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???
EOL for IE or so ;-)
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
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
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.
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.
Isn't Eolas the Irish word for knowledge/science?
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!
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'
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.
The patent in question can be found here.
or in other words.. Eolas would accept a larger than normal payout.
Read the patent itself. My intepretation of the patent is that he saw OLE in Microsoft Office and, as all predatory patent offenders do, he broadened the scope and then claimed invention (he actually even references OLE in his patent : "Other existing approaches to embedding interactive program objects in documents include the Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) facility in Microsoft Windows...At least one shortcoming of these approaches is that neither is capable of allowing a user to access embedded interactive program objects in distributed hypermedia documents over networks." ActiveX, a misnomer for COM, is a growth of OLE. Given that this guy references it in his patent, obviously Microsoft has prior art on that.)
His "invention" appears to be when these plug-ins perform work on another machine and then return the results. i.e. An embedded window in a "hypertext document" that requests information from a networked computer and then displays it. This seems to be the kind of patent that infuriates Slashdot normally, so it's perplexing how anyone would lines up to cheer them on, or to pretend that they're underdogs
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!
This is hardly the most important issue, but it occurs to me that the pronunciation of the word 'Eolas' (which is the Irish word for 'knowledge') might not be obvious to non-Irish-speakers. To assist you in participating in heated verbal debate on this topic, I offer the following pronunciation guide:
For those of you who don't speak IPA, this means it almost rhymes with 'toeless', and begins with a sound similar to the English word 'owe'.
I hope this will spare you the embarrassment of using pronunciations such as "Yo-lass" or "Ee-owe-lass".
Sorry, buddy, Slashdot does not have a unified view about this issue. This isn't some political party.
You don't speak for me.
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
RTFA!
It talked about excluding Microsoft. It said nothing about excluding the competition. His gripe is with Microsoft, since they stepped on his patent blatantly.
I also get the feeling that he hates MS, and will do anything he "legally" can to screw them. This has to be one of the best.
Hopefully Eolas is not a public company, for then they can fight this the way he wants, and not shareholders.
Tournament Management Online &
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 did. If he wins, theres nothing to stop him from reconsidering his ideology and going after everyone else.
Infact, he'd be on even stronger ground.
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.
lots of avant-garde websites use shockwave for their site design. Being much more flexible than flash amazing results can be achieved. Applets are also useful, for things like my ISP ATTBI, which has online tech support chat through applets embedded in webpages. Without applets they surely would have gone with something that required download, which would definitely have been windows only.
Photos.
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.
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.
Somewhere back in the IE6 betas Microsoft dropped support for Netscape style plugins, instead opting to use ActiveX objects exclusively.
the only way this company could sue Microsoft and have judge take serious is if it did not limit itself to suing Microsoft
False.
When it comes to patents you are perfectly free to allow some poeople to use your patent unchallenged while prosecuting anyone you like.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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!
Michale Doyle wrote a manifesto of sorts about this in 1996:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1996/9602/
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
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.
I can only think of two good uses for shockwave or flash....
joe cartoon and Killfrog
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
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.
If Microsoft is forced to remove ActiveX, Microsoft Java, JavaScript, VBScript, and all that, that would get rid of many security holes in IE. IE might finally be moderately secure.
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.
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
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.