of my own to handle them; my attempts to add the handler to the list are rebuffed.
The XML case is especially annoying. I'me testing some XML apps, and I'd really like to use some of them as plugins. I've asked a couple of times in the usual mozilla fora, and the answer seems to be "Tough luck; we're smarter than you, and we know how to handle XML, so we won't let you do it." Right. Their XML handler chokes on the slightest syntax error, fails to show any of the text, and thus gives a big middle finger to any poor schmuck trying to debug his XML generator.
Similarly, when I download MP3s or MIDI files to mozilla on my Powerbook, it insists on feeding them to the embedded Quicktime, and ignores my attempts to use a separate handler. The Quicktime plugin has only a dumb slider for backspacing, plus start/stop buttons. You can't do anything with the data at all. Again, I asked in a couple of newsgroups, and was told in no uncertain terms that I'm too stupid to know how to do such things, and I should just leave it to my betters.
It's interesting that on my linux box, MP3 and MIDI can be handed off by mozilla to a separate app. This lets me do lots of interesting stuff with those formats. But with mozilla on my Powerbook, the same thing doesn't work.
If "seamless" plugins are eliminated, maybe we can get browsers that are friendly to not-so-dumb users. It would be really useful (especially for XML and MIDI) if we could point to a separate app to handle all files of any specific type.
Actually, I suspect that the ability to do this might be buried in the current browsers. But it doesn't do me much good if I can't learn how to use it. And note that, with mozilla, Preferences -> Navigator -> Helper Applications doesn't allow one to override the builtin handling of some types (such as XML). Some types are handled by builtin plugins, and if they don't do what you need, tough.
SW Patents (Score:4, Funny)
Why this is actually good for microsoft, bad for U (Score:5, Interesting)
1) it makes
2) MS would love to be able to go to the judge and say, look we had to integrate the broswer into the OS. there was no other way since it lost all its stand-alon functionality.
3) MS can appeal and maybe ret the 0.5 billion penalty reduced. and they can string along the usefulness of IE till 2005 when longhorn emerges. then pfft. MS will say EOLAS was totally right and has a solid case against us and all the other browsers. And here's our payment in full so you can fund your legal effort.
4) Maybe MS will invest another 0.5 billion and buy the IP from EOLAS. its will have been tested in court and they could shutdown all the other browsers that didn't use
we're hosed.
Why not just pay? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.dailykos.com/user/eAddict)
Re:Why not just pay? (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Sunday August 08 2004, @01:54AM)
Microsoft has to pay $521 million for violations of the patent - they used the technology without getting a license first. It's a penalty. It does NOT give them a licence to use this patented technology.
To KEEP using the technology - they'll have to get a licence from Eolas. That's a separate negotiation - and Eolas can name any figure they want - $1, $100 billion, or even "Nope, sorry - you can't use this technology Microsoft no matter how much money you throw at us."
There's an interesting article by Cringley where he talks to the CEO I believe of Eolas. Check it out here [pbs.org]
Re:Why not just pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ngranek.com/)
"One possible scenario is that Eolas would have the power necessary to re-establish the browser-as-application-platform as a viable competitor to Windows. That would be an interesting outcome, wouldn't it? How much would that be worth? The Web-OS concept, where the browser is the interface to all interactive apps on the client side, was always a killer idea. It still is. It lost momentum not because it wasn't economically or technically feasible, but because MS made it unlikely for anybody but them to make money on the Web-client side. Therefore, nobody could justify the necessary investment to take a really-serious shot at it. It doesn't have to be that way, does it? Just think of how we could use this patent to re-invigorate and expand the competitive landscape in this recently-moribund industry. What if we could do what the DOJ couldn't, and in the process make Eolas and everybody else, possibly excluding MS, richer? Wouldn't Eolas stand to profit more in such a scenario than any kind of pre-trial settlement could provide? Wouldn't everybody else?"
You can call it a fact that Eolas is really pissed at Microsoft, gives a shit about the money and the only thing they want is kill IE.
Re:Why not just pay? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.ngranek.com/)
Patents.. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://autopr0n.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday August 06 2005, @01:30AM)
So, anyone with $700 to blow might could think up some random tech just to prevent Microsoft from using it, if they wanted too. If Eolas doesn't need to go after mozilla or any other browser if they don't want to.
(I'm also mentioning this because I keep seeing people post who believe you have to 'actively' enforce copyright and patent rights or lose them, and this annoys me.)
Re:Patents.. (Score:5, Interesting)
However, that's all rumour and/or speculation - even if Eolas *says* they won't go against Mozilla, who's to say they really won't. And Mozilla group won't have $500m to cough up if Eolas changed its mind sometime in the future, probably they'd get even more because they could then claim these browsers knew about the legal position, and ignored it.
So, would you stake all your assets on that?
No, so almost certainly, the alternative browser developers are going to have to cover themselves. This patent simply hurts everyone.
(there is another version: MS in conjuntion with Macromedia, Adobe etc, creates an alternative to the plug-in which they incorporate into IE. The majority of the web sites start using it, leaving the alternative browsers even less ability to keep up.)
Re:Patents.. (Score:5, Interesting)
You have to develop the alternatives now - which means you're taking the hit just as much as microsoft.
much harder actually, as microsoft has so many talented hands onboard - they can keep their time back to market smaller than anyone else. Opera would be a mess for much longer than IE.
furthermore, can OSS even rely on Eolas -saying- they won't prosecute? It'd be like SCO successfully suing IBM for using their SMP code, and then saying 'don't worry guys, i won't come for you next'. are you going to trust SCO? so how could you trust Eolas?
i mean, its not like microsoft's implimentation of plugins is what gave it the advantage. taking plugins away will not level the playing field. it will force Microsoft to angle for a proprietary seamless solution - that ultimately will be a huge loss for everyone.
if IE can no longer have embedded movie trailers in its browser, or embedded shockwave files - then it simply creates an alternative. Some MS-proprietary data streaming service. if there is no hypertext involved - then it doesn't infringe on the patent. you can have plugins and seamless integration all you want if it isn't 'hypermedia'.
which simply means - unless things change - expect to see a beefed up version of Media Player and a proprietary content network to support it.
this is a terrible loss for open standards.
It might actually be nice.... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~wowbagger/journal/87552 | Last Journal: Monday September 03, @08:07PM)
An IE Change!? (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday October 03 2003, @09:38AM)
WHOA!
Re:A change for the good? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://overcaffeinated.net/ | Last Journal: Friday June 11 2004, @02:53PM)
Odd behavior from MS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this suit is so strong they know they are going to lose or maybe they want to lose so they have an excuse to make IE even more closed then it already is.
Maybe they will just abandon standards altogether with the next version of IE and blame it on the lawsuit.
We may be about to witness a complete bifurcation of the internet soon.
Re:Odd behavior from MS. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
No, MS won the antitrust case. All the government did was find MS guilty.
When will it end?! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.northarc.com/~ke6isf | Last Journal: Tuesday November 23 2004, @01:32AM)
Not seamless? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:Not seamless? (Score:5, Informative)
So, you'll start to see a dialog box every time a flash/pdf/java applet wants to display itself. Before you think that is a good thing - think about every advert popping up a dialog box with just the OK button
Plugin patent uh ? (Score:3, Interesting)
In short, I don't think it'd be too hard to prove prior art
Software patents are bad (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday June 23 2003, @07:07PM)
What about Konq? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
But what about the other 'plugins' such as smb support.. etc..
Considering its all 'intergrated'..
Re:Amazed (Score:4, Insightful)
The principles of Intellecutal Property are good ones, but the US implementation certainly sucks. Both in the legislated terms (ie. 99 years continuously extended for Copy right) as well as the actual granting of obvious, unoriginal, software or buisness play patents by the patent.
Riddle me this... (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Saturday August 18 2001, @11:04AM)
If Microsoft is forced to pay off Eolas, doesn't that mean they've paid for the patent? Does anyone seriously think that Eolas won't license the patent to Microsoft, or even be forced to by the judge? Why is the assumption that Microsoft will automatically be forced to remove the technology when they just paid half a billion dollars for it?
I admit I'd like to see Microsoft forced to remove it to highlight the fact that patent criticisms like mine are grounded in solid reality and not abstract fantasy, but I just can't see that happening this time. Instead, Microsoft will probably just pony up, because unless they really realize this is going to keep happening, over and over again, they probably still think the patent system is still a net gain for them, allowing them to use the system like this against certain pesky start-ups that may refuse to be bought out.
Is Eolas/Doyle only against Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.grack.com/)
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit200211
"It would sure be nice for someone to actually consider all of this
from our point of view, rather than MS's," wrote Doyle in a recent
message to me. "It amazes me that everyone just assumes that MS will be
able to merely write a check and make the whole thing go away. What if
someone went through the following, purely theoretical, of course
logical analysis?"
"Is there any practical settlement amount that is worth more to Eolas than a
victory at trial? Considering the facts in the case and the magnitude of the
stakes here, a highly likely outcome is that it will actually go to trial,
and, once it does, that a jury will award us both damages and an injunction.
Injunction is the key word here. That is what patent rights provide: the
power to exclude. What if we were to just say no? Or, what if some other big
player were to acquire or merge with us? What if only one best-of-breed
browser could run embedded plug-ins, applets, ActiveX controls, or anything
like them, and it wasn't IE? How competitive would the other browsers be
without those capabilities? How would that change the current dynamics in
the Industry?"
Sounds like Doyle is not a Microsoft fan...
Page Size (Score:3)
From the article:
One such option would move the data to the Web page itself, rather than pulling it from an external source. To answer complaints that such a method would weigh down pages with heavy data loads, Microsoft proposed shifting that data to a separate frame.
How does this reduce page size? Now, instead of downloading 1 page of X bytes, I'm downloading 2 "pages" of (X - Y) and Y bytes. Fine and dandy, I don't have to dowlonad the frame in certain circumstances -- for instance, if I don't have Flash installed. But the article mentions this as a workaround to an "ungainly dialog box". Without prompting me if I want to load the frame or not, how do they plan to do this and remain free from any "automated interactive experience" that Eolas has supposedly patented?
What horribly obvious thing am I missing?
This is bad (Score:5, Interesting)
The company I work for has flash and windows media all over the place, and sells a content management system, one of the key features of which is the management of these types of media.
I don't think the company would survive such a change in this environment.
Damn the USA.
Don't Depend On Flash (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.thomas-galvin.com/)
"Nonsense," from the web-site head.
"Don't tie the site to flash," I chimed.
"Hush, silly boy," they replied.
"We tied our site to flash," I mope.
"Go rewrite the site," they cry, crushing all my hope.
So, who else sees an all-nighter coming up real quick-like?
Software patents are dumb (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://jjjiii.livejournal.com/)
That's exactly what Eolas is trying to do with this patent -- they've found an "answer" and patented a particular method at arriving at that solution. That shouldn't stop other people from developing alternate methods of arriving at this answer. I doubt very much that the code to implement this functionality is identical, so why does this patent have any sway over what other browser developers come up with for their particular solution?
Re:Software patents are dumb (Score:5, Funny)
7-4=5?
That's new, and non-obvious, but is it useful?
From Eolas "about us" page (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Sunday November 11, @09:31AM)
Firstly, I don't want "fundamental" browser technologies patented.
Secondly, this is apparently applets too, not just plug ins. Seems to say that embedding that JAR file puts you on the wrong side of da law.
Does their patent only cover "on the web"? Do plugins in winamp or the like meet the criteria too?
Retarded patent (Score:5, Insightful)
it could make things better (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Thursday May 03 2007, @11:34AM)
As far as Flash is concerned I had take it off my computer. I just wasted too much time watching advertisements. If I had more control over what flash did on my machine, like I have with images, quicktime movies, and PDF, I would be more than happy reinstall and use the content. I think Flash is a good product. I just think it disrespects the computer user.
I believe that solutions exists that will not only render the patent meaningless but will also make the web a safer more pleasant place for the general users. I believe it can be smilier to giving the users to stop popups, which sometime lead to inappropriate content or sequences of windows that took over the computer.
Which is why MS is having such a problem with it. IE is a framework that, in part, allows content to pushed onto users whether they like it or not. It would be very hard to keep that functionality without technologies included in the patent. In other browsers, in which the user is respected with functionality that allows a more customized web experience, removal of the seamless technology will only be a nuisances.
Which is why we need to take all MS statements with a large grain of salt. They have quite a bit to lose if the push philosophy is destroyed. They are not the only ones. Will the advertising houses use flash it users have a choice of it's viewing, or will the just use Quicktime. Will MS web products lose importance if IE does have the ability to force content? I think not.
Microsoft had all of this planned... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://homepage.mac.com/ryanrafferty/)
Have some someone sue the only open aspect of your product.
Who is this really affecting? Quicktime, Real Media, Macromedia, SUN (Java).... all of those things that Microsoft has hated all those years it can now shut-out and remove from IE and tell every Webmaster on Earth to conform to their new standard because of the lawsuit.
Of course Microsoft will have the advantage because Real, SUN etc... will not have the changes made to the browser and will have to start development after the release (this is just speculation... but Microsoft will still have some advantage since they develop the product).
Ultimately this whole lawsuit is furthering Microsoft's grasp on the WWW.
It's not just Flash people! (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, Flash does not suck. What does suck is using Flash inappropriately.
Eolas has corperate america's balls in their hands (Score:3, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Tuesday December 14 2004, @05:54AM)
And those of you who thing the OSS community will loose out have another thing coming to you. Eolas is a patent creation company, they make inventions and lisence them out to other companies to be used. Read their "vision"
To create and develop the inventions that allow information technologies to enhance the quality of life for everyone.
OSS is for everyone, anything under GPL is for everyone. MS on the other hand is stifling this so they are going after MS, plus they can get some dough. I may be wrong, and they might be a company run by greedy bastards but if they were, they'd sue a smaller companys first and work their way up. It just doesn't make logical sense for them to be the bad guys.
It's a win-win sitution for the people. Either software patents are weakened or MS gets hit upside the head with a sledge and their browsers are insuperior to the likes of mozilla. Besides, how many companies are going to recode their entire plugin so they'll work with IE? I'd find it cheaper to push the customer base onto mozilla short term and start new projects long term.
Mixed Reactions (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.aidtopia.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 03 2004, @12:51PM)
A whole mess of reactions to this:
No sympathy (Score:4, Interesting)
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place now. It sounds like there is a viable business model out there of "patent something really obvious then sue Microsoft for patent violation". As the biggest fish out there they are clearly the most attractive target, given a sufficently 'strong' case. On the other hand, Microsoft's patent portfolio is its ultimate trump card and which they are presumably saving for the final defence, in the event that open source starts to seriously affect their viability. They can't suddenly start lobbying to remove patent protection without invalidating their own portfolio too.
They brought it upon themselves.
Plugins are overrated anyway (Score:4, Insightful)
Adobe Acrobat is an example. IMO, the plugin version is far worse than the standalone version. You don't have proper access to all the controls, file management, printing, and full-screen mode. At least I don't know how to access them. I have the same problem with many of the media players.
Flash is a bane. With Mozilla I can block image and pop-up ads but the Flash plugin is an open wound for infection with annoying ads. Flash is not alone - just the other the tell-tale cup-o-java appeared in an ad. Fortunately Java is so slow that I was able to ax it before it started.
So for the most part I'll be happy to see the world revert back to launching stand-alone helper applications. I want to use my browser for browsing, not playing video games.
the Eolas patent decision (Score:5, Informative)
Most universities and large business sift through the fruits of their employees' work and look for intellectual property that can be patented and possibly licensed or traded like any other property of real value. It helps them cover their investment (capitalism, and all that stuff). Heck, I found out a couple of months ago that I am the holder of two patents that had been filed by an old, old employer. You can be a patent holder and not even know it. Most of us sign something when hired by a company assigning the company exclusive license to intellectual property developed there in the course of one's work.
Having actually done some research on this Eolas patent and how it relates to the Microsoft judgement, I found out some interesting stuff that should be considered before we all condemn this in a knee-jerk response to the infringement this places on our freedom to develop software.
A few guys were working at the University of California and developed a plugin technology with the old NSCA Mosaic browser that allowed a server to ship executable content down the line along with the HTML and then have the browser do things it couldn't do before. Routinely, a patent application was filed by their employer on this work. The guys who did the work thought that this was neat technology and worked a deal with the University that they could try to maybe get this technology out into the wider world, and so, as there was a patent filed on it already, they worked an exclusive licensing agreement with the University.
So these guys form a company and start making calls on the big players in the Internet technology world at the time. They visit Microsoft, demonstrate this plug-in technology and the cool things that it would allow a browser to do, and received a big yawn and sent on their way with a "don't call us, we'll call you" sort of brush-off. They call on a number of other Silicon Valley companies, but these guys aren't businessmen, they're academics. They don't know how the commercial IP game is played. The end result is a lot of people in a lot of companies was this technology and took a pass on licensing it into their own products (which most probably would have been very, very cheap to do back then).
Time passes. These same companies start enhancing browsers with their own plug-in technologies for executable content. No action is taken initially by these guys. Finally, Microsoft starts to dominate Netscape. Attempts are made to reopen discussions by these guys and are rebuffed. These guys start involving lawyers to try to get Microsoft's attention. These attempts are rebuffed too. Finally, they file suit against Microsoft for patent infringement. Many years pass as Microsoft makes motion after motion in hearing after hearing to have the suit dismissed and each time, fails. But they achieve one of their goals which is to delay the proceedings significantly. Meanwhile, the Internet bubble comes and goes. There are many products that now do this plug-in sort of thing. The idea becomes obvious because everyone sees it going on around them in other products. Finally, the patent infringment suit against Microsoft goes to trial. After many weeks of trial in which mountains of evidence are presented by Microsoft, twelve regular joes on the jury aren't convinced that there was (1) prior art or prior effort on Microsoft's part, (2) lack of knowledge by Microsoft about the invention or patent (2) or an invalid patent granted to the University of California.
The Federal jury trial found for Eolas and against Microsoft on all counts. Apparently the evidence was so strong that jury deliberations took just one day. You can say what you want about jury trials, but having seen what judges have done, or not done, when the decision is theirs alone [when Microsoft was found gui
A few comments (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.dwheeler.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 07 2004, @05:59PM)
But this is all amazingly silly. This is so obvious to a "practitioner of the art" that the patent office should have instantly rejected it. Displaying data where it's requested is a fundamental notion. And invoking a program based on its type is also a fundamental notion. COM and DCOM were developed specifically for this reason, for example: to enable in-line display and manipulation of data. They both precede this patent (COM certainly does) making them prior art.
The patent wasn't even filed until October 17, 1994. But Java was publicly demonstrated on September 1992 (originally called Oak), and Safe-TCL came out in 1992 as well. It wouldn't surprise me if they also met this patent, and were prior art too.
This is a junk patent that needs revoking.
Why did this story take so long to come out? (Score:3, Insightful)
MS has known about this for 3+ years, and didn't do much to stem the tide of something bad happening about this until now. All of the web developers complaining about how this will affect future development plans can thank MS for being so forthcoming these past years and warning them that something like this might happen. Instead they waited to spring the news that this might be bad for developers 3 years later, after the embedded stuff had a chance to further mature, and more people bought into the technology. I know, I know, they can't comment on pending litigation, but it sure seems to me like they left a lot of people high and dry.