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???
Surely this is bad news for Mozilla, opera et al as well?
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
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.
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.
As long as he can double-click on "The Internet" he'll be happy.
.NET also covered by this patent? In which case wouldn't that make all thier newer products violiate the patient, since they all use the same libraries?
Windows has pretty much adopted a total ActiveX stance. Its "Windows Update" is ActiveX. The desktop since Win98 has been ActiveX enabled. Browsing your own hard drive through Explorer uses those same ActiveX libraries.
Not to mention how many sites use Flash and Java, that the patent would also cover.
What makes me curious is that statment that they said. The publically claimed to be seeking to knock Microsoft off its high-horse.
Can Microsoft use that statement against them in court, claiming that they arn't even seeking a reasonable resolution?
They are publicly claiming to be trying to cripple Microsoft, knowing fully how well they rely on ActiveX for buisness. Isn't
If they win, it would certainly change the way MS works. But I've yet to see someone stick to thier guns when offered a billion.
Isn't Eolas the Irish word for knowledge/science?
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.
It is a beautiful thought, but I really doubt it. :-)
The US government and legal system has several times shown that Microsoft is above the law and cn pretty much do as they please. The times they have been found guilty, the sentences have been absurdely easy on them. What makes people think that all this would all of a sudden change just because a small company sues them?
Yes, their claim might be very correct, but imo sof was the claim of DOJ.
---
The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
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'
Right on the money. It's saddening to think how many people are cheering seeing this article when it really represents all that is evil in software: Ridiculous patents (two-way communications? Give me a friggin' break), predatory enforcement, and a company looking to exist on the coattails of other organizations.
Of course it all sounds absurd to begin with. You cannot specifically exclude a company from licensing your patents (it's one of the fundamentals), and furthermore you have to set a equitable and constant, non-discriminatory licensing fee. Personally I think Microsoft will ground these guys into the ground, and given my feelings on absurd patents that add absolutely nothing to the general pool of knowledge (but merely describe the obvious and then hope for the checks to come rolling in), I'm very happy about that.
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
That part's covered by the part when I said MSFT will buy Eolas out, just like they bought out the White House.
MSFT bought the support they needed from the Republicans, and when GWB got elected, sure enough, the whole tone of the case changes. That's not supposed to happen -- justice is supposed to be politically blind -- but that's what happened.
Besides, who knows, maybe MSFT *can* get W. chopping at the Eolas lawyers' knees. How hard would it be to imagine Eolas's financials being frozen because they're suspected of being linked to Al Qaeda?
(I seriously doubt that would actually happen, but it's pretty easy to imagine it happening.)
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Abstract mathematical thought isn't patentable and all software is abstract mathematical thought.
Nope, you're wrong. Software is the electronic equivalent of gears and pulleys. Put it this way: I can take any program and make a mechanical equivalent. That mechanical equivalent would be patentable. So why shouldn't software?
The cotton gin was nothing but an algorithm expressed in mechanics. If you can patent cotton gins, then you can patent software.
That said, my take on software patents is that it's such a new science that patents should be suspended until all the "obvious" inventions have clear prior art, say 2050. By then, anything new should be novel enough to deserve a patent.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
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
lol, Your allegations are absurd... I don't like microsoft. Quite the opposite, I think often they try to have a monopoly on the entry-level user OS market. However, everyone yells "OMG OMG OMG OMG its MICROSOFT!! They should all be crucified!!" That's called stupidity. You want a common scapegoat? How about the fact that posters like YOU on /. make me wish we had a forced IQ test before you could post.
Personally, if Microsoft tried to do this to Netscape, for example, you'd all be crying OMG OMG OMG burn them!!! MS can't do this! Yet since it's being done to microsoft, you don't care? as I said, I don't like microsoft. But a double standard is the bullshit that the bush administration is trying to pull, I hate having to read about it on /. too.
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.
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!
Something tells me if MS tried to abolish software patents, all the other proprietary software companies would gang up on them on an unprecedented scale.
That part about how everyone's a threat to MS? It works both ways. If MS were to attempt to jeopardize enough companies' business models all at once, you'd see them gang up so fast it's make your head spin. Look at the court case for an example - Sun, AOL, Netscape, and even Oracle got involved.
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.
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.
Geez, didn't realize this was such a touchy subject with the masses... I thought the /. mentality understood that any large body can be understood by a system of statistical processes, such that, even while two people might disagree with the idea that the current patent system is broken, it is an opinion shared by a large enough percentage to be considered "the /. mentality".
/. crowd, I'm looking for both sides of the issue, as I suspect many others are. Saying "you don't speak for me, bub" doesn't really contribute much to the discourse. How about, "I don't think the current patent system is flawed, because I'm a dot-com millionaire" or something. Then we have a rational argument, and a primary-source. Useful information.
Actually, when I ask questions to the
Hell, the parent probably does agree that the patent system is flawed, he just resents being grouped with everyone else.
"Yes, we are all different."
--"I'm not."
How about you?
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
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.
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.
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.
Years ago, Microsoft's troubles with the US government had just began. Microsoft's strategy, and challenge, during this legal battle was to appear less aggressive and point out competition that could overtake Microsoft at any time. Microsoft entered a phase where they had to be less the domineering monopolist and more the successful business fighting for survival in a quick, highly competitive market to bring positive change for the consumer.
That phase is almost over.
In fact, if one accepts that the newest leaked strategy documents (aka Halloween VII) are genuine, there is proof that patent strategy idea is still very much alive within Microsoft. We've seen strategies outlined in previous leaked memos come to life. It is very possible we're about to see a new strategy deployed.
No, but if MS held the patent you'd be screaming for free technology. You're another hypocritical /. reader.
I hate reading this double standard bullshit ad nauseam.
I rarely reply to trolls, but I will this time.
When I first read the article, I came away with the same opinion-- This is a very bad abuse of the patent system. However after reading a few other comments, I realized that it's actually a very GOOD abuse of the patent system.
Here's the thing-- Microsoft has no problem using the current patent law against others. So, by facing this suit, Microsoft is forced to either a) stop making IE, or b) activley oppose the patent system. As others have stated, either outcome is acceptable. Either way, the long term result will probably be a massive reform of the patent system.
So, if you think about it, there is no double standard. Just a nice bit of "what goes around comes around".
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)
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
I don't know for sure, but I believe that some or all of the items you mentioned are (or should be) covered by design patents. Design patents have different standards of originality and non-obviousness than normal utility patents.
Most software patents are utility patents. The problem is that patents are designed to protect an implementation, not an idea. Herein lies the problem.
For example, compare the patent on the first steam engine to the LZW patent. If I remember my history correctly, the first practical steam engine was not invented by James Watt. Someone else invented it and patented it, something like "Method and apparatus for converting steam pressure into mechanical energy". Watt wanted to build steam engines, but was blocked by this patent. So he modified the design a bit and ended up developing a better engine and dominated the market. This is the patent system at its best, protecting an implementation and simultaneously promoting an idea.
Contrast this with the LZW patent, something like "Method and apparatus for compressing and decompressing a stream of bits". Suppose I came up with a program which can decompress an LZW bitstream. Suppose further that my decompressor software is significantly different from that which was patented. Say for instance, that it reuires only 1/10th the memory and runs twice as fast on the same hardware as the patented implementation. I should be able to do this.
However, Unisys interprets its patent as covering the bitstream format, and any program I write which works with the format infringes. This is like saying that any machine which uses steam pressure infringes on the original steam engine patent. This is obviously (patently) incorrect.
A software patent should be like any patent on any physical object, IE a protection of the implementation, not the idea. A program which does the same thing in a different way should not infringe. This concept of software patent is sounding more and more like conventional copyright. Any program which is sufficiently similar to the patented program to infringe the patent also infringes on the copyright.
Patents exist to protect physical objects, since you can't copyright an object, only a document. Copyrights offer equivalent protection to documents as patents do to objects. Therefore, software patents are redundant and should be disallowed.
Well... that's the way it should be.
Lots of technical and environmental problems are solved by the application of vast amounts of nuclear power