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
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.
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
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.
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 &
Somewhere back in the IE6 betas Microsoft dropped support for Netscape style plugins, instead opting to use ActiveX objects exclusively.
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.
I can only think of two good uses for shockwave or flash....
joe cartoon and Killfrog
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
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
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