Will Flash Be Taken Off The Shelf?

bugninja writes "According to an article at News.com, Adobe wins 2.8M from Macromedia today for using some patented interface stuff in Flash. But this isn't the end, further legal battles could require that Flash be removed from Macromedia's list of "products for sale". We may not all be Flash lovers, but is it right to take a good product away from so many people who really do like it just because another company's product isn't taking over the market like they hoped it would?" Update: 05/03 13:29 GMT by J : Speaking of Flash, yesterday eEye discovered a very serious security hole in the version of Flash distributed with most copies of Windows. Go download the fixed release.

Comments

This Just In

[cscx]

Apple sues Microsoft over "the close button in the upper corner of the window."

What's next, the icon? Are the tabs in Mozilla in violation? The concept of "tabs" in "windows" no matter if you call them "palettes" or not, was part of the Windows API as long as I can remember.

Flash authoring app != Flash plugin

[mcasaday]

Even if Macromedia was prohibited from selling the Flash authoring tool this would not necessarily have any affect on the browser plugin itself. I don't see what would keep Macromedia from developing a new version of its authoring application with an interface that doesn't employ tabbed palettes.

Oops, they've already done just that.

I wonder how this would affect Flash MX. It doesn't feature the UI elements that Adobe claims to have invented. (And thank the gods for that, I hate tabbed palettes as much as most of you Slashdotters hate the Flash plugin itself.) Would Macromedia only have to pull Flash versions 5 and earlier off the shelves?

What a waste of resources such lawsuits are. Companies squabbling like children, running complaining to mommy and daddy every time one of them has any kind of problem. Grow up or go to bed without any supper, I say!

Re:patented 'tabbed palettes'?

[Twylite]

I agree that 19 years of monopoly is unreasonable, hence my assertion that patents should be allowed, but the duration should be much shorter.

Unfortunately patent law operates on an all-or-nothing principle: a major technological advancement that cost $1 billion and 15 years to achieve receives the same protection as a minor competitive edge which cost $10000 and 3 months.

As for it being obvious ... creative research is like being on the wrong side of a trap door. Its really hard to go through, but anyone on the other side can easily work out the trick. Innovation is often about doing something which is blindingly obvious, but no-one thought of it before.

Often just knowing the result and the fact that it can be accomplished makes it easier to reproduce. Chemistry is a good example: a theoretical compound can be proposed and its potential properties suggested, but determing how to manufacture the compound can be a tough problem. A couple of experts look at it and tell you it simply can't be done. Then someone announces they have create it, and cheaply. The experts reevaluate, knowing they must have missed something: it is possible, with current technology, and inexpensive - given those hints they are a lot closer to a solution.

So, what SHOULD be patentable? Algorithms? RSA is quite obvious to anyone skilled in mathematics ... once they've seen the algorithm. Should the internal combustion engine have been patentable? It was a major technological advancement, it has been the bastion of private transport for the better part of a centuary, but it is arguably just a derivative of a steam piston. Obvious to anyone skilled in mechanics.

I would like to see OSS obtain some patents and fight fire with fire. But it won't happen. No-one in the OSS world is prepared to put development effort into a product which involves patented technology, because of the stigma the community has attached to patents.