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.

Comments

The Question now for the /. crowd

[sielwolf]

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).

Re:The Question now for the /. crowd

[MartinG]

Microsoft losing would be good here, not because we don't like Microsoft, but because it could be a good high profile publicly visible example of how the patent system is utterly broken.

Re:The Question now for the /. crowd

[Syre]

This embedding patent should be denied on the grounds of obviousness. That being said, here's a more likely scenario:

- The patent is upheld.
- Microsoft offers n billion $ for an exclusive license.
- The money finally corrupts the patent holders and they grant the exclusive license.
- Microsoft offers to license the patent "on reasonable terms" to anyone, thus not breaking the law.
- The side effect of this is that no usable open-source browsers can be made any more.
- Microsoft thus crushes the open source movement (at least at the desktop).

People who are saying "great!, let's use a stupid software patent to get Microsoft" are making an argument like the "good king" argument, which goes something like: "Yes, arbitrary power is bad, but there were good kings."

Sure, and they were followed by bad kings. The only answer is to get rid of the flawed institution, not hope for a good king.

Won't end MS's dominance

[timmyf2371]

Could Eolas End Microsoft's Browser Dominance?

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

NO! If microsoft loses this, it's very BAD!!

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[grungeKid]

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.

Re:Who owns Eolas?

[wkitchen]

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).

That is a truly frightening thought. If Microsoft became the owner of those patents, they could then be used as a weapon against many competing products. Including, and maybe especially, open source ones. Those patents backed by Microsoft's well financed legal department and their privately owned politicians would be very evil indeed.

The great irony would be that Microsoft, who came late to the browser game, could then sue Netscape/Mozilla out of existence for patent infringement, even though it predates IE (unless you consider IE's NCSA Mosaic roots, though that, of course, was not created by MS).

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.

I support MS here

[Lonath]

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.

Re:Fat chance

[Nutrimentia]

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...

ah MS uses Netscape' splugin api..is anybody awake

[linuxislandsucks]

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..

Hypocrisy

[lowe0]

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.

Re:Win/Win

[tconnors]

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....

Re:Plugins???

[RAMMS EIN]

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.

What do you mean, "our stand"?!

[HEbGb]

Sorry, buddy, Slashdot does not have a unified view about this issue. This isn't some political party.

You don't speak for me.

Re:Win/Win

[isorox]

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.

Re:Shockwave IS useful (its not)

[Quazion]

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.

Re:Plugins???

[Jace of Fuse!]

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?

Re:Plugins???

[phyxeld]

Still, wouldn't it be incredibly cool if Eolas could actually pull it off? Mike Doyle would be remembered as the hero of the entire computer industry...

Uh, no.

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?