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.
Sorry, buddy, Slashdot does not have a unified view about this issue. This isn't some political party.
You don't speak for me.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
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
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.