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.
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 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.
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!
Exactly. This is why I believe that Eolas will eventually sell out, perhaps for nigh infinitely rich royalties but mostly likely turn over the patent (gulp!) for a pure gold lump sum. Notice those number Cringley was talking abuot before hand.
Does anyone really believe that somone would turn down (say) $5,000,000,000 and choose to fight a legal battle that would inevitably destroy you?
I'll let the rest of you choke on the idea of Microsoft owning that patent...
Etc, etc, ad nauseam, and so on and so forth.
MS uses Netscape's plugin api.. the only way this company could sue Microsoft and have judge take serious is if it did not limit itself to suing Microsoft..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
So patents all suck when they're being used against you, but when it can hurt MS, all of a sudden there's a resounding cheer for these guys?
All they're doing is using their patents to try and start another browser war, knowing that whoever wins has to pay them anyway to use the patents.
Wouldn't this be a bad thing if it were anyone other than MS? If so, perhaps you should focus less on attacking MS and more on improving your own side of the fence.
1)Eolas wins, microsoft is crippled.
2)Microsoft wins, stupid patents are crippled.
Well, in response to 2 - it is not a stupid patent. This is a case where patent laws are a Good Thing - this patent was shown to Microsoft 2 years before M$ implmented the code, so it probably was "novel, and not obvious to someone versed in the art *at that time*".
And if M$ win, will it be because finally stupid patents have been realised to be bogus, or M$ has so much money to pay lawyers, that they just had to pay enough money to get the case struck down - or bought the judge or politicians?
I somewhat doubt it will be based on merit - but you probably know the US justice system more than me - fortunately, I only have to *hear* about the horrors....
Hehe...exactly my thought. If these folks win their case, the bell tolls for the Internet as many know it. No more plug-ins mean no Java, no Flash, and probably no embedded multimedia, M$ Word docs, PDF, and so on and so forth. Unless, of course, we all want to pay royalties to Eolas? Personally, I think it would be a Bad Thing if they won the suit. I strongly dislike this sort of patent. Just because they're after M$ in this case doesn't change that into a Bad Thing. Let's not fight Evil with evil.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
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
Sorry, buddy, Slashdot does not have a unified view about this issue. This isn't some political party.
You don't speak for me.
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.
Flawed logic?
I think it wise to separate the logic that states:
1) IE is a core part of Microsoft OS
2) Microsoft is unable to remove IE as a core part of the OS
Number (1) may be true but number (2) definitely is not. The browser may be key to the UI for windows, but they could quickly remove it and replace it with non-browser based components if they chose to. They simply chose not to right now.
Microsoft is beginning to use legal pressure against Free Software. Their next strategy will be to discontinue the badmouthing of Free Software in the press (as that's backfired), and start patent lawsuits against it.
How do you fight a $40 billion bohemeth that's threatening you? How about with its own tools?
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
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?
I think the important question to ask here is, will other browsers owe less than Microsoft if this case is decided in Eolas's favor?
This guy didn't *invent* plugin, the idea of plugin existed way before that, and if my memory serves well, Lotus 123 used to have them back in the 80 ! so what he did is just apply the "idea" to a browser, so much for an innovation. This is a typical internet related patent where you can patent everything, as long as you put the "internet" or "web" labels on it !
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."
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.
1. Eolas wins, stupid pantent-wavers gain more power.
2. Microsoft wins, no further comments needed.
Both are preferable to #3 - Microsoft buys Eola, and uses the patent against everyone else.
I'm firmly on microsoft's side, and I'd wager even RMS is.
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.
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.
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.
"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!
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.
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!
And if IBM acquires Eolas, that's a battle that I don't think Microsoft could win. IBM generates more patents every year than any other company--more than Lucent/Bell Labs, and certainly more than Microsoft.
"It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
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.
You can't refuse to license it at all, but you can refuse to license it to particular entities and set just about whatever license terms you want. For example, it'd be entirely legal to license a patent only to software distributed under an open-source license, or to license it to Netscape, Sun, etc. but refuse to license it to Microsoft.
Frankly I think a variation on that idea would be a good thing: the patent would be licensed royalty-free, but only to companies who in turn allow royalty-free licensing of all of their patents.
Why? You don't think any software is worth a patent? That's foolish.
No, it's not, actually.
You see, the problem is that there is a really hard to define line between what is prior art and what is not. Most code is almost always in part using other pre-existing code, be it calls to OS functions or compiler supplied functions.
If I write a program that does something unique, using a whole mix of pre-existing function calls or even if doing nothing more than simply using a well established compiler, I'm still building my work off of other work.
If bar() is a function that returns an INT, and foo() is a function that takes and INT and returns a FLOAT, then is foo(bar()) something new because I put it together that way?
Let's say yes, for one moment. Let's say that I'm the first person ever to perform this combination to create a unique result. Then my patent obviously applies to the PROCESS of getting a FLOAT from an INT. This is a bad example because PRIOR ART already exists, but let's say it didn't.
Now, which do you patent, the whole idea of getting a FLOAT from an INT, or my exact way of doing it? If you patent my exact usage of the functions Foo and Bar then one could simply write another way of doing it. If you patent the ENTIRE process it's self, you might inadvertantly stumble upon prior art that you didn't know about, or someone later on might do the exact same thing for other reasons and then break your patent.
You are obviously then going to draw back on the argument that not all software is THAT simple. Some processes are NOT obvious and are VERY complex and should be allowed to be patented because they are more complex than either FOO or BAR or even FOOBAR. But then that changes this from a technical argument to a philisophical one. At which point does a method or process become so complex it warrents a patent? 10 steps? 30 steps? 50 lines of code? 100 words in the comments? 5000 dead chickens? 1 million dead lawyers?
Trying to define that becomes the whole problem with defining a clear cut answer to whether or not software patents should be legal. So in the end we're going to have to decide, is the entire computer world a mish-mash of interlocking patented ideas where everybody will always owe everyone else something, or is software an intangible expression of speech that can only best be protected through existing copyright laws, and patents simply can not apply here?
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Mike Doyle is the enemy. Software patents are so often abused, and everyone on slashdot knows it... How could anyone possibly view this as a positive thing?! If he wins this, Opera and Netscape will have to pay him too. Even if he makes exceptions for free browsers (something I haven't heard mentioned yet) it's still a dirty rotten evil software patent. "Bi-Directional communication with a webserver" could well even cover javascript-RPC tricks. Do I have to may Mike Doyle if I code something like that?
__
Choose mnemonic identifiers. If you can't remember what mnemonic means, you've got a problem. - Larry Wall
Well, "we" already exhausted all possible legal and moral options and got a hearty "go fuck yourself" from the justice system.
Hmm.... So, why don't you just go kill O.J. Simpson? After all, he shouldn't have gotten off, right? Well, since the people got a hearty "go fuck yourself" from the justice system on that one, maybe we should just take the law into our own hands and fight evil with evil. He killed someone, so let's ice him ourselves.
In fact, let's just always do that, any time anyone gets acquitted. After all, since we accused them of it, they MUST have done it. We know so. It doesn't matter that a court of law has determined their innocence, just that we, the people (as in "The People vs."), think they committed a crime. Fight evil with evil.
Incidentally, I find it telling that, if this had happened the other way around, or in fact to any company besides Microsoft, the editors would have used the sarcastic "Patent Pending" icon instead of the "Bill Gates Borg" one.
Woohoo! No java, no flash, no embedded multimedia, no word documents, no pdf!
Can't wait! Finally, we can actually look at actual *gasp* content!
It'll be like we can browse the web with just a web browser.
-transiit
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.