Slashdot Mirror
Could Eolas End Microsoft's Browser Dominance?
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.
But what about other browsers???
EOL for IE or so ;-)
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
Surely this is bad news for Mozilla, opera et al as well?
Oh no far reaching patents are bad but microsoft is bad too. Who is in the right in this scenario?
Its a win/win situation when you think about it.
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.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Would we sacrifice our stand against crappy patent law in an attempt to get Microsoft any way possible?
(Personally I'm against such a hypocritical move. The law should apply to all of us or it applies to none of us).
What is music when you despise all sound?
I haven't seen these patients but they do seem rather vague.
plugins, applets, activeX controls and other similar technology
Unless it's specifically tied to Internet Explorer, then these could cover a huge amount of programs.
Can someone correct me if I'm wrong please!
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
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
2)Microsoft wins, stupid patents are crippled.
..and so, if microsoft loses, another incredibly stupid software patent is proven valid. And that's bad not just because of the consequences for other applications that use the oh-so-obviuos plugin structure - it kind of clears the way for even more insane, consumer-damaging stupid patents.
Who owns Eolas? Is it just Mike Doyle or does he have a bunch of shareholders to answer for? If it's the latter, wouldn't it be very easy for Microsoft just to buy the company? It might potentially be much cheaper than fighting it in court (esp. if they lose).
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.
Microsoft has argued in the past that "Internet Explorer" was a generic term and hence can't be trademarked, while at the same time arguing 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.
Bob talks about this very thing in this week's I, Cringely
Now only if they disallow M$ and allow everybody else to use the patents.......
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
Oh, EOLA's.
Nevermind.
What plugins do we still use these days? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Flash, and I could live without that. ActiveX controls? So what? Applets? That's a pretty broad term, but is there much outside of Java that this might include? What else is there that makes this a big deal if it should apply to all browsers (except the stupid patent bit - I want to know about tangible losses (not "freedom"))?
I need more information before I start caring one way or the other.
Egregious OnLine Attorney System
Wow man that example kinda fits if you think about it and it's witty too.
By the way what drugs are you on?
I haven't seen these patients.... .......Can someone correct me if I'm wrong please!
Yes Doc, an incorrect diagnosis if I've ever seen one.
Meat is murder, I eat chicken.
Isn't Eolas the Irish word for knowledge/science?
That's a blatent rip-off of a Simpsons episode.
Abstract mathematical thought isn't patentable and all software is abstract mathematical thought. Just because people who are "mathematically challenged" think that taking a math problem and giving the numbers in it real-world meaning as in a word problem changes something and magically turns abstract thought into a "new machine" doesn't make it so.
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.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
This shouldn't actually mean anything to Microsoft... Since they don't _need_ web pages... An applet can just as easily be run without a web page, and HTML could easily be scrapped altogether.
Oh, cmon...
them: "We won't settle. period."
MS: "We'll offer you a billion dollars."
them: "nope. no settlement."
MS: "ok... 5 billion dollars... (we can afford it, we'll just soak our customers for more 'license' fees).
them: "uhhh... ok."
Done, over. They walk away with a large chunk of cash, the exec's give themselves large bonuses and shut the company down (giving the employees a large "bone us"), and its over. Its the american way, right?
I guess there is no such a thing yet, but what if it was possible to release the patent under something like the GPL, meaning that you can only use the patent in GPL-ed software, resulting in a GPP. M$ would have to OpenSource its browser technology, or forget about everything. Now that would really hurt them, since they only believe in SharedSource.
The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
I am all for companies with stupid patents winning out against larger companies. Not because I believe the patent system is defective (which I do) but because the system in place isn't there to protect individual inventors or small innovative companies.
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?
--- I do not moderate.
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.
404 Not Found: No such file or resource as '.sig'
MS uses Netscape's plugin api.. the only way this company could sue Microsoft and have judge take serious is if it did not limit itself to suing Microsoft..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
LoL
And he's gay!
So patents all suck when they're being used against you, but when it can hurt MS, all of a sudden there's a resounding cheer for these guys?
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.
This is stupid... Maybe it will give MS problems, but I think the Open Source movement has so much momentum now, that we give MS problems enough already.
What really threatens Open Source is Software Patents, CBDTPA/TCPA and the likes...
I would be more interested in seening this causing changes in patenting policies than crippling IE.
...isn't part of IP law that you are supposed to actively defend your patent? In other words, I can't patent something, say computer mice for example, then sit back and wait for MS and Logitech to each produce about 25 million each, THEN sue them to claim they owe me money. Granted, this suit was launched in 1999, but there were plugins before that. I didn't see when the patent was issued, but I think that this patent, like most other ones governing software, is (are) bad. I hope eolas loses.
I'm not a lawyer, but I'm no idiot either. Reading from the patent...
P TO 1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm& r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='5838906'.WKU.&OS=PN/5838906&RS=PN /5838906
"This invention relates generally to manipulating data in a computer network, and specifically to retrieving, presenting and manipulating embedded program objects in distributed hypermedia systems."
You can find it at...
http://164.195.100.11/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=
Even if their case has total merit, the MSFT strategy will be to spend so much on lawyers and drawing out the trial that eventually Eolas will run out of money and be forced to drop the suit, or go bankrupt. Then they'll probably go bankrupt anyway. Then they'll get bought out for pennies on the dollar by BillG.
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?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The patent in question can be found here.
Cringley writes an excellent article here... "this judgment makes no effort to deprive the company of the fruits of that abuse. This is interesting because the point of Federal anti-trust law is two-fold, to prevent or correct abuses and to deprive from the abusers the benefit -- called the fruit -- of their crimes." Why did the judge not punish M$? A fine was certainly in order. It is baffling. Imagine how the DOJ attorneys who worked this case feel about the empty plate served them by the judge. Meanwhile, the guilty Bill Gates keeps all $40 billion of his illegally acquired loot. Money that will aid him in beating down future competition.
"Don't Follow Leaders." Bob Dylan
> Isn't .NET also covered by this patent?
.NET's architecture is similar to Java's, not ActiveX's architecture.
.NET is apparently based on ActiveX/COM so it would integrate into their old technologies cleanly. If they are forced to redesign everything because of their patents (it's happened before) it could be a crippling blow to .NET on Windows. Mono, however, should be unaffected.;-)
Unlikely.
However, Microsoft's current implementation of
OTOH, such submarine patents are bad, 'cause what goes around comes around. Just imagine what a patent on a fundamental concept of PHP, Linux, GCC, or Apache could do to them? Sure they can be redesigned to work around the patent, but if the patent is deep-rooted, it could cause backwards compatibility nightmares that could affect these projects for years.
or in other words.. Eolas would accept a larger than normal payout.
so when PanIP do this it is bad, right? but when someone does it against microsoft it's good? you fucking hypocrites
Actually as of IE6 they don't anymore.
Macromedia seem to stand to suffer a lot from this. Flash will all but die (we can argue whether that's a good or bad thing!) and Director will take a fair hit, and although I don't know their revenue streams from these products I bet they are at least 25%.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
If Microsoft wins, at least one stuid patent is defeted.
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.
So software patents are BAD.. uh, unless people go after Microsoft with them. Then, they are GOOD. Is this right? I'm just making sure I believe what slashdot tells me to.
And that's a blatent rip-off of a South-Park episode.
"The only part of the final judgment I like is the part most Microsoft foes hate the most. Instead of a panel of three outside observers to monitor Microsoft's compliance with the judgment, the compliance officer will be one person chosen by Microsoft from its own ranks. "
Isn't this a bit like letting Sadam do his own arms inspections? Why should they let one terorist get away with everything but not another. Seems to me the government is being a bit two-faced
mAineAc
http://the-herbman.com
and it's all a blatant rip-off of Vanilla Ice's defense that he didn't steal Ice Ice Baby from Queen and David Bowie's Under Pressure.
Shinma
From the Eolas Website:
Eolas Corporate Vision
To create and develop the inventions that allow information technologies to enhance the quality of life for everyone.
Bill Gate's vision:
What he does every day, try to take over the world...
Bill in action:
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/default.asp
From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
Uh actually no they DON'T, not as of IE6...where have you been? You missed the brouhaha about how Netscape plugins would no longer work with IE6?
is that if you discover someone who's been using your trademark for a while, you can sue for damages, wheras someone who has been using your patent, all you can do is sue for future licensing terms, not past damages.
Software patents are bad for software!
http://swpat.ffii.org
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".
Sorry, buddy, Slashdot does not have a unified view about this issue. This isn't some political party.
You don't speak for me.
On the other hand, this shitty little company has as just as "stupid" of a patent which puts the livelihood of IE in jeopardy and I see people wringing their hands like little children waiting for cake and ice cream after eating their veggies... I mean, people, this is pretty much same damn issue. But because its MS we all get excited.
I'm no MS fan, but I have to be honest here, this is basically bad for everyone.
Let's beat Microsoft with better technology and better service, lets not try to beat them with a legal system that clearly doesn't "get it".
I knew it was over (the Justice Department case) when I picked up a cheapo e-machines computer last week for $399 and realize that the copy of XP Home Edition was basically "married" to that machine and I could NOT use it on another machine -- even though I wiped the hard disk on e-machine and installed Debian. What did I pay for? Where's my copy of XP? Why couldn't I have the choice to buy the damn computer WITOUT XP and save some money?!
Old issue, but clearly still a valid one.
I say this is good. These are the bane of the web anyway, let's kill them for good. I can't stand all those shockwave ads anyway, applets are dead and activex is disabled everywhere for security reasons.
I don't see how banning all of these could possibly be taken as a bad thing.
What is the use of plugins? I've always wondered.
:). I hope they get their patent and make the Internet plugin free.
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
Brilliant! Excellent work. You forgot to replace a few instances of 'Mr. Kelly' with 'Cmdr. Taco' though. But other than that, a fine piece of work.
I think the case will end up like this:
Microsoft gives Eolas somewhere between US$100-$500 million to buy out the Eolas patents.
Case is closed.
MOD PARENT UP AS INFORMATIVE.
He's right. If you look at the history of Netscape on Holger Metzger's site Netscape didn't support plugins until version 2 in 1996. There is no issue of prior art here. As much as I disagree with software patents, the law exists, and the patent seems valid to me. As DrLazer says, the plugin concept is only an obvious solution in hindsight.
My journal has hot
This is all we need, a further split in commonly used web technologies and a return to not only proprietary formats, but proprietary implementations.
... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed...
There's something very funny going on here. Browsing at +3 I see not ONE comment supporting Eolas' stance. Doesn't ANYBODY want to see Microsoft take some heat? I begin to wonder just who these posters are. (looks up at address bar to check if this is really is slashdot...)
I read through about half of the patent before getting bored. The portion that I managed to read kept refering to client workstations doing all this "hypermedia" stuff through "a browser".
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.
Okay, first off, I don't like microsoft. At all. However, Why are you guys so happy that these patents are going against microsoft, when wide-ranging and debilitating software patents are what all free programmers desire??
You guys need to take another look at this issue. This stupid microsoft hypocrisy is just that: Stupid. If this case is won by Eolas, it could be a precedent for hundreds more cases of wide-ranging software patents that will absolutely destroy competition in the software market.
You think the market with microsoft is bad now? If Eolas wins this case, you'll be begging for today's software world back.
I hate plug-ins and scripting within webpages. I disable all plug-ins and scripting on my browser when I surf. I notice the most annoying of pop-up, pop-back, animated advertisements dissappear or at least are rendered broken in some respect.
I'm sure Microsoft cares, but I miss the days when web pages only contained tightly written HTML and all that was used to display and collect information.
HTML puritans rejoice!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
It appears that the patent is specifically targeting things that run substantially server-side, with a plugin to allow manipulation from the client side. One of the examples they used was manipulating X (they refer to it as X-Windows *gag*) on the server, remotely, through the browser.
That doesn't sound like flash, java, et. al., for the most part. You download the flash applet, which runs on your machine, not to manipulate something server side (unless you count basic navigation, blah blah blah).
Slashdot readers love to go off on bullshit patent claims, except when it works against Microsoft I guess.....grow up, folks.
While I agree you haven't said that Microsoft as has successfully argued that "Internet Explorer" was generic, it's important to consider all facts of the case. To quote from the link you've provided:-
Guy didn't have the dough and jumped at the first bailout. Not the same thing as getting a positive legal ruling on the name of its products, which is what you seemed to imply.
The ZDNET article is interesting, not because MS has tried arguing that a) Windows is a trademark and b) Lindows is too similar to 'Windows', but because it claims,
We all know Microsoft is Evil (tm), and yes, as we saw earlier, it's difficult for individuals and small companies to stand up to prolonged legal action. But the strategy is probably not by filing "a 1000 lawsuits in a 100 different jurisdictions against Eolas". Your own citations say that MS is not a litigous company.
More than mere navel gazing.
If they filed for it in 1994, this means they preempted the modern Internet. That means this patent is a legitimate patent, and it isn't a bad patent, like the PanIP patent. PanIP sat on their patent, well after the .com boom and bust. These people showed it to MS way back when they started making IE. It is their right to selective patent enforcement, whether it seems right or not.
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.
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
Yes, Microsoft is wrong, but it is wrong for a company with a stupid patent to win, too. Just beat Microsoft by doing things right.
What a scary thought, the name of this company has an uncanny striking resembelance to virus Ebola. Coincidence or foreshadowing? Hmm...
just how different is a Plug-in from a DLL anyways. Microsoft has had DLL type technology for how long? Since QB 3 at least, but I'm not sure how far back that was.
lots of avant-garde websites use shockwave for their site design. Being much more flexible than flash amazing results can be achieved. Applets are also useful, for things like my ISP ATTBI, which has online tech support chat through applets embedded in webpages. Without applets they surely would have gone with something that required download, which would definitely have been windows only.
Photos.
That brings up something I was going to ask about -- does this patent only affect ActiveX, or does it affect plugins in general, hence ALL browsers??
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
What if Eola wins?
- Stupid patents like this are reinforced.
- MS are the only ones who can bundle their software into IE and claim it's not a plugin.
- MS can afford to pay licensing fees for plugins included in Windows, which is not the case for Linux or Mozilla.
So, my question is:
- Does Microsoft really want to win the case?
If I worked for Eolas, I'd be taking different routes to work every day, and having my wife and kids stay in a hotel under false names for a while.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
They do not have the billions required to buy a favorable verdict as was shown in the recent MS trial.
The article says that Eolas wants to be acquired, perhaps by an IBM or AOL. Microsoft has an immense patent portfolio that they would not be shy about using to retaliate in kind. If a company with other software products (such as IBM or AOL) tried to enforce a patent against Microsoft, then Microsoft would immediately try to enforce hundreds of their patents against that company. At that point, the company would have to license the patent to Microsoft or stop selling software.
So will Mike Doyle give in to the Microsoft checkbook or will he opt, instead, to change the world of IT as we know it, knocking Microsoft down to size along the way?
If he doesn't, a looooooooot of people will be pissed off.
This is another case of the horrid patenting of math. It doesn't matter how bad you hate M$ you have to be on their side in this becuase if they don't win patents are legimized to a wide audience which means technology get set way back as companies have to remove many of their products from the market or pay huge premiums.
If Microsoft wins it's the status quo, which turns out to be the lesser of 2 evils. Anytime you have to hope M$ gets to keep doing business teh same way you've already lost.
I don't have any problem with stating that I want MS to win this one, with prejudice.
.. EVER!
:P
I dislike (read: not HATE) Microsoft as much as anyone, but software and business model patents MUST GO AWAY - PERIOD. I don't wish them on Microsoft, my worst enemy, Stalin, Hitler, ANYONE. I don't think they are fair means of attack when in the hands of small companies OR large companies. They are fundamentally flawed and wrong, as is the organization that issues them, utilizing the biggest and most sinister blindfold-and-rubber-stamp process in history.
You see, Microsoft will (yes, it will, trust me) eventually be beaten. I can have a hand in the success of effecting their downfall. HOWEVER, with patents, there seems to be little to no hope. There is NOTHING I can do directly to effect that change. I have to rely on my "elected representatives", which I wouldn't trust to write their own name 1 out of 3 times, let alone fix the greatest intellectual scourge in recent history (hasn't quite beat out the burning of Alexandria, or the Inquisition yet, but the century is young). Microsoft has nothing over me; I can fight them toe-to-toe. I can't fight the government; they have guns to back up their insanity, and can take (and have effectively taken, for the most part) mine away, so there is no way to fight them directly.
So, I have no conflict here. Microsoft can win this one, AS LONG AS, the effects ripple back to Washington, D.C., and cause the USPTO and its supporters to fall into the chasm caused by the complete and utter stomping of Eolas in this case, HOPEFULLY NEVER TO BE SEEN AGAIN
It's not a matter of choosing sides, it is a matter of setting your priorities. Lest I remind everyone that the GOVERNMENT is also responsible for letting Microsoft off the hook COMPLETELY.
We can all band together and overthrow Microsoft by cutting off its oxygen supply long enough for it to die or relent to becoming a responsible corporate citizen, but we stand a SLIM to NIL chance of overthrowing the US Government to fix the travesty it has created in the USPTO, and is now fostering (foisting?) overseas as a result.
Go ahead, though. For what it is worth, write your Congresspeople; I am. Demonstrate peacefully; get in the face of each and every one of them and make your voice heard. Boycott companies who use the "ugly stick" rather than real innovation and competition. Doing something is better than nothing, ultimately. For me, I already have low expectations of truly fixing the Patent situation. However, I still have very high expectations of kicking Microsoft's nards up into their throat at some point, and succeeding.
At this point, some people would suggest only fight the battles you have any chance of winning; I'll say fight 'em all anyway. It's cheap, easy, and it makes ya feel good inside. I'm actually looking forward to my next face-to-face encounter with my "elected reps" (no, I didn't vote for the winners.. again). It's invigorating watching them stare, dumbfounded, like deer in headlights, while you run them down with information overload on the subject. Yeah, with just one of me coming to them, they write me off as a crackpot, but with 10-30 of us going to them, bringing them the same message, but with ORIGINAL presentations, I think they may sit up and take notice.
OK. OK. I'm getting off the soapbox now; no need to be rude...
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Somewhere back in the IE6 betas Microsoft dropped support for Netscape style plugins, instead opting to use ActiveX objects exclusively.
Even if Eolas had implemented this first, does every tiny new improvement deserve a patent? Plugins were by no means a new idea at that point in history. Eolas patented the idea of using a text code in a hypertext document to trigger a plugin.
Would you say I should be given a patent if I think of using plugins in an image editor? How about a word processor? These things are almost identical, yet our patent office sees each as some groundbreaking paradigm shift. So do you, apparently.
As an aside: that example you use to support your argument.. "SERVER PUSH." "Server push" was never an innovation. It's just another name for sending continuous content from the server to the client. Ever heard of this thing we in the real world call a radio?
It is frustrating to no end to see the logic in practice that has created the patent system of today.
And i quote, from the article: "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?"
Nice! that means it's only a matter of waiting.
If Eolas wins its patent battle, its intellectual property will become the silver bullet to kill Microsoft -- for whomever buys Eolas.
IANAL (AFAIK), but whoever owns the patent will be able to issue an injunction against Microsoft. Eolas won't issue the injunction, instead it will be the mega-company that buys Eolas. AOL, Sun, Apple -- anybody who would like to stick it to MS. What would that be worth to a multi-billion dollar company in competition with Microsoft? What would that be worth to a company like AOL/Warner, who would then have the only widely distributed web browser to support plugin technology?
If you read the end of the Cringely article, you'll see that Eolas is actually making a sales pitch.
In fact, if you want to be really suspicious, you might suppose that Mike Doyle emailed Cringely so that he could get acquisition talks started. If someone bought Eolas right now, on speculation, Eolas wouldn't have to pay its legal bills all by itself... hence making the fight more winnable.
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
Its called a "blackmail threat", and the purpose is entirely to add "scare value" to Microsoft in order to drum up the payout that Microsoft will eventually pay to "license" this company's "technologies". The trick is to *really* sound serious about "not allowing Microsoft" to use these technologies - the more Microsoft believes you, the higher you can charge, so at no point can you allow the illusion of the threat to be shattered by providing clues about the real truth.
I mean, think about it, what *reasonable person* would NOT rather just accept a HUGE multi-million $ payout from Microsoft (which will still be peanuts to MS), and never have to work again? You just have to play your cards right.
Where have you been the last 5 years ?
Microsoft owns the courts.
And if they did lose they would sue for all competing browsers to be subject to the same adverse rules as they will be subject to.
And last but no least if they lost they would just buy the patent for whatever sum of money it takes to buy it.(think 300 million dollars,that would corrupt anyone).
From their site: Eolas also 'invented' the now-ubiquitous stylized "e" logo. IBM purchased rights to use it from us in 1997.
Let me get this straight, they patented a letter with a sort of spiral around it (like @)??? Seems they have experience in making profit from patenting mainstream ideas. What a rip off. And big companies are sure paying just to keep publicity down. Man, the system is thoroughly broken and petty thugs are running rampant with patent and copyright as their weapons. How could it be possible to patent generic plugin technology? This is stupid and I sincerely hope I won't get sued because I dare to say so.
Secondly, even if they do win, doesn't anyone find it a little unsettling that some company we havn't heard of suddenly controls all the browsers in the world? Patents - blah.
We all should stop buying MS products and when ever you order PC's from HP & DELL ask then you want your Redhat 8.0 or other Linux desktop distro. This will choke the air out of microsoft. Linux desktop runs better than carppy windozes I have been using linux for the last one year and never looked back. I love redhat 8.0 desktop.
'eòlas' is Scottish Gaelic for 'knowledge'.
You are all fartheads.
... "invented here." are trademarks of Eolas Technologies Inc.
I hope nobody uses that term anywhere because those two words also belong to the guys with the e...
And he's gay!
Which one? Eolas, Hercules, or Sorbo?
That seems to be what's going on here, but here people file patents, then travel into the future where thousands of people have discovered the technology on their own and have been using it for years without knowing about a patent, then sue those guys.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Think about that for a minute. Really.
Level competition now has less chance of beating Microsoft than the Iraqi army does of beating a U.S. invasion. Get it? They are so powerful - their monopoly advantages are so strong - they are effectively invincible. They may screw themselves out of their monopoly position, but there is no longer any possibility of a competitive force beating them.
As long as the world is playing Microsoft's game, Microsoft will be the winner. If you read the article, that's what Eolas says they're trying to change. Just take the the whole ballgame away from MS and let everybody else play fair - with open standards and innovation for all.
Don't forget - EVERYTHING Microsoft does is a platform play. Again and again, they work to bind everything to themselves in a proprietary way. That is their goal, every time. To be the internet platform. To be the game platform. To be the email, the chat, the entertainment, the all consuming .NET transaction platform.
Ballmer and Gates are out to make history - in a very big way. Don't ever expect these two guys to change their attitude - why should they? Their monumental "pyramids" are not yet completed.
It's a nice dream Eolas presents. It's a shame that the only weapon they have to fight with is a dirty little patent. A two-edged sword, indeed.
the only way this company could sue Microsoft and have judge take serious is if it did not limit itself to suing Microsoft
False.
When it comes to patents you are perfectly free to allow some poeople to use your patent unchallenged while prosecuting anyone you like.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If I worked for Eolas, I'd be saving my receipts under lock and key for 10 years in case of "surprise audits".
I'd also be tagging my family members with GPS in case of sudden "enemy combatant" status. I'd want to know which Navy brig they were being unlawfully imprisoned in, or which Syrian hell-hole they'd been deported to.
Heaven help them if the Ministry of Justice gets involved...
"EULA's to end Microsoft's browser dominance!"... Needless to say, I was very confused.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
You can't have it both ways people: either you think patents are bad or you think they're good. Pick a side and stick with it already.
For enough money they will roll over, i guarantee you.
The real question is: will Microsoft offer enough?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Even if Eolas wins, what prevents M$ from simply continuing the infringement? All M$ has to do "delay and deny" so as to drag out the process until Eolas runs out of money. Even if Eolas wins, M$ [eventually] pays, and life goes on.
Given the ultra-light/total-fluff "punishment" in the DOJ case, I'm sure the Microsoft folks are really trembling in their boots over this one.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Have they lost their minds? Why don't they all just go right over to the Microsoft campus and make a big sign that says "we want j00 to 0wn our asses?"
Microsoft has enough money to keep these clowns in court until the end of time. The legal bills alone will destroy Eolas.
Maybe what they're *really* trying to do is to goad MS into buying the company. This seems to be a popular business model, I just never realized that people had to go to such lengths to get Microsoft's attention.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Courts are reluctant to enforce large damages when the time frame from discovering the infraction to point of lawsuite is too long. This is to prevent people from enriching themselves from lawsuits.These lawsuits isnt simply just about proving who invented what first. When it come time for damages, the process one takes to remedy the situation like filing a compliant with the other company's leagl dept etc, is just as important.
I think we've all seen some company pop up with a ridiculous patent for everything and try suing other companies for money. Typically, though, they stick to small companies who can't defend themselves, and make a bit of money. Do enough and it works out for you (evilly).
How ever, it doesn't really hold up, its just they have a larger legal team. Taking on Microsoft is ass stupid. If the US government couldn't deal with them comptetently, how the hell will this company. Especially since the US government had a valid case, and this company really doesn't most likely.
The odds of them winning this are probably in the zero range, and they deserve to get ass kicked for being so asinine as to try the stupid patent thing, and for then being so stupid as to start with the biggest company.
"Could EULAs End Microsoft's Browser Dominance?" ... ... Oh. Well, we wish.
--j
While I would agree that advertisers have used applets and shockwave to annoy us, that's more the reponsibility of the web site you are viewing. If they want to have adverts begging their users to "punch the monkey" then they should suffer fewer users.
ActiveX and Java applets can be very useful when creating complex web apps. Frequently, basic html form elements are not enough to build a truly useful interface. This is when its good to have something like Java. ActiveX is a waste of time since it only works on win32, has download sizes on the order of 10x an equivalent applet, and has no concept of a security model.
Personally I am all for plugins, just not for people who use them to annoy others.
I am flaming, but the parent is interresting?
Overrated or Offtopic would have been ok, but Flamebait???
Hopefully metamod will get these loosers.
---
The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
http://www.ircnet.com/cgi-bin/irc.cgi
:)
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.
Companies like these are to the software industry what vermin is to the ass!
of course, they should be pretty lame too to think that a sane judge would rule in their favor on something with such consequences and a lamest patest!!!
The whole point of patents is that you get to choose who can use your patent. So Eolas can choose that NS is ok, and MS is not ok. This is the way patents have always worked, so I'm not really sure why you'd think that. Perhaps you confuse with trademark?
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Hmmm... I always thought that it would be the EULAs that would kill Microsoft.
Kinda funny how most of us here (including myself) bitch and moan about these kind of patents held by crappy little companies that do little more then write patent applications on Computer Science 101 technologies. Wait! Now we can use this kind of thing to our advantage. Rah Rah Rah! Go idiotic patent!
Can you say "hypocritical"? I know you can.
No.
Didn't you see that last court case?
--don't know about anyone else, but I'd swap plugins for microsoft getting their butt kicked and told to un-bundle explorer. How many articles about pages not working except under explorer? And if they aren't stopped, palladium in the hardware, and who knows what other internet hijacking schemes they got cooking. I want the INTERNET not microsoftnet. Trading off plugins is a small price to pay and if these guys are taking the high ground over money, more power to them! And technically they could allow anyone else to use plugins, they could selectively just disallow microsoft and microsoft would just have to eat it , and wouldn't that be special! The 800 lb swaggering bully gorilla forced to go sit in the corner! cool! They do that, my cash donation to them is in the mail the next day.
There's no way that any court would allow this company to say screw you Microsoft, and allow everyone else to use their stuff. You can't selectively inforce a patent, even if they aren't full of crap and do have the patent. If the stick it to Microsoft the court's gonna make them stick it to everyone. And seriously, how could some company patent the idea of extending a program, overall I just find this stupid.
As a developer of Internet applications (different from a web developer, but still...) I rely heavily on standards to get my job done, and IE kills standards, so it makes my job harder. Thus, if MS loses this battle, I'll be happy.
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.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
yeah, all of us geeks hate this proprietary browser stuff; however, lets not forget the whole reason why anybody can make any money on the net... consumers. Unless you don't work in tech, or don't care about losing your nice tech job, you need to keep the web convenient and flashy enough to keep the masses interested. Without interest in the net, interest in computers declines, with interest in computers declining, MS loses out on there OS market. I think that the notion that MS would try to push the use of IE after their loss in this trial is ridiculous. I'm sure that they will be distributing a 3rd party browser with Windows at the first hint of a loss. I do technical support for various products, some of them are web based. The majority of the people that use the interactive features don't know what the term "web browser" means, let alone the name and brand of the one that they are using. They will simply go to whatever is flashier and more functional from their perspective. I personally use Lynx as much as I use Mozilla, but I understand that I am no longer the target audience for the net (like I was about 10 years ago). and this flashy interactive crap needs to be there for anyone besides the geeks to bother using it! I think that if MS lost, there would be a large amout of people that would still use IE purly out of habit for a while, but once how crippled it actually is caught on, then I think that it would steadily die out over about 1 year's worth of time. No big bang, no dramatic explosion, just slowly die.
"Sacrifice" and "consistency" are out of context here. Loving this case is not in any way inconsistent. Rather, it's a watershed. I'm against software patents (actually, they're prima facie insane). I also dislike Microsoft's monopolistic practices (among them maintaining a large software patent portfolio), and the high prices, dearth of innovation, and bad engineering they engender.
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.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Simple, for the end user, IS a plugin. They install it once (if at all), and boom.
There are some really awesome flash sites that wouldn't be anywhere near as good in html. Keep in mind (I only develop html and server side scripted sites) some people like flashy sites.
Michale Doyle wrote a manifesto of sorts about this in 1996:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1996/9602/
another idiot who was granted an overly broad patent, and is now seeking to cash in even if it hurts everyone else.
Cringely, and the comments I've seen here, miss a significant point. Suppose Eolas is bought out by IBM or AOLTW or some such. If whoever buys them out has a patent cross-licensing agreement with Microsoft (and such agreements are pretty common, letting company A use B's patents in return for company B using A's patents), then Microsoft still gets to use it.
But nobody who is not a party to such cross-licensing does. (This is what companies mean about software patents "for defensive purposes".)
-- Alastair
After all, Microsoft has insisted over and over and over again that MSIE is an inseperable part of the Windows operating system.
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?
-- Alastair
There is far too much prior art. I worked for a company that sold a product, developed in 1992, that communicated over a network and used plugins wihtin a clickable multi-hypermedia enviroment. There are issed patents filed which describe the above product. Infact, Netscape did come to own those patents...
They can just write a book about it and make back more money than they ever did selling software. Being David vs Goliath is a win-win situation.
the avant garde does things with HTML, but with Shockwave too because Shockwave is better at certain things than HTML. For things like Generative art using HTML would be ridiculous. TONS of generative art is done in shockwave and for good reason, it's portable (between mac and PC that's all the designers care about) and has powerful clientside abilities. Java holds the same place with new media artists. Get a clue and then come back. It's not for desing but for Art.
Photos.
I can only think of two good uses for shockwave or flash....
joe cartoon and Killfrog
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
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.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(Yes, I know that most data formats allow to embed scripting languages, too.)
Claus
Eolas: We will not accept your dirty money.
MS: How bout $1 billion of our dirty dollars.
Eolas: Very well, but be rest assured we're going to wash it really well!!
I'll believe it when I see it
-- taking over the world, we are.
Yes- this could hurt MS, but it has the potential to undermine any browser that supports plug in covered under the patent. Mozilla, Opera, you name it. The article shows a guy with a Bill Gates vision: total domination through strong arm via patents. No more Windows, no more LINUX. YOu wanna use plug ins you gotta switch to EOLAS OS, the only game in town for these functions. Its like Lord of the Rings: One Patent to Rule them All!
level competition, and who said the Iraqi army was doing the right thing. Essentially, most of what you are saying is that Microsoft is doing the right thing. Taking the ballgame away from Microsoft... Does Wine acheive that a little bit...There are other ways of taking the ballgame away from Microsoft than bad patents.
Think about it and tell me where I'm wrong.
If Microsoft is forced to remove ActiveX, Microsoft Java, JavaScript, VBScript, and all that, that would get rid of many security holes in IE. IE might finally be moderately secure.
It's gratifying to see that someone out there has awakened to the reality that the people suing Microsoft aren't necessarily angels suing to have their halos and wings restored. In point of fact, some of the companies suing Microsoft would exert a far harsher regimen of "control and conquer" than Microsoft has ever thought about doing. "Better the Devil you know than the one you don't," as the saying goes. The fact is there are a lot worse companies out there than Microsoft--a lot worse. These suits by these companies are not an objection to what Microsoft has done--they're an objection that Microsoft did it and the other guys didn't get the chance to do it first.
If Eolas wins and they have the choice between being billionaires and getting to kick Microsoft in the nuts, I'm pretty sure they'll choose to be billionaires.
You realize that if they do keep IE from using these standards, MSFT will just come up with something worse and declare it a standard, then ban the use of Eolas' components in all versions of Windows?
___ alwaysBETA.com - Hey, you've got nothing better to do.
someone's gonna hate me, but check out
viola.org.
The real threat is if MS makes a deal to lose
and then buy up Eolas. Then they hold all the
cards (if you beat one monopoly rap, you can
beat another). I wouldn't believe Eolas' PR,
which might be intended to deflect careful
scrutiny from outside.
But then this is all just a wild conspiracy
theory, so you should pay no attention.
Embedding one application inside another was done between Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel long before the browser wars happened. How is this patent relevant?
/. fans the flames of what makes it popular! more news at 5pm!
Intellectual property is what you keep to yourself.
You cannot REFUSE to licence a patent, you have to accept SOME price, or your patent isn't valid...
because a Patent IS a monoploy (goverment granted excluse market) and you cannot be anti-compeditive.
(unlike Microsoft, which isn't a true monopoly, as Mac's and Linux existance proves)
Whote quote in the article sounds a lot like a sales pitch, strikes me that their thinking of getting the injunction and then selling themsevles to a big company for much much more money then ms would give them in a settlement. THe high ideals idea got weaker and weaker the more i read of the quote.
Jesus saves, everyone else takes full damage from the fireball.
what is it? What's the difference between it and IE?
That maybe more than 10 people post here?
That maybe the people that are now cheering on Eolas are not the same people that boo software patents?
That maybe your post is redudant as hell?
Cheers,
Backov
In the law there is no overlap between theft and copyright infringement whatsoever.
What do you think just got wrapped up in court? Sun and AOL/Netscape whined to the DOJ, and all three ganged up on Microsoft.
I'm pretty sure even the Business Software Alliance (BSA) endorsed the DOJ's side of that case, and MS is a member of that group!
Someone I knew had a meeting with the guy that runs this company. They knew that Sun was violating the patent, and that they were doing it knowingly. They didn't go after Sun, they went after Microsoft. Why? Becaues they didn't like Microsoft. It's possible that they really truly won't take a cash settlement.
Liberty uber alles.
Excellent. That's really quite an imagination you've got. If I hadn't posted in this thread already, I'd mod you up "funny". That was too good not to get some karma thrown your way though.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Two more good uses for flash. The verizon guy whack-a-mole game and the all your base video ;)
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.
.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.
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
You know, it might JUST be because APPLET and EMBED are not HTML4.0 compliant. The correct tag is OBJECT.
Read the spec. NO-ONE SHOULD BE USING APPLET TAGS ANY MORE. THEY'RE NOT COMPLIANT.
Coming soon - pyrogyra
Do you think thats any diffrent from the real world? The latch on my razor scooter is patented. The jewel case is patented, the little push-button DVD relise mechanism is patented, etc, etc.
People patent all kinds of crazy shit, and lots of it is very obvious. That dosn't mean that no one should be able to patent anything. And the fact that there are obvious software tricks being patented dosn't mean software should never be patented.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Doesn't anyone remember Hypercard? It was Apple's hypertext environment back in the late 1980s. Hypercard had a well-defined plug-in API.
Didn't Photoshop and other graphics applications have plug-ins galore?
Active-X controls? What about extensions in the old MacOS? What about control resources in the old MacOS.
In each case, we can add new file formats and can add new controls and functions via plug-ins. What's so special about browsers? They are just another application. It's inevitable that some programmer "skilled in the art" would decide to add plug-ins to a browser.
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
Hmm... this has gotten me thinking, why not make GPL patent licenses, ie. we agree to license this patent to you on the grounds that any software derived from this is distributed under the GPL
then why should you care. If its works well, is secure, and puts Microsoft in a bad position why care.
Your IQ is 138, and you don't know the difference between 'losers' and 'loosers?' Riiight. Maybe you'll figure it out by the time you finish Grade 9.
There is no correlation between spelling ability and intelligence. The only thing your post proved is your own stupidity.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Sell Microsoft a license, but keep ownership. That's the usual case in a patent settlement - for a good patent, it means they make money licensing to other people, and for a truly bogus patent, they also make money harassing other people.
Sell Microsoft the whole package, including ownership. They might do this, but Microsoft will have to pay them a lot more money.
RMS might not like being on the same side as Microsoft here, but opposing this patent is clearly consistent with his usual comments about software patents being Bad, and about how software patents potentially force programmers to do a complete patent search before every line of code they write, which is clearly impossible. How many of you knew about this patent when you last wrote a plugin for something?
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
But it wouldn't be very difficult for them to create a subset of IE that didn't use plug-ins, and there are unlikely to be many Windows-critical operations that use plugins instead of core IE browser functions, especially since the patent is unlikely to cover builtins like ActiveX and Javascript. Splitting IE into a core version and a plugin-supporting web browser means you can still watch those dancing Schlockwave animations if you're using an EOLAS-approved browser, but IE can use cleaner and slightly safer code when it's called by the OS.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Hjernen din er helt herpa.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
That's definitely insightful, and the situation is even worse than it appears. If Microsoft wins, they can do so either broadly or narrowly. The broad win is to invalidate the patent and toss it out entirely. The narrow win is to show that the patent doesn't specifically apply to what Microsoft's doing with its browser, because the patent's novelty is the combination of Thing1+Thing2+Thing3, and Microsoft's really only doing Thing1+Thing2 and doing Thing3 separately. That gets Microsoft off the hook and leaves Eolas with a mostly intact patent they can use to beat up AOL or whoever owns the remains of Netscape these days, trashing Mozilla as a side effect, or else beat up Mozilla.org as a warmup to beating up AOL.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I remember pathetic stories of worried MS workers, using Gate's mom, to tell him that the Internet is important and yes we need a TCP/IP stack and a browser. Lesson learned, we should have patented
IP and let MS hang a printer off of each machine that needs printing. But what am I saying, even to this day, there is one user per MS box. What a waste of people's money...
I think the Unisys patent is a patent regarding the 'idea' of compressing something in that particular manner, and has nothing to do with the actual code thats written. For example if thought up TV, and patented the idea of using scanlines to produce an image, it wouldn't mater how the TV was made.
The problem with the steam engine was that there was prior art dating back to the roman empire.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Intellectual property rights regimes are expensive to maintain and they limit the natural tendency of ideas and their expressions to multiply and mutate. The standard justification for these costs is twofold - first that someone who makes something, even a thing as insubstantial as an idea, has a moral right to that thing. Part of that right is asserted to be the right to stop anyone else from using it. Secondly, that inventors/creators will be more likely to make ideas/expressions if they can demand payment for that idea's use.
:-)
Copyright, for all it's problems, is something that just about creative person can benefit from (you don't even need a lawyer to assert a copyright) and represents a clear and limited restraint on the productive work of other people.
Patents, on the other hand, suffer from a bunch of cost-creating problems. For something like pharmaceuticals where a single invention can cost $100M to bring to market, patents can make sense. Unfortunately, all of these negatives become much bigger with software patents.
Soft Pats are expensive to apply for and maintain (it takes years and tens of $K to apply for one and (often > 10) years and $M to pursue claims. Given that and the uncertainty of getting a patent the plus side is long time coming.
But it gets worse. A good property rights regime (PRR) has the property (baabing!) of producing clear distinctions between what's yours and mine. Under a good PRR it's cheap (relative to possible gains) to find out whether you're using someone else's property. If you buy a house, you do a title search to see if you are getting a clear right to the house or not. Imagine what it would do to house investments if it cost 100X the house cost to do a title search - and there were rumors that a lot of houses might not belong to their sellers. People would still use houses, but they wouldn't pay much for one and would be reluctant to spend to repair them.
Good fences make good neighbors the New Englanders used to say. Want to know which bits of land in a big city are the subject of title (ownership) disputes? Go find the lots with derelict houses and weeds - i.e. the land no one wants to spend money on.
In the presence of software patents investing in most software is essentially that 100X case - you *can* have no real idea before you build something whether it's clear of claims or not. (Just look at how long it takes big companies with lots of smart lawyers to figure out whether their *own* patents apply to something as well specified as a W3C standard. Now imagine a small company doing the same thing with a more poorly specified program and having to decide whether *any* of the tens of thousands of software patents possibly apply. It can't practically be done - I dare anyone to disagree and not feel like an idiot
Software patents being regularly litigated would turn our entire industry into derelict cities - imagine the core technologies becoming like Soviet era housing blocs - managed by monopolies unwilling to spend money on new investment because they don't have to - surrounded by broken down crumbling suburbs full of tents cities filled by hordes of homeless engineers constantly being told "Out! - that's somebody else's property you're using!"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ok, here's the deal...
He'll go the route all the others went when facing MicroSoft. If this whole thing succeeds, and he can actually forbid MS from using the tech, then Bill Gates will puff on his cigar and say, "We're at Defcon 5."
At which point... a missile will shoot from the heavens directly at the house of this patent holder, exploding 100 yards over it, thus raining 100 dollar bills down. These 100 dollar bills will cover the roof and the yard in a total blanket of green about 1' deep.
Then a man will walk to the door and hand him a letter. On the letter, it will say:
"Any questions?
Love, Bill Gates."
And that will be that.
Its like in the Simpsons when they asked Crusty about something he did. He burst into tears and said "THEY DROVE UP TO MY HOUSE WITH A DUMPTRUCK FULL OF MONEY!!!!"
++Om
I'm glad so many here are such patent and technology experts. At the time the patent was filed, this technology was new and filing a patent for it was hardly a stupid thing to do. These patents take years to approve, and a lot of hard work and money goes into them. And if a company like MS takes this company's patented idea and modifies it, the company has every right to amend it's patent with the improvements. After all, they were using its stuff in the first place. That's the way it works. And if you want to get into defending M$ in the matter of filing patents, you'd better retreat from that position, as they file one for just about everything they can. If you look at their patent history, they're actively trying to control most internet protocols, so we'll all end up paying them for what we now take for granted as free. And don't act surprised. They'd charge you to butter your toast if they could.
That is interesting. AFAIK the public demonstration makes the thing "prior art" and prevents you from filing patent. I was advised by my company lowers that any patent on our software should be filed before first public beta, otherwises it becomes common knowlegde. So patent "demonstrated publicly in 1993" and "Filed in October, 1994" is automatically void, is not it?
MSDOS: 20+ years without remote hole in the default install
Of course, the fact that mother organizations have performed similar after-the-fact lawsuits in the past and won will be considered irrelevant (and who knows, this ruling may create a much needed precedent preventing this sort of crap in the future).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
From the patent office's link to the patent the assignee is "The Regents of the University of California (Oakland, CA)".
Hmmm... They say in their about page that they were spun off of the university, but it doesn't look like they officially changed ownership of the patent.
I can't see the University of California turning down a $1 billion dollar donation any more than Sun would.
Assuming this research outfit has unrestricted ownership of the patent, I think they would have a hard time turning down a number that had as many zeros in it as a billion. Then where would we be? Microsoft would have a more difficult time exploiting a purchase of this patent because of their obvious monopoly problems, but there are a couple of things they could probably do to attack open source software.
Lets say that Microsoft purchases this patent and agrees to license this "fairly" to all comers as long as all users respect their digital rights management initiatives or place some other speed bump to open source browsers or browsers on open source platforms.
Eolas's thought exercise of not allowing IE to use their "technology" is probably just posturing for a better settlement and the judgment will come down to money in the end... Something that Microsoft has plenty of.
The best case could be that the patent is overturned and drops into the public domain. Then there will not be a private interest that would control what is becoming an important part of the browser experience.
This is one of my favourite uses of flash:
Ultimate Flash Face
All bluster and no bite, sielwolf. Can't even spell "Ideology," and yet you think you're going to score points for your punch-drunk radical fundamentalism. You don't want justice to be applied flexibly, and yet you're demanding justice not be applied at all. How do you think this country ever got that reputation? And how do you think it will get it back again?
;)
You're just mad someone called you on not understanding the issues.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
You call it "unique", but then question whether or not it is "new". In patent law, "new" is novel (as in never having been done before - you might say it's unique). The question is not whether it is "new", because if it has never been done before, it is new ("novel") in the patent sense. In patent terms, the real question in your scenario is whether what you have done is non-obvious.
Why are you taking this lamer post out on me? I know you probably won't believe me but I didn't post it.You and I may not agree, fine, but I don't drop to lame AC flames. And to top it off the asshole can't even string a coherent sentence together.
I can understand why you would be upset. Shit and I apologize for the twats who think an argument begins with "fucking" and ends with "asshole!" But ask me before you you decide to give me both barrels next time.
What is music when you despise all sound?
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.
IIRC, they sent _The Hithiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ (created and owned by Sirius Cybernetics Corporation) back in time and sued Encyclopedia Galactica for copyright infringement, not patenet infringement. The Guide was copied almost word for word from the Encyclopedia Galactica, but tense was changed as needed for the version sent back in time.
But that was nothing compared the The Guide II in _Mostly Harmless_ that temporally reverse engineered the universe to finally destroy Earth and all remnants of Earth. (Constructed under contract by the Vogons who were dumb but couldn't stand leaving a job uncompleted.)
Obviously Sirius' technology (or at least process control) had improved since they created the alternate universe for Zaphod in which they got the colors wrong and the Frogstar ships were "gunmetal green".
The law should apply to all of us or it applies to none of us
...*cough* Russian programmers *cough, cough*...
You're right. US laws really ought to cover eveyone. P2P pirates, FBI Agents hacking into computers abroad...
I mean, who knows what's right better than the Yanks?
--
Don't Blame me; I'm moving to Canada.
The law should apply to all of us or it applies to none of us
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.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
``End of the internet? Are you on crack?!''
;-)
No. I'm not on crack. Nor did I say this was the end of the Internet. All I said was it would be the end of the Internet as many know it. How many sites make use of plugins? How many present M$ Office files or PDF files as if they were regular webpages? How many _rely_ on Flash plugins as the only way to view the site? All this would come crashing down if plugins were no longer there (of course, Eolas winning the case wouldn't necessarily result in that).
If you want my personal opinion, I *HATE* websites that require plugins. HTML rules. It can do next to anything with a standards-compliant browser (Opera and Gecko-based browsers are good enough). PDF is a print format, and if used for webpages increases filesize enormously, and requires a PDF viewer (or converter). Flash doesn't work without the plugin. It may have its uses, but this doesn't warrant making the entire site in Flash and telling your customers they need to install the flash plugin to view it. I refuse. Java is similar, it has its uses, but it should always be an add-on to HTML, not a replacement (I wish JavaScript could do TCP/IP sockets...) M$ Office documents are, well, proprietary. I flame people who use them as webpages, that is, when I need the information. Usually I don't need the information, so I don't waste my time on it.
That said, plugins aren't bad. An example of good use of plugins: Mozilla doesn't (didn't?) natively support SVG. A plugin could help to embed SVG content in webpages, thus making Mozilla more standard-compliant. The plugin code could relatively easily be adapted to work with another browser. People who feel they don't need SVG don't have to download the plugin. Plugins are Good. Software patents are Bad. Now give me something to smoke.
---
Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even
where there is no river.
-- Nikita Khrushchev
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I love you AC troll. Will you be my girlfriend? ;)
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
There are three possibilities: Pioneer's solar panel has turned away from
the sun; there's a large meteor blocking transmission; someone loaded Star
Trek 3.2 into our video processor.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...