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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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".
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