Plugin Patent to Mean Changes in IE?

hexene writes "The W3C have issued an initial statement on the recent court case of Eolas v. Microsoft in regards to US Patent 5,838,906. The patent relates to the embedding of objects in hypermedia documents, and Microsoft has indicated they will have to make changes to Internet Explorer as a result of the ruling. There may also be far-reaching effects to both other web browser vendors and page authors. Check out the public mailing list to discuss the various issues." See the previous Eolas story for background.

Comments

You would think...

[Distan]

You would think that since intellectual property protection is so important to Microsoft, they would be more cautious about insuring that nothing they shipped infringed any patents instead of continuing to get caught in these embarassing lawsuits.

Re:You would think...

[Talthane]

I think the point is that the software patent system has got to the stage where it's impossible for any company to be sure of that (after all, it's not like Microsoft's legal department is small). Yet another reason to hope against hope that the EU will reject the notion of introducing them here.

Re:You would think...

[SerpentMage]

Excuse me, but I think this is nothing more than a land grab by some greedy "Intellectual Property" company.

The patent is ridiculous and I hardly see the patent holder writing their own browser or selling their own system. No, they would rather sue some company and make their money that way...

Sheeshhh...

Re:You would think...

[GigsVT]

Patents aren't the kind of thing you can really determine ahead of time. Even if it looks like you might infringe, if the owner doesn't care about enforcing it, then it won't matter. Most are so vague you'd never be able to build anything anyway if you really tried to be conservative about it.

Basically you just have to put your stuff out there and hope you aren't sued. If they sue you later and can prove you knew about their patent and willfully infringed, they can still screw it to you anyway. It's a fucked up situation.

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Note that the patent was filed in 1994, but didn't issue until 1998. In those 4 years MS wouldn't have had any knowledge of the pending patent (unless specifically told). By the time '98 rolled around they'd already had the code in use and probably were unaware of the infringement until sued.

Re:You would think...

[AftanGustur]

You would think that since intellectual property protection is so important to Microsoft, they would be more cautious about insuring that nothing they shipped infringed any patents instead of continuing to get caught in these embarassing lawsuits.

The problem is that issuing patents is largely a money making activity for the state. The result is that people can (and have) patented almost every imaginable (and quite a few unimaginable) things.

When the internet became popular, people rushed to patent everything that had already been patented but just with the words "on the internet" appended.

The results are that there are so many patents, covering so much activity that you have undoubtly "infringed" upon quite a few when you pressed the "submit" button. (and so will I)

Apart from a lot of patents being so vague that they could cover almost everything, It simply is not possible to match everything you do against issued patents.

Re:You would think...

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

it's impossible for any company to be sure of that

That's the way the big players want it. Do you seriously think that there is any software you could possibly write that doesn't infringe on one or patents from IBM, Microsoft, Lucent, etc.

That way, if you ever sue them, they will countersue for patent infringement. IBM carefully selected four patents that affect all of SCO's products. When IBM gets a preliminary injunction, then SCO will have all of their revenues cut off. Plus expensive patent suits to defend by either (1) proving they don't infringe, or (2) proving the patent is invalid. In either case, IBM could just come up with a fifth or sixth patent infringement to keep the whole expensive patent infringement suits going while keeping SCO's revenue cut off.

So why didn't IBM file 2000 patent suits instead of only four? So that they don't look like they are gaming the system and fall into disfavor with the judge. (Plus the ability to add the fifth or sixth patent suit later to keep them running sequentially instead of concurrently.)

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

check the age of the patent. no doubt he had a prototype implementation done when he was at UC ten years ago. would that prototype be useful to anyone today? i think not.

Re:You would think...

[stephenry]

This isn't the fault of a "greedy IP company" sueing businesses on alledged infringement, it's the fault of the government for allowing such a case to be made in the first place.

Re:You would think...

[BrokenHalo]

instead of continuing to get caught in these embarassing lawsuits

Embarassment probably doesn't mean anything to Microsoft. As long as they can pursuade government departments or your granny (and nearly every clueless person in between) that Windows and MS products are the way, the truth and the light, they'll continue to rake in the dollars.

I had a frustrating experience last week when I was trying to explain alternatives to an acquaintance who, when asked what he used his computer systems for, since he was so adamant that Windows had to be installed, and he said "everything. Absolutely everything".

When pressed, it turned out that his staff used Word, IE and Excel for very basic tasks that could easily be accommodated by open-source alternatives.

He wouldn't even consider the idea; just too far out of his head-space.

Re:You would think...

[Surak]

Sound like anybody else we know? :-P

Re:You would think...

[yintercept]

hardly see the patent holder writing their own browser or selling their own system

I agree that this patent seems to be frivolous.

However, in a world of components, I don't think it is a necessary requirement that a company must be making an end user application to be considered a legitimate entity. There is legitimacy in designing components.

In some regard, the people making components are in greater need of IP protection than the company that packages and sells systems since they do not have the immediate brand awareness. They are totally at the mercy of the company with the brand name.

Just because a component is dependent on another work does not mean that it is illegitimate. The fact that the patent system is protecting components is good in this regard; otherwise the companies selling systems would be able to trounce all over the subcontractors that make the components.

Just because we haven't heard of a company doesn't mean they are not a major player making major contributions.

Re:You would think...

[reimero]

I think the point is that the software patent system has got to the stage where it's impossible for any company to be sure of that (after all, it's not like Microsoft's legal department is small). Yet another reason to hope against hope that the EU will reject the notion of introducing them here.

I wonder if anyone has patented a method for making a computer display the words "Hello world."

Re:You would think...

[kfg]

This would be true if it weren't for the fact that SCO's revenue source is Microsoft making donations to its legal fund, errrrr, licensing Unix and Linux.

KFG

Re:You would think...

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

SCO's revenue source is Microsoft making donations to its legal fund, errrrr, licensing Unix and Linux.

True, but... Red Hat and IBM has asked for court to shut SCO's loud mouth until trial in April 2005. The combined effect is that the FUD will stop. SCO can't spread fud, and it is inevitable that SCO will loose in court, which they now can't back out of -- without a settlement being reached. So Microsoft can pay as much as they want, but if SCO can't spread FUD, then what is the point.


KFG

You misspelled KFC.

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, that's impossible, but it's something to point out when Bill Gates claims that Linux cannot be trusted because nobody has vetted the possible IP infringements.

Re:You would think...

[kfg]

Once you spread enough bullshit it continues to stink for a rather goodly amount of time.

I'm a Vermont boy and know whereof I speak.

KFG (You insensitive clod)

Re:You would think...

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

KFG (You insensitive clod)
Sorry I missed it the first time. I get it now upon closer inspection. :-)

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

what do they care, people that use IE are going to still use IE. I doubt this is going to get big time attention on the news, and they also have money to pay for their crimes.

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they did have a version of Mosaic with their technology embedded. I ran it, way back when, rotated molecules as I recall.

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

Michael D. Doyle was the guy who initiated this apparently for the purposes of remote medical imaging applications which is his field. Yes, there was a prototype, and yes the patent holder is indeed selling systems. He appears to be capitalizing on HIPAA right now as well by selling systems based on a patented trivial extension to public key cryptography. He also seems to be offering quite a few other services based on his website. Overall, he seems like a jackass to me.

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you meant "ensuring", but "insuring" put an interesting spin on it. I wonder if you can get insurance against this kind of crap.

Re:You would think...

[squiggleslash]

Of course. Because we should always make our moral decisions on the basis of what the government allows us to do and what it doesn't.

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point is that the software patent system has got to the stage where it's impossible for any company to be sure of that [i.e., that it isn't infringing a patent somewhere --Ed.] (after all, it's not like Microsoft's legal department is small).

Very true. On the other hand, if we're going to have a system where people can patent ideas and exclude other competitors, then it might as well be enforced, right? The way the patent system works (in any industry) is that the first one to get a patent on a development reaps the rewards, to the exclusion of others. It has been that way for many years.

It's not that the patent system has got to a stage where this is a problem. It's industry that's got to a stage where patents are more of a nuisance than they're worth!

It used to be that every industry had tons of logistical, manufacturing, and labor concerns. Patentable ideas may advance such an industry over time, but they're not the daily bread (which is production - i.e., making an actual physical good, like a car).

Today, innovative ideas are developed, borrowed, used, and improved upon so quickly and in such volume that the patent system, even if it worked instantaneously, would be a tremendous net of constraints and contradictions waiting to trip up all the players. With the built-in bureaucratic delay, it's even worse. This is particularly the case in software, where the product is ideas.

There are no logistical issues or high research costs to distract your engineering team from acting on, developing, and patenting new ideas at an incredible rate. And companies do. We've seen the results in the phenomenal advance of computers into the hands of consumers in the past twenty years. We're seeing the results in the overloading of the patent system.

Before, the patent system served as an incentive to motivate advances in science and engineering. Now, in at least one industry, it looks like it's dead weight. But if the patent system is prohibiting innovation, it's clear that in the software world, innovation is happening at a breakneck pace nonetheless. The influence of patents is almost unfelt. So it seems likely we'll be stuck with them for many years.

Re:You would think...

[leifm]

I think if they are going to exist they should be pretty short (3 years). If someone truely comes up with a new idea, give them the time to get it to market, make some cash, but don't let that patent stifle innovation.

Re:You would think...

[CmdrWiggle]

I was in Chicago during the trial, and had the opportunity to sit in the courtroom and observe parts of the case. Microsoft contended (quite rightly - check the WWWTalk archives for 1993) that there were multiple instances of good prior art that invalidated the patent. An example of such prior art was ViolaWWW, which was embedding interactive content in web pages over a year before the patent application was filed. Certain legal issues (that I don't fully understand) made this evidence inadmissable, and it was stricken from the record. I imagine this will be a primary focus of Microsft's appeal (if there is one).

Also, they laid out a good noninfringement case by contending that the "identify and locate" step in the patent was carried out by COM, part of Microsoft's OS that existed well before the claimed invention, and not the browser as required by the claims.

I don't think the issue here was whether or not Microsoft was careful about shiping infringing products, but it goes to show that a jury trial over a software patent is a complete crap shoot. The way I see it, either the jury didn't understand the patent laws at hand, or they didn't understand the technology (or just didn't like Microsoft).

Re:You would think...

[s20451]

In fact this is exactly what happens in chip design.

Twenty years ago, a single company would design netlists, put them together in a chip design, and build the chip.

Ten years ago, one company would design the netlists and put them together as a chip, and another company would build the chip (in many cases, the chip building company was IBM, which is why they have their fingers in a lot of processors).

Now, different companies design the netlists, design chips, and build the chips. For example, say you want a high-speed wireless modem. You would buy some netlists from a company that specializes in communication algorithms, put them together on a chip, and ship it off to a manufacturer to build the chip.

This is a good thing, since it allows companies to specialize, and it speeds the introduction of good technologies to the market -- and it wouldn't happen without strong IP protection.

Re:You would think...

[blakestah]

Excuse me, but I think this is nothing more than a land grab by some greedy "Intellectual Property" company.

It isn't a company - it is a person and about 4 lawyers. Some dude wrote this patent 9 years ago, and now he is worth $500 million (at least).

The patent is ridiculous and I hardly see the patent holder writing their own browser or selling their own system.

That is pretty much exactly what he wants to do. OF course, he will start with $520 million of Microsoft's money...and work on making an OS through the browser. No one else will be allowed to use bi-directional data flow through a browser until 2015!

Microsoft will, of course, do their best with a work-around.

There are probably 100 patents filed for every patent that evolves into an implementation. Maybe 1000. The US PTO is morally bankrupt, and the future of innovation through small inventors is essentially dead. But this case is at least kinda interesting in a soap-opera kinda way.

Re:You would think...

[ynohoo]

Moderators: please stop whatever you're smoking, drink plenty of water, and wait 4 hours before moderating.

But you don't seem so insightful when I'm sober ;)

Re:You would think...

[henrygb]

This is the key point on software patents.

The purpose of the patent system is to reward innovation, by providing a short-term monopoly. The hope is that this will encourage innovation which would not otherwise occur. But the evidence on software seems to suggest that the innovation is likely to be repeated quickly by others who do not know about the original patent, and so the economic benefit of the innovation may not justify the economic loss caused by creating an artificial monopoly. Indeed, if the patent system makes software development more risky, then it may reduce innovation as well as making the use of new products more expensive.

Re:You would think...

[yintercept]

Personally, I suspect that if we had a system where a large number of small companies were busily building their components and the IP laws were preventing companies from taking over the market, then /.ers would be cheering on the IP laws. The fact that we have one dominent monopoly essentially controlling the software industry and cutting off opportunities for others, we see only the bad side of IP.

Basically, Microsoft exists because IBM (fearing antitrust lawsuits) contracted with MS, Intel and others so that different companies would own different parts of the IT puzzle. It was this dynamic landscape with multiple companies involved in the development that created the PC revolution.

Microsoft shows very clearly that strong antitrust laws are a necessary component of a intellectual property system. Basically, when one company has grown so powerful that no IP exists outside of that company, then the IP system fails.

Microsoft was made by IBM. Bill Gates turned his attention from reverse engineeting BASIC to reverse engineering Intergallactic Digital Research's DOS because IBM was looking for partners that would create a dynamic business scape in light of anti trust threats.

If the legal community really wanted to create a working system of IP, then they should start by breaking up Microsoft and the cartels and megalyths that control the music industry.

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that this patent seems to be frivolous.

However, in a world of components, I don't think it is a necessary requirement that a company must be making an end user application to be considered a legitimate entity. There is legitimacy in designing components

What is the point of patents? To stifle the industry? I thought one could look up patents for a specific design they are intending to use, and pay royalties to a company who has that design/process/whatever patented, rather than spend possibly even more money on R&D. But in this case, there is a company who has something overly broad patented, and A) Doesn't intend to use it for his own business purposes, and B) Wants to sue the hell out of anyone using it.

What good does that do for the patent system? None. Thank you, have a good day.

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

So why didn't IBM file 2000 patent suits instead of only four? So that they don't look like they are gaming the system and fall into disfavor with the judge. (Plus the ability to add the fifth or sixth patent suit later to keep them running sequentially instead of concurrently.)

More likely? Because patent suits are darned expensive. They are the single least efficient way to enforce your IP. Letters, negotiations, licenses, cross-licenses, and joint-ventures all produce far bettter returns on investment. Each one, if it goes to trial, will cost $2MM-$8MM. No one, not IBM, not anyone kisses away money like this unless they must.

When do you file a patent suit? When the cost of not doing it (lost business) exceeds the cost of doing it and you have no cheaper alternative.

Re:You would think...

[bobtheheadless]

Indeed.
And in addition, we've seen that many programmers don't even need the promise of a monopoly to develop good software -- look at the open source community.

Re:You would think...

[benedict]

That's really funny. Do you know how many
patents there are? Do you expect Microsoft to
have its lawyers go through all of them every time
MS makes a substantive change to its software?

Re:You would think...

[GryphonTech]

I think this sounds similar to that company many years that applied for a patent/tradmark on the word "Multimedia" and then threatened to sue infringers unless they paid $$$. I don't remember the company, they just faded to obscuity...

Thank goodness this patent/tradmark was thrown out but it just goes to show how low these money grubbing lawyers can go to get $$$ without doing anything really productive.

Just my 0.02.

-- In the imortal last words of Socrates... I drank WHAT!?!--

Re:You would think...

[MisterFancypants]

Hey moron, when is the last time Microsoft initiated a patent lawsuit?

Re:You would think...

[SiliconJesus101]

Unfortunately, when you are as big as Microsoft it is much easier to simply consider it a cost of doing business. How much in fines or judgements would it take to bankrupt Microsoft?? They are most likely profiting far more than any ruling against them would award. Let's say that Microsoft was forced to pay (insert payee here) $1 million dollars a day in damages, that would be a mere $365 million a year. 1000 million is a billion, multiply by what the company is worth.....hell..Microsoft would still be in business for quite a long time even if they had absolutely zero in revenues.

Re:You would think...

[Lonath]

When IBM gets a preliminary injunction, then SCO will have all of their revenues cut off.

Almost. I'm not saying that there's a conspiracy. I'm not saying that there isn't. But I think it's a good bet that SCO will get another multimillion dollar 1-year license from Microsoft in 2004.

Re:You would think...

[rawshark]

You would think that since intellectual property protection is so important to Microsoft, they would be more cautious about insuring that nothing they shipped infringed any patents instead of continuing to get caught in these embarassing lawsuits.

I have no mod points today, so +1 funny, intentional or not

Re:You would think...

[Anonymous Coward]

it is my understanding that the university of california owns the patent. couldn't microsoft revoke its windows and office licenses? or send in the bsa to do a license audit?

don't mess with the bull, you'll get the horns...

Re:You would think...

[Ciggy]

Surely the fact that M$ came up with the code in the 4 years from '94 to '98 without having any knowledge of the patent(?) would imply that the idea is obvious and so non-patentable?

Patents

[Goo.cc]

Even though this was a loss for Microsoft, I am not happy about that ruling. In my opinion, this shows the harm that patents are doing to the computer industry. I also believe that patents last too long.

Re:Patents

[LittleK]

I agree, this patent issue could really injure the development of better web browsers, and hurt the internet community as a whole.

Re:Patents

[Moth7]

Maybe they should put a clause in patents which effectively says "do something with the idea in this timespace or have the patent nullified". That would stop idiots from wasting money patenting ideas that they aren't going to use and it would probably help industry in general, rather than just the computing sector. It should also be required that they make patented concepts more exact - ie (No pun intended ;) give a specific potential use and implementation of the idea rather than just the idea.

Re:Patents

[Goo.cc]

I agree with you. Sadly, things will probably never change since so many companies have a vested interest in seeing in the current system continue.

Re:Patents

[blowdart]

Well there would be one advantage, no more plugins means no more flash.

*contented sigh* No more navigation bars, adverts with sound, splash screens

(Note the W3C meeting was hosted by Macromedia, who probably have more to lose than anyone else)

Re:Patents

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but also no SVG outside of Mozilla's implementation (until other native implementations pop up). This is not a good thing. Also no MNG and no JPEG2000. There -are- very valid uses of plug-ins.

--
J. King
mtknight@dark-phantasy.com

Re:Patents

[KillerHamster]

Maybe if enough companies go after Microsoft for patent infringement, Microsoft will get the government to ban software patents or reduce their length.

Re:Patents

[AKnightCowboy]

Ah, but also no SVG outside of Mozilla's implementation (until other native implementations pop up). This is not a good thing. Also no MNG and no JPEG2000. There -are- very valid uses of plug-ins.

Also, no more Java. That wouldn't be a bad thing.

Re:Patents

[Hamstaus]

Whatchoo talkin' bout fool? No more flash means no more Strong Bad! And I'd rather fight a shark-wielding bear than be forced to give up my fix of Lookin' at a Thing in a Bag.

Re:Patents

[Rhone]

More likely, MS will happily pay the licensing fees (which is chump change to them) that developers of free software can't pay. It is, unfortunately, in Microsoft's interest to let the patent silliness continue.

That stinks.

[Creepy Crawler]

There's this really neat feature that IE has (whie no other browser has) is the ability to save a webpage in 1 file. It puts a base64 attachments before the tag, and self-links all the links.

If thats what they're talking about, that stinks.

Re:That stinks.

[naph]

i believe that's not microsofts invention, i think it's an RFC.

should get into moz sometime.
:D

Re:That stinks.

[Repugnant_Shit]

Konqueror can do that, "Archive Webpage" creates a single .WAR file.

Re:That stinks.

[CrazyTalk]

I just tried to use this feature on this very page in IE 6.0, and got a "Web page cannot be saved" error. So much for microsoft technology.

Re:That stinks.

[quantum bit]

Konqueror can do that, "Archive Webpage" creates a single .WAR file.

And a .WAR file is basically a ZIP file with the HTML page and all the images, so even if you're not using Konqueror in the future you'll still be able to read the,.

Re:That stinks.

[Asprin]

But that also makes things like this possible. IIRC, the virus comes to you as a zipped MIME/html file. You unzip the file and double-click it and it extracts the virus binary from a base64 encoded section of the document.

This was the SOB that forced me to add ZIP and HTML files to the RenAttach bad list on our mail server.

Re:That stinks.

[jovlinger]

I suggested on /. a few years back to use this as a solution to webbugs in email. Of course, I was unaware of the RFC at the time. The idea is that if you restrict email readers to only read attached files, you make webbugs ineffective.

Re:That stinks.

[BetterThanCaesar]

.WAR

What is it good for?

Absolutely nothing!

Re:That stinks.

[implex]

Wow that is neat. I wondered what else would read a .MHT file. If I view it again in IE then I can save objects independently. But if I don't have IE then I am out of luck.

Re:That stinks.

[jridley]

Mozilla used to open it. It doesn't seem to work anymore. I don't know why, it's not a microsoft specific file format, it's a standard MIME encoded file envelope.

Even if you didn't have IE, if you were really hard up to view the file you could just burst all the files out with a standard MIME app and view them in whatever you had.

Re:That stinks.

[Anonymous Coward]

no problems here

Re:That stinks.

[Trejkaz]

.WAR? Does it run on Tomcat? ;-)

Re:That stinks.

[babbage]

Say it again! Huh!

Barry Bonds patent

[BarryBondsTroll]

I heard Barry Bonds was attempting to obtain a patent for his amazing hitting technique. Supposedly Ted William's frozen head is claiming prior art, but I feel that Bonds will ultimately prevail, as possession is 9/10 of the law.

Re:Barry Bonds patent

[Anonymous Coward]

As John Lennon once said, "possession is 9/10 of the problem" :)

Re:Barry Bonds patent

[Anonymous Coward]

No geek on slashdot is interested in baseball enough to know who Barry Bonds is.

Re:Barry Bonds patent

[Anonymous Coward]

John Lennon was a fucking idiot.

Re:Barry Bonds patent

[Requiem]

Yo.

Re:Barry Bonds patent

[Anonymous Coward]

The same John Lennon who lived in a mansion and ate breakfast on his yacht?

Re:Barry Bonds patent

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're a prosticalar assmunch.

Re:Barry Bonds patent

[Anonymous Coward]

And that somehow changes the fact that John Lennon was a fucking idiot?

Re:Barry Bonds patent

[Anonymous Coward]

For future reference, prosticalar is not a word.

"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Empiric]

From the W3C statement:

The implementation can be local or distributed across a network, and is automatically invoked based upon type information in the document or associated with the object's data.

It seems on initial glance that if this patent holds up, it could be argued to apply to the entire model of MIME types by which browsers invoke different behavior based on type.

It also seems to directly apply to the notion of having Word launch when clicking on a ".doc" file.

Couldn't one consider a browser and a word processor to both be "plug-ins" to the operating system? What specifically differentiates a "plug-in" from any other type of application functionality?

Surely there is massive prior art on this going back at least to the early 80's. This patent is obscene.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Serapth]

Actually thats my biggest complaint about both this, and any other patent lawsuit.

It needs to be more clearly defined *EXACTLY* what is being patented... these vague patents... or more specifically, a patent without an actual implementation, opens us up to all kinds of useless broadreaching patent lawsuits. In the end, this kinda stuff tends to hurt the consumers more then anyone!

IMHO, you should not be able to receive a patent unless you have an exact implementation to demonstrate exactly what it is you are patenting. Patents should be almost as specific and exacting as trademarks are.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[jez_f]

I think if you read on

.., and there is a control path to the object's implementation to support user interaction with the object..

Kind of makes it distinct to plugins, even though if you had the rendering for, say, a gif image in a DLL it may also be using the patent idea.
There is also

..where at least some of the object's data is located external to the document..

So if you had a mime encoded document with all parts encoded within the document weather they neaded a plugin or not it would not be covered
This is a really bad thing. Basicaly it looks like you shouln't be able to even put a java widget in a web page.
Now that they have been payed off my M$ I wonder if one of there team of [mony grabbing pigf$$king evil] lawyers will decide to go after web site authors??

All IMHO IANAL ETC

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[hal9000]

You could always just read the darn thing.

My uninformed opinion (from reading only the abstract) is that the MIME type model is not at risk, because ... "After launching the program object, the user is able to interact with the object as the invention provides for ongoing interprocess communication between the application object (program) and the browser program." Simply launching external programs with a document to load wouldn't seem to fall under this. However, I could see problems if the browser itself embeds those external programs, like bonobo controls in Nautilus...

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Gzip Christ]

Kind of makes it distinct to plugins, even though if you had the rendering for, say, a gif image in a DLL it may also be using the patent idea.

Wouldn't the same thing apply to "helper applications" then, which are external programs spawned by the browser? That's been around at least since Netscape 1 (way back in 1994 when the patent was filed) and I think it was in Mosaic before that. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm rooting for Microsoft on the appeal.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the days of the steam engine, when the good Mr Watt was busy inventing stuff he found that the concept of a "crank" was already invented and patented. He was able to get around this using the "satellite" gearing system. (one gear obitting a static one).

My point is that it wasn't "a means of getting circular motion from a reciprocating piston" that was already patented, it was specifically the crank. Software patents seem to have lost this distinction.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[arkanes]

The "control path for user interaction" would imply to me that the helper app has to be hosted within the browser to qualify. Someone else probably owns the patent on spawning a registered external application based on the MIME type of the file.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Elm Tree]

But that would preclude me from patenting perpetual motion and then making a bundle once someone figures out how to make it work!

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Serapth]

Too late... I already solved it

And all it took was two sticks of gum, a couple marbles and some string. Its really rather simple once you know how... now if only I could get the damned thing to stop! :D

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Anonymous Coward]

IMHO, you should not be able to receive a patent unless you have an exact implementation to demonstrate exactly what it is you are patenting.

Patents were invented to protect the small inventor that can't afford to produce his invention. The idea is that, once patented, he can secure funding to produce his invention. To require an implementation before granting the patent would be to turn this upside down.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Serapth]

Im not talking a full implementation... just a prototype that shows that the idea works... If the small guy isnt capable of that much... his idea is either a) just an idea b) infeasible c) not the right ( or capable ) person to implement it.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Anonymous Coward]

>It also seems to directly apply to the notion of having Word launch when clicking on a ".doc" file.

Prior art: Windows 2.0 already did this in mid-80's. Of course it did not have a browser, but if you clicked a file in its file manager, it launched the related app, provided the association between suffix and app was defined in "win.ini" (a text file; there was no registry in those days).

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[CmdrWiggle]

The '906 patent specifies that:

1) The browser must "identify and locate" the external application.
2) The browser must display a portion of the application in the browser window
3) The browser must enable interactive processing of the displayed object.

The preferred embodiment of the patent specification lays out a specific application which shows a 3-D renedred medical image (similar to an MRI) which the user can rotate, scale, etc. and the external application displays the rendered image in an embedded window in the browser.

The patent claims specify that the object displayed in an embedded window must be specified within an "embed text format" (e.g., EMBED tag) and be lauched automatically when the page is parsed (i.e., without a mouse click). That means that helper applications do not consitute prior art.

While MIME plays a part in this, it is certainly not enough by itself.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, the thing is, you should not be able to patent ideas, period.

The whole notion is absurd. Patents protecting physical designs is one thing (and a good thing for the small inventors) but patents protecting ideas (including mathematical formulas) is preposterous. Copyrights OK, patents NO WAY!

Otherwise you could patent any idea or text ever written.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooked on phonics...

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[WNight]

Either write to them, or anonymously turn yourself in, about an application that looks at a 'type' and launches the appropriate program to deal with this content. Get them to say that their patent covers this and that you owe them royalties.

Then show them MacOS, circa '84, and how it fits exactly what they are trying to make you pay them for.

Of course, proof like this means nothing in court because patents are immune to logic, but it'd be hilarious to have them admit that they patented a key concept in an OS that's been around 19 years.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Alan]

Is screwing with mime types what MS really wants to do? Don't they have enough problems with not obeying mime types anyway? I seem to remember that IE has/had some ugly bug where you could send a .exe files through with a mimetype of text/html and it would happily ignore the html and execute the file. Or maybe the other way around, or something like that.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[5KVGhost]

Patents were invented to protect the small inventor that can't afford to produce his invention. The idea is that, once patented, he can secure funding to produce his invention. To require an implementation before granting the patent would be to turn this upside down.

Not really. Patents were created to provide any inventor with a means of protecting his idea for a limited period of time in exchange for sharing all his secrets with the world. The Constitution doesn't really care whether you're a "small inventor", whatever that means.

FYI, this is not a radical new idea. From 1790 until 1880, every single patent had to be accompanied by a working model, and it certainly didn't seem to hamper technological progress. Models would present practical problems with some physical inventions using modern technologies, but I see no reason why those seeking software patents shouldn't be required to create and demonstrate a specific, working implementation.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange, mine just keeps running faster for some reason.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[PW2]

looks like they specifically patented VRML-like plug-ins -- not all plug-ins -- I'm guessing that someone wrote a 3D java plug in by 1998 for use as prior art

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[LightSail]

Vague is defined within patent. See the " any algorithm " restriction.

They are preempting any modifications or workaround.

maybe the web needs a new protocol/language to invalidate this kind of landgrab.

Can I patent minor ideas that were overlooked and counter sue.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[devilspgd]

Werked fer me!

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[WNight]

Actually, they weren't, though this is a common misconception.

Patents were introduced to reduce the number of trade secrets, to increase the state of art.

It used to be that you'd keep everything secret. Only family members would know the formula for Coke, or how to build some special machine that make widgets cheaper. This had two problems:

1) You spent a lot of time and money keeping it secret.

2) If nobody else could do this, widgets would be a bit cheaper, but nobody else could use this to make gadgets cheaper, and you don't know how to make gadgets, so cheap gadgets are never produced.

Thus, the government said "Oh to hell with it. You tell everyone how it works, enough detail for them to build one, and we'll keep everyone else from doing it for a while, as your reward. You save money and time now, still profit from your invention, and eventually we'll have cheap gadgets as well as cheap widgets."

Keeping secrets is hard, and "Trade Secrets" only get protection if they leak through espionage means. If you leave the formula for Coke in the copier and someone finds it, it's not protected anymore. If someone reverse engineers it (clean-room not required) it's not protected. If your workers accidently leak critical info at trade shows, it's not protected. It's really hard to keep a secret for a long time and still use it in business. If you want to keep the workings of a machine secret you have to do the repairs in-house, with workers under NDA. Very annoying.

So people gambled on a government-guaranteed, fixed-length, monopoly instead of having to risk being able to keep a secret, which might be more profitable, or might be worth nothing tomorrow.

"Helping the little guy" wasn't actually involved at all. It was more of a, "The rising tide floats all boats".

However, patents now harm the computer industry about as much as they help it. Especially software and business-model patents.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Phil John]

Yes, but we're talking about software here. It would cost you next to nothing to come up with a simple working prototype of this kind of functionality. If software patents have to stay, let's make it a bit more difficult to pull the wool over the systems eyes by registering these sort of vague patents.

Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what?

[Ciggy]

...is automatically invoked based upon type information in the document or associated with the object's data.

Isn't this what '#!{script_processor}' does in a *nix executable script file?

Software patents suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Any idea why?

Do you think this is just a setup?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you suppose Microsoft is simply "letting" these guys win, "forcing" them to change some minor detail in IE, so they can help legitimize software patents in preparation of going after Open Source should the microsoft-backed SCO lawsuit fail to destroy it?

Just my 0.02 conspiracy theory.

Re:Do you think this is just a setup?

[Moth7]

What do you mean "should the microsoft-backed SCO lawsuit fail to destroy it?" >.

Re:Do you think this is just a setup?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if they're planning to take them over after they win. Microsoft: "Awww you won, well there's no possible way we'd be able to operate if we had to license all of this IP from you. How about we buy you out for LOTS of money?" Eolas: "Who are you talking to? You know we allready agree..." MS: "Shut up! I want them to hear this." *tap* *tap* "Is this thing on?"

Re:Do you think this is just a setup?

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

This could actually be good for open source browsers. See two of my previous posts. SVG and especially see Java applets

Re:Do you think this is just a setup?

[Basje]

I don't think so. Microsoft is damaged much more by software patents than open source will ever be.

I think MS knows that: they have never been overly aggressive with software patents. With copyright and trademark protection (and marketing), yes, but never with patents, afaik.

Re:Do you think this is just a setup?

[dontbgay]

Okay okay.. overused joke ahead: In communist America, the laws change YOU. (makes you kinda proud to be an american, huh?)

Just think about it, it's happening every day.

Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[nuggz]

Hypermedia? wtf is that?

Embedding of stuff, this is obvious.

I remeber when I had a typewriter, if I wanted a picture, I would glue a photo onto the page.
Computers allowed you to cut and paste the picture. Later sound, or video.
What makes the remoteness a differentiating factor?

This isn't even an issue of software patents, just stupidity.
Putting payment informaiton into a device, and then with a single click selecting the product is obvious.
I do it at Amazon.com, a Pop Machine, and a laundrymat, the computer doesn't really make it any difference.

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[deadlinegrunt]

This isn't even an issue of software patents, just stupidity.
Putting payment informaiton into a device, and then with a single click selecting the product is obvious.
I do it at Amazon.com, a Pop Machine, and a laundrymat, the computer doesn't really make it any difference.

Ah, but you fail to realize the common denominator in the above examples. Dollar signs. You see even "duh-massess" can understand complicated technology when a $ is in the equation. Hyperlinking in computer related context takes the exact same currency related formulas that people understand and transforms it into some unknown magical calculus theory that only geeks can get.

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[Zocalo]

Hypermedia? wtf is that?

"Hypermedia" is what we used to call the often proprietary amalgamation of hypertext and multimedia back before Tim Berners-Lee came along and sorted it all out for us. I don't know about how far back prior art on this goes, but I was quite happily embedding dynamic clocks, calenders and such like in a multi-user hypertext authoring system at Liverpool University in the early 90's. Embedded images, sound and even video was *already* old-hat at this point.

It was an in-house developed tool called MUCH (Many Users Creating Hypertext) written in the Andrew toolkit (think a forerunner of GTk/Qt) and running on HP-UX, if you were wondering.

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[naph]

i think the point is that so many people have a problem with this kind of thing because of the fact that to us it is obvious, and the people outside the industry generally don't seem to have any idea of this. which is allowing all these ridiculous patents to be granted and spoiling the industry.

i mean, if i didn't know anything about computers and programming then amazons remembering my details each time really would seem like a great invention by them.

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[User8201]

Actually, you can EMBED things remotely in programs like PageMaker, an old program. If the filename specified is on a network drive (e.g. "\\ASIANPC\Cool.gif" and if the network is all the way around the world - say in ASIA - you have remote embedding.

Nothing new here but we're probably oversimplefying the patent, whic hI haven't read.

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[pboulang]

Ok, let me get this straight... did you just make a slur on dumbasses by calling them "duh-masses"? Isn't dumbasses a strong enough term?

Congratulations on taking it to the next level by calling dumb people dumb. I am highly entertained.

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Hypercard and being able to have links in buttons or graphical objects which ran applescript-like (well, hyperscript, actually) commands which could invoke other programs on the machine.

Those should count as prior art, since hypercard was around well before 1994.

I was using in in 1990 on an SE-30 that I can recall, and the software on that machine had been on it since 1987.

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypercard was around well before '94. I was using it in 1988 on a Mac somethingorother. Images, buttons, the whole caboodle.

Scala was another great program for the Amiga. Same thing; except it let you embed video and animations too. It was used for info kiosks and the like, and I believe you could use it to author multimedia CDs.

I mean, if we want to get all the way down to moaning about people embedding stuff on pages, why aren't they taking a pop at the DVD interactive standards?

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[Minna Kirai]

Ok, let me get this straight... did you just make a slur on dumbasses by calling them "duh-masses"?

More likely it went from "the masses" -> "duh masses". Just try replacing either term into the original sentence and see why one sounds more in-place.

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[pboulang]

Oh absolutely, I was just making a social commentary.

Plus, it's lots funnier when you read it my way than the Dilberty method used originally.

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[kogs]

What was published before 17 Oct 1993? Are copies available?

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, let me get this straight... did you just make a slur on dumbasses by calling them "duh-masses"? Isn't dumbasses a strong enough term?
Congratulations on taking it to the next level by calling dumb people dumb. I am highly entertained.

Actually I have patented using the word "dumbasses", and apparently they are finding some other way to say the same thing. I tried sending them a letter explaining how I want to get licensing fees for all the times they have said the word "dumbasses" in the past, as well as preventing them from saying it at all in the future - but I guess they are passing on my offer. Time to sue them into oblivion.

Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant)

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent in question deals with embedded applications. You have to have an external application that can run within the hypermedia document. Did you have anything as sophisticated as that?

BTW, the patent in question is not only frivolous, but fraudulent. There WAS prior art, namely the first graphical web browser called Viola. Not only that, but the primary patent holder was aware of Viola before he filed his patent, hence the fraud.

bif

This might be a good thing

[Dog and Pony]

If this means the end of overdesigned, shiny and glittery flash sites, and sites that demand IE because they want to use Active X objects etc, then I'm all for it.

I'm not hostile to new technology and all that, but these technologies are so frequently abused so anything that will lessen it will be a good thing.

Re:This might be a good thing

[Moth7]

Maybe they'll be kind enough to take all those active x vulnerabilities down with the ship too ^_^

Re:This might be a good thing

[brucmack]

The thing is, it's not MS who is designing all those sites... so why should they be the one sufferring from another too-broad software patent?

Re:This might be a good thing

[meta_gorn]

Amen! There outta be a law against abusing Flash - aimed at all these smarty-pants graphic designers who polute the web without any consideration given to open standards, sensible interface design, or bandwidth limitations, and who pull the wool over their client's eyes by having them review their site under tightly controlled conditions (like a high-performance computer and a T3 connection) and don't realize that their site becomes a really boring, tedious eyesore after just a few viewings.

The sentence: make them use Lynx!

activex

[leuk_he]

What i can see is that they are talking about activex and the way it is integrated.

Re:activex

[Asmodai]

Don't be too sure.

HTML 4.01 and even earlier (need to check) have OBJECT as a tag.

This allows any arbitrary content to be embedded within a hypermedia document. After reading the patent my understanding is that this would also quality. I am sure SCRIPT and IMG could explained that way as well. All it takes is a good lawyer.

What will happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

People will use old versions of internet explorer, mozilla, netscape, opera... anything that is affected by it. Browser innovation will stop... dead in its tracks.

I think I'm in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Does that mean when I'm embed I have to pay money? I mean I understand having to do that with hookers and stuff but what about with my girlfriend? I thought they were free.

Re:I think I'm in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

what about with my girlfriend? I thought they were free.

Oh, my young friend, you have so much to learn.

Re:I think I'm in trouble

[Anonymous Coward]

Your girlfriend isn't free. But she's quite cheap, though. :-)

Re:I think I'm in trouble

[MikeFM]

I suggest you rent the movie Risky Business and watch it over and over until you understand why hookers are a bargain.

abuse of patent systems...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the end there will be nothing done since eveyone has a patent on something and no one else can innovate..
And that was not the intentions with the patent system.

In the future everyone and everything is illegal..

ActiveX?

[ptaff]

Will these changes finally fix the object tag, which is not only for ActiveX?

Currently, for any object tag to work in IE, you have to enable ActiveX scripting.

And will that fix the display-everything-in-every-object-tag bug too? I guess I'm asking for too much here.

Reminds me of the Netscape4-era when you couldn't use CSS unless javascript was active.

aargh..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm so sick of hearing about these stupid lawsuits over patents!

Even tho I don't much care for microsoft, I hate seeing them get picked on so much jsut because they have money. It isn't right.

Re:aargh..

[vudujava]

Even tho I don't much care for microsoft, I hate seeing them get picked on so much jsut because they have money. It isn't right.

No one picks on Microsoft simply because they have money. Microsoft bashing is about bad software, predatory business practices, poor business ethics, and the attempt of one company to own the entire of technology.

-

Re:aargh..

[Anonymous Coward]

And because they have more cash than God and a tendancy to throw it at irritations to make them go away.

Right...

[Anonymous Coward]

including frivolous lawsuits that set all browsers and technology in general back by 20 years.

Getting rid of flash is worth that.

You are dumb. Drive thru.

golf clap

[rot26]

The patent relates to the embedding of objects in hypermedia documents, and Microsoft has indicated they will have to make changes to Internet Explorer as a result of the ruling. There may also be far-reaching effects to both other web browser vendors and page authors

All I can say is "it's about friggin time." Plugins are great when they work, but nothing on the internet sucks worse than when they don't. They've also been used as a tool by microsoft to break competing browsers (and OS's) as often as possible, and I'd love to see that simply go away. The only downside that I can think of is that some dynamic and/or media content will have to open in a separate window now. Boo hoo.

On another note, how will this affect the Microsoft desktop, since they insist that I.E. is an integral part of that which cannot be removed? Are Active-X (and other com-type) components going to be considered "browser plug-ins" when they're run on what Microsoft insists is an integral browser/desktop?

Re:golf clap

[garcia]

oh get real. MS has nothing to do with Shockwave, various fools deciding what is needed to view their site, etc.

They gave us a pretty damn good browser. It was the rest of the world that flocked to supporting it.

Re:golf clap

[rot26]

I didn't accuse microsoft of foisting shockwave (or Real or any other piece of shit) on us. I just said I'd like to see them all go away, at least as plugins.

Far-reaching implications

[Decaffeinated Jedi]

Yikes! This move could have some serious implications for webmasters and companies developing various web tools. I can see quite a few projects having little choice but to start over from scratch.

Still, why do I get the feeling that Microsoft will manage to get by without making too many changes to IE before it's all said and done?

DecafJedi

Juries

[jetkust]

What exactly is the thinking behind these juries which award judgements on stupid patents like these? Happens all the time.

Re:Juries

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

What exactly is the thinking behind these juries which award judgements on stupid patents like these?

They could be thinking about their dislike for Microsoft.

"My daugher's computer with Windows ME is less than two years old, and I had to take it to the shop and pay a huge amount to get Windows fixed. And a bunch of my files were lost."

They could also be thinking of negative experiences they might have had related to NOT having the right plug in for some favorite web site.

Just a theory. You asked.

Changes

[Infonaut]

You mean, like the addition of popup blocking and tabbed browsing? ;-)

This is exactly why...

[The_DOD_player]

softpatents are evil

Now, you cant be really sad when it's Microsoft that gets it, but this is just silly. Not to mention extremely expensive for all browser makers, 'cause just wait, these guys arent stopping with MS.... this is also going to effect Opera, Konqueror/Safari and Mozilla.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Mozilla affected by this at all?

Patent scope

[deepchasm]

If the patent covers "mechanisms for embedding objects within distributed hypermedia documents, where at least some of the object's data is located external to the document, and there is a control path to the object's implementation to support user interaction with the object" then does OLE also infringe?

Is there really no prior art?

Re:Patent scope

[Distan]

This is a simple patent to engineer around. Simply embed all of the content within the document, so that there is no external data whatsoever.

Yeah, so, the html files will have to get bigger, but it will also solve the problem of all these "steaming only" media files that are flowing around.

Re:Patent scope

[Moth7]

Or store it in database and give the control an id rather than a path ^_~

Re:Patent scope

[Moth7]

Hold on a second. Doesn't this make the tag along with half of the HTML 4 standard in breach of the patent o_0 ? Images are stored externally, style sheets are stored externally, fonts are stored externally and don't even get me started about server side includes o_0

Re:Patent scope

[Zocalo]

Is there really no prior art?

I can give you an instance of prior art from 1991, three years before this patent was even filed. See my post above for more.

Re:Patent scope

[Simon Brooke]

f the patent covers "mechanisms for embedding objects within distributed hypermedia documents, where at least some of the object's data is located external to the document, and there is a control path to the object's implementation to support user interaction with the object" then does OLE also infringe?

Is there really no prior art?

It's a long time since I used it, and in a LISP environment, of course, there's really nos such concept as a plugin, but there was analogous functionality in NoteCards.

"There are a number of different node types (over forty), supporting various media. Authors may use LISP commands to customize or create entirely new node types."

I would have thought a NoteCards node type was highly analogous to a mime type, and the 'LISP command' was highly analogous to a plugin.

Re:Patent scope

[Politburo]

and there is a control path to the object's implementation to support user interaction with the object

I would say that doesn't exist in your examples. However, that does not mean there is no prior art.

Anyone want to call Timecop?

[Channard]

Because blatant abuse of time travel is the only explanation I can see for these lawsuits. It's beyond ridiculous - a technology/feature is used by software company X for ages then a crappy little company pops up claiming they patented it ages ago. I'm astonished by how cases as ridiculous as these even get to court.

Re:Anyone want to call Timecop?

[Lodragandraoidh]

Its called karma.

M$ generates many years of bad karma, sticking it to the little guy.

Come full circle, some little guy sticks it to Microsloth.

Karma balances out (though I don't think M$'s bad karma bank has been quite emptied yet, and so expect to see more 'bad' things happen to a bad company).

Java Apps? Get me up to speed....

[HighOrbit]

When I read in the article that "embedded" objects that link to data "external to the document", I get the bad feeling that this might apply to java-based front ends for databases. Is that true? Do this make a java app that links to oracle require a license from these guys?

Re:Java Apps? Get me up to speed....

[molarmass192]

I doubt it since the patent states, "The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document ...". The hypermedia document piece is lacking in the definition you're thinking of.

Pantents are damaging the industy

[koniosis]

Why do all these companies make such a fuss about these patents, they aren't going to get any money, because if the company has the choice to just alter their software to avoid the patent then they will. All they are doing is slowing development of software and causing incompatabilities around the world. Basically making a mess of the current system which WORKS. How long to US patents last? It seems to long. Patents are forcing software to take steps backwards and not forward, I just hope the companies realise the potential damage they are doing before it becomes too late.

Re:Pantents are damaging the industy

[jetkust]

Patents are forcing software to take steps backwards and not forward, I just hope the companies realise the potential damage they are doing before it becomes too late.

The patent holding companies are not going to care if they are making money. The government has to step in, not the companies themselves.

Re:Pantents are damaging the industy

[koniosis]

agreed, let it be said that someone needs to do something (perhaps the software users?).

Re:Pantents are damaging the industy

[Ratphace]

On the contrary, I think things like this can lead to something new and innovative instead of just sticking with "what works" as we have for years.

When you just keep building on old stuff and keeping around what always "has been" and "always worked in the past", I tend to see this stiffel innovation. Being forced back to drawing board to come up with something NEW as a work around can be a good thing, especially for a company like Microsoft that has the $$$ to invest into R&D of something new and radical.

Whether or not it comes out better will remain to be seen. Also, I am not saying I agree with any of these lawsuits for IP, but merely stating that they can lead to new, exciting and more efficient handling of said things.
Let's keep our fingers crossed and hope it all pans out in the end and gives us something better...

Re:Pantents are damaging the industy

[koniosis]

Yep, innovation is always a good thing. However, companies shouldn't be forced into it. If a company is given a set amount of time to remove and re-design an element of their product that infringes a patent then they may be inclined to rush it or to hack something together so it works and not put the time or effort in that the inovation requires. I don't believe companies need that much of a kick in the ass to innovate, the fact that customers thrive on inovation and new products should be enough.

Patents also lead to features simply being removed, and not replaced, which sucks. I can see what you're saying but I believe there has to be a better way to encourage inovation rather than taking companies to court (which wastes money which could be used on R&D).

Re:Pantents are damaging the industy

[Anonymous Coward]

3 facts:

1) There will be more investment in R&D if the fruits of that investment can be protected.

2) No one has come up with a better, practical system for protecting the fruits of the investment than a limited duration monopoly.

3) The effort required to avoid infringing on a patent is the downside of # 2 above.

The parameters (patent duration/obvious requirements/definiteness requirements) can/might/should be tweaked but the principles laid out above are difficult to assail.

Re:Pantents are damaging the industy

[Ratphace]

I agree, you can pro vs con every situation, just that I feel a company like Microsoft always likes to be #1 and I think while the initial change might be to remove something, that isn't to say that they won't come up with something new and improved for future versions, etc, which I feel in the long run can have some nice benefits with regard to innovation.

Just a thought...

affected web sites

[muirhead]

From the pubil mailing list:

In the near term, Microsoft has indicated to W3C that they will very soon be making changes to its Internet Explorer browser software in response to this ruling. These changes may affect a large number of existing Web pages.

Which web sites are going to be affected?
Answers on a post card please.

Hahaha

[stephenry]

One really has to see the irony here: on the one side, Microsoft utilises and assimilates other peoples technology and property into one of their most important projects without even blinking an eye; and on the other, we have them spending millions "licensing" such "important" technology on extremely dubious reasoning to support SCO, because they "respect the importance of IP rights".

Now, I know that Microsoft will never be punished in the US, but isn't undermining a competing product, Linux, through unsubstantiated FUD, even by proxy, against the law to some degree? Even if its not, one has to seriously wonder whether it will be considered in the upcoming EU anti-trust case, as it should be now in the US.

But, what i'm really wondering is if it is uncovered in the IBM/RH vs SCO case that Microsoft had engineered the situation (which isn't has far fetched as it may sound) whether the Linux community would be compensated for any wrong doings, in a similar fashion to what is being sought by Eolas.

Short-sightedness is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You might as well say "research and development are bad" too. Without patent protection for at least some time, there will be no motivation to advance any science whatever. Those millionaires funding the R&D will just take their millions somewhere else.

Besides, you're blaming the wrong targets. The Republican Congress passed and Clinton signed the bills screwing up the patents and copyrights.

Do I sense amicality...

[pVoid]

between parties:

Microsoft presented several options that it has under consideration, and benefited from constructive discussion of these options. In addition, the meeting participants strongly supported clear communication on this matter [...]

This document was written by Steven R Bratt of the W3C... so no rimshots on how he's a sell out - please...

I think this just might be the beginning of a broader trend (I hope at least)... a trend where Moft starts getting its ass bitten more and more often, and is finally 'forced' or finally learns to cooperate with open community standards.

NB: I said open standards, not open source.

Re:Do I sense amicality...

[GigsVT]

They've got a long road ahead of them if they want to earn respect from many in the industry.

Re:Do I sense amicality...

[Anonymous Coward]

Every journey starts with a step...

I am not naive though... this is probably just wishful thinking.

-pVoid

SVG

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

My only beef with flash is that (1) it is not a "standard", and (2) implementations are proprietary, and therefore only available or easily available on the right platforms.

Getting rid of Flash plug ins might give SVG a fighting chance to displace it. (Can someone please provide a link to svg?)

This might be a motivation for Microsoft geeks to get excited about building a good SVG implementation into IE. I think other browsers (Mozilla?) already are working on this?

Re:SVG

[Theatetus]

Can someone please provide a link to svg?

I'll be happy to as soon as someone actually implements it.

Re:SVG

[Pushnell]

I'll be happy to as soon as someone actually implements it.

Plenty of people have implemented it.

Adobe's SVG Site
Corel's SVG Viewer
Mozilla's SVG Implementation
(note: it's not turned on in mozilla.org builds, but you can download older versions with SVG turned on, or build mozilla yourself).

Or, implement it yourself :)

Quick Quiz time

[Anonymous Coward]

All who thinks that changing the way browsers use their resources will change http, please move to bottom deck of the titanic.

Strange thing about http, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE PLUGINS. It's every other spyware, pRonovision, screensaver on the browser, gotta have for website X toy that will have problems.

Guess microsoft will open OS api's for the special web toys. And call it an OS utility.

Patent legislature

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent legislature ideas and sell them to the government ..or other governments.

"System and method of pretending to provide healthcare to everyone so you can win next election"

Re:Patent legislature

[Anonymous Coward]

Sell to a congresscritter, get royalties when the law is passed.

Pay for innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

Patent 4,838,906 (the patent in question)

If the patent is invalid due to prior art, Microsoft should of course appeal the ruling and it should be struck down.

If the patent is valid, the W3C members should raise some money and offer to pay a one-time lump-sum ransom for the patent to be freely licensed to anyone who wants to use it. (This is what has to happen in a system where inventions are patentable. You have to pay for innovations that would otherwise, once introduced, spread naturally to all producers in the course of ordinary market competition. Invention, not production, is rewarded in the near term.)

If the patent system is invalid... but that's another discussion.

Re:Pay for innovation

[the_2nd_coming]

patents on mechanical devices are valid uses, because you have to have the damn thing in the first place to show the PTO.

software however is more complicated and as such should be much much much more exact. you should be forced to provide a usable implimentation of your idea and then only that specific implimentation is to be under the patent.

Re:Pay for innovation

[the eric conspiracy]

patents on mechanical devices are valid uses, because you have to have the damn thing in the first place to show the PTO.

The PTO stopped requiring models about 1890.

Re:Pay for innovation

[arkanes]

Here's whats confusing me: How did Eolas get its hands on this patent? The patent application says it's owned by the Regents of UC Oakland. I don't know what the W3Cs policy with regard to patented standards was in 1994, but the guy who invented this patent was certainly involved - he's listed as presenting some lectures at W3C confrences in 1995. The patent makes explict reference to the EMBED tag. This seems similiar to the Rambus fiasco, where they push for the adaption of something they knew they owned patents on without disclosing it.

Furthermore, the patent seems trivial - the hard work of a plugin based system like this is the underlying plugin architecture (COM, CORBA, OLE, whatever), not the trivial task of choosing the helper plugin based on the mime type. And the fact that the patent specifically limits itself to hypermedia means that a generic interface like COM shouldn't be covered.

Re:Pay for innovation

[Minna Kirai]

forced to provide a usable implimentation of your idea and then only that specific implimentation is to be under the patent.

If that were the case, then it would provide identical protection to a copyright, but only last 21 years instead of inifinity. So why bother?

Re:Pay for innovation

[AvitarX]

I actually believe you should have to have working source for your "invention". After all Patant is about publishing the tech and not loosing it. A working implementation can still be very opaque.

Currently any (closed) source is essentially trade secrets. Such as the recipe for Coke is Coca Colas secret. Also as a trade secret, if someoen figures it out you are SOL.

If software is (C) how can it be patented? that would be like me Patenting a new type of chapter in a book, totally absurd.

I think that for software to be copyrighted it should have no built in enforcement (or movie/cds for that matter). Copyright is to protect things that are too easy to copy, not things that require selling your sould to use (your soul is then their protection).

Patants should be for things that are open, and patented, and not for expanding the idea of plugin to a web browser, but for inventing the plugin with a specific method for doing it. If someoen else comes up with their own better or worse method then that is theirs to patant.

Closed source is pretty clearly a trade secret, and should be treated as such. It is not published so it should not have the protections of a patant.

Re:Pay for innovation

[GeoGreg]

If you look at the Eolas website, you'll see that it was founded as a spinoff of the U. of California, and in fact UC was a plantiff in the suit. The founder of Eolas was the guy in the patent. Looks like he is/was involved in medical imaging applications.

Re:Pay for innovation

[Steveftoth]

I think that even if you knew the formula for Coke, it wouldn't matter, because Coke's brand is more important.

Think about it, if you had the formula, it's not like you could make and sell Coke, you'd have to make and sell a Cola drink that 'tastes exactly like Coke'. Since Coke still owns the trademark of Coke. And I don't think that in people's mind's your cola would taste exactly the same if they thought that they were not drinking Coke. Just because it's not Coke, people would think 'this doesn't taste the same'.

Re:Pay for innovation

[Tokerat]

Just because it's not Coke, people would think 'this doesn't taste the same'.

I think people would realize it is the same when that unmistakable bowel rumbling begins.

That's why I prefer Pepsi; IMO it tastes better (WMMV on that one), but it doesn't give me the megashits.

Re:Pay for innovation

[the_2nd_coming]

for that exact reason, however, it is not exact protection, copyright protects from plagerism, however, it does not protect a method.

a patent protects the exact method of doing something, though it does not stop some one from making a new way of to get the same job done.

Re:Pay for innovation

[WNight]

*If* the patent is valid?

There's NO bloody way that this is a valid patent. If it covers pluggins, which were the obvious solution to a technical problem, then it automatically fails.

Of course, some judges have jello for brains and have obviously never been told what makes a valid patent.

Until the patent system has an exception for independent discovery (I mean, how innovative was the idea if I had the exact same idea as you when we looked at the same problem) it's worse than worthless. It harms the companies who actually do something (and are thus liable for "damages") and only helps companies that are all lawyers and never produce a damn thing of any worth to society.

Result of Lawsuit: Hypocrisy

[goldspider]

With only a few exceptions, most people here seem to believe that this ruling is a Good Thing (tm) solely because it hurts Microsoft, whereas a similar decision regarding any other company would be met with irate grumbling about the broken patent system.

Like it or not, most people coming to this site do in fact use IE. Now as good or bad an app that IE may be (an arugment for another time), this lawsuit results in Microsoft being forced to remove a feature that, potentially, a lot of us use.

So even if you are still the knee-jerk hate-Microsoft type, think about how angry you'd be if this happened to YOUR favorite app. Just because this hurts Microsoft, it doesn't make it a good thing by any stretch.

What about the Google Toolbar

[TooOldForThis]

Does this affect things like the Google toolbar (or any of the other available toolbars for IE)? Or does this specifically refer to objects *w/in* the web page?

patent claim a service to OpenSource?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe initially Eolas claimed that they were running this case as a service to the industry to cause harm to Microsoft (since they were let off so easy in the anti-trust case). I think it's time Eolas revealed their intentions to other products.

Perhapse we could try to get a representative for a Slashdot interview?

ch-ch-changes

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Microsoft couldn't make any more changes to IE - hence it's staleness while we all waited on the next version with Longhorn (or whatever it's called)

If they can make changes CAN YOU PLEASE FIX YOUR CRAPPY CSS BUGS

Thank you.

Why don't we use the Slashdot Effect?

[ThosLives]

Hey, with all of this patent craziness, why don't we use the "Slashdot Effect" and write our senators or whatever and really start pushing for patent reform in an organized fashion?

While I think that most of the current patents, especially the business practices ones, are against the original spirit of the Patent/Copyright/Trademark laws, as far as I know most of these patents fail the requirements for patents. I seem to recall the following things being required for a patent:

1. Useful
2. Novel
3. Unobvious to those versed in the applicable art

While a lot of these patents are useful, I think they pretty much all fail either the Novelness or Unobviousness requirements. I work for a company that patents hinge designs, for crying out loud! I recall the days that a waterbed patent was denied because waterbeds were described in a Heinlein novel. Aren't the patent checkers aware of not just prior art, but novel and unobvious? (It's like the laser cat toy patent of a previous Slashdot article (please help with link) - sure it might be useful, but any doofus 3 year old knows that if you shine a light on a wall a cat will chase it.)

Rather than just yap about this, why don't we form some kind of task force to fight this nonsense?

I'd be happy to join.

Re:Why don't we use the Slashdot Effect?

[LittleK]

I'm in. If slashdotters can bring down web servers, why can't we do the same thing to the congress. If all American slashdotters write to their congressmen about this issue, something may actually be done, instead of everyone just complaining and getting angrier. I agree, Slashdot should form a lobbying committee or something.

Media players and Java Applets

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

While I would love to see the demise of Flash in favor of SVG, I would be sad to see Java Applets go away.

It is good to have a way to run open-ended software in the user's browser, in a sandbox. For example, the VNC viewer is a java applet. But this particular application of applets was not necessarily what was envisioned when applets were first added to web browsers. I'm thinking of useful applications of java applets, not the latest flashing, blinking, twitching, scrolling seizure inducing eye candy.

Similarly, I don't want to see media players go away. (But I would like to see the demise of proprietary controlled formats.)

One solution is to link the applet capability and the media player capability directly into the browser. Then you probably don't violate this patent.

With an open enough Java implementation, Mozilla for instance, could just include the ability to run java applets.

With an open enough real-player implementation, Mozilla could probably also directly link that code right into the browser.

In fact, Mozilla, or more generally, Open Source browsers could become the "rich" cousins, while proprietary browsers become the feature poor cousins. This would be very ironic.

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[Moth7]

In fact, Mozilla, or more generally, Open Source browsers could become the "rich" cousins, while proprietary browsers become the feature poor cousins. This would be very ironic.
And it would save us a _lot_ of money - what more do you want?

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[Minna Kirai]

If this legal-loophole worked, it'll just give Microsoft bigger incentive to hard-link Internet Explorer to a viewer for every datatype they want to support. I don't want to see that happen, but it's silly to imagine that there might be an data format whose viewer Microsoft cannot afford to buy outright.

In fact, Mozilla, or more generally, Open Source browsers could become the "rich" cousins, while proprietary browsers become the feature poor cousins. This would be very ironic.

In fact, Internet Explorer, or more generally, browsers from the richest company in the world could become the "rich" cousins, while smaller firms like Opera become feature-poor. This would be very expected.

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Let's see, we're going to link a JVM and a media player into a web browser? And people think Mozilla is bloated already.

Introducing Mozilla AntiFirebird(TM). 62.3 megabytes and counting!

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[g_goblin]

I for one would be glad to see Flash flushed down the toilet and JAVA put in its rightful place, in the backend.

Keep JAVA out of browsers it simply doesn't belong there. I hate when the JVM takes 15 seconds to load up
and 60MB of RAM just to view a f'ing webpage.

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

Let's see, we're going to link a JVM and a media player into a web browser? And people think Mozilla is bloated already.

Who thinks it is bloated? Not I. It is well under 100 MB at present. In fact, only a little over a tenth that. (Compressed install file.)

There are good cases for directly linking in a JVM. It is a general tool that gives web designers all kinds of flexibility. Same type of logic as having other features such as frames, tables, multiple image formats (why should we link in PNG support?). Why should Mozilla have DOM, DHTML?

But I would NOT be in favor of linking Flash, or RealPlayer directly into Mozilla. These are not open source for one. And they are tools to control browser market share for another.

My opinion would be: have DOM, DHTML, CSS, and introduce SVG to replace Flash. Add or keep JVM for applets.

This leaves the problem of just how do you play media files? I would of course like it if somehow the proprietary formats got left out in the cold and only open formats prevailed, such as mpeg, or ogg video somethingorother.

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

Keep JAVA out of browsers it simply doesn't belong there. I hate when the JVM takes 15 seconds to load up and 60MB of RAM just to view a f'ing webpage.

Being able to have java applets in web pages is very useful. Did I mention VNC viewer applet? SSH applet?

Java applets (or a similar technology) should used instead of ActiveX controls. Being able to "program" what happens in a remote browser (i.e. viewer) is an important capability.

Flash is the wrong approach to this. SVG and/or applets are better because they can be applied to a wide range of browsers, not just the most proprietary ones.

Nobody is making you load up Java. Nobody is making you go to certian web pages. I'm sure that there can be a choice and variety of browsers. You can even use lynx if you wish. But don't advocate making everyone's browser feature poor. What I am advocating is that we should try to promote open standards as much as is possible in making browsers feature rich. And using the smallest set of technologies that give the biggest set of capabilities. Why have Flash when either SVG or a Java applet could have done the same thing, for instance.

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[cpeterso]

Being able to have Flash movies in web pages is very useful. Flash movies (or a similar technology) should used instead of ActiveX controls. Being able to "program" what happens in a remote browser (i.e. viewer) is an important capability.

Nobody is making you load up Flash. Nobody is making you go to certian web pages. I'm sure that there can be a choice and variety of browsers. You can even use lynx if you wish. But don't advocate making everyone's browser feature poor. What I am advocating is that we should try to promote open standards as much as is possible in making browsers feature rich. And using the smallest set of technologies that give the biggest set of capabilities. Why have Java or SVG when Flash could have done the same thing, for instance.

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

Why have Java or SVG when Flash could have done the same thing, for instance.

Because SVG is open. Java is psuedo-open. Open source implementations are being developed. Java exists on all platforms, and is accessible to any browser that wants it. Flash is not. That is why.

What I am advocating is that we should try to promote open standards

Ah, but you are not.

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[g_goblin]

How am I supposed to new when a web site is using JAVA or Flash when I have never been there before and it automatically loads?
Atleast with most sites running Flash, you can skip the intro if you want to.

JAVA has a long way to go before it is close to Flash. Example the runtime for Flash is less than 1 MB. JAVA is atleast 20 times that just to run. There lies the deficiency. It's bloated just to run an applet.

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[Trejkaz]

Why not? Konqueror already has Java support out of the box, seemingly without using the plugin. You specify the path to the java and it just works. Of course a media player is another story because the number of 'media' types is endless. Which types do you support? Do you make the list extensible? Whoops, no you don't, because that would be a plug-in. I guess everyone's going to have to recompile their browser every time a new video format comes out. On the bright side, we'll have the source to QuickTime and RealPlayer, which can be used to undo those two formats' commercialism.

Re:Media players and Java Applets

[Trejkaz]

Web Java could probably take a leaf out of J2ME's book. The KVM runs in a few kilobytes. It does simple things like displaying text, maybe a couple of controls, and has really limited facilities but is still able to connect to a full J2SE or J2EE back-end.

Isn't this all a browser really needs? :-/

Hey, Microsoft!

[mosschops]

While you're making the plug-in changes, please also complete the PNG enhancements you promised us. We'd like to be able to use alpha in our images without it looking ugly to most Windows users.

Cheers!

May we treate EU with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it possible that EU uses this in some of their
publications on the web?
If so, we may point to them that they will have to change their layout or deny such patents in Europe.

Patents will kill the EU's Industry

[JohnDenver]

What I'm trying to figure out is why the hell the EU is actually considering adopting OUR patent system.

Do they really want to subject their software industry to the US's HUGE software patent portfolio?

Re:Patents will kill the EU's Industry

[koniosis]

I think you have to remember that patents are actually very important, as long as they are used for the right reasons. i.e. A patent for a new toaster design that will revolutionise toasters is a good thing, because it ensures that a new company or a company that has put a lot of investment into a product gets the sales they deserve and someone else can't take their idea and capitalise on their research.

Obviosuly its good to have patents worldwide so that if an American company designs a product or a European company, they can sell the product not only in their continent but also in other countries without worrying about their product being ripped off, thus increasing the potential profit for the company in question.

where patents are bad is when a company makes a patent in order to prevent other companies from using a technology even though the company that owns the patent has no intention of making anything with it. Basically like registering an internet domain in order to stop another company getting it (so they have to buy it off you). Cheeky business and very annoying.

Re:Patents will kill the EU's Industry

[GiMP]

Patents destroy open source. I personally feel that non-profit opensource projects should be immune to patent law. Furthermore, it should be required that patents have a working implementation; one should not be able to patent something just because they have an idea.. if I had the money, I could patent a lot of really great ideas; however, I don't think the patent system should be abused that way.

Re:Patents will kill the EU's Industry

[Lonath]

This might make a good argument against software patents. If the people protesting in Europe point out to the legislators that they're close to losing the ability to do lots of "cool" stuff on the Web due to these patents...

And that this Eolas company (AFAIK) doesn't have a real product to replace the one that Eolas is about to take away...

It would have made a better argument had MS removed functionality before the vote next Monday.

Re:Patents will kill the EU's Industry

[ratfynk]

I toast therefor I am, what will happen when someone patents cognative software? Will the advent of real AI be on somebodies patent portfolio? Would be fun if the an AI entity wound up the center of a stupid law suit.

IP patents v.s. Demonstrated Product

[Ducati_749S]

At the risk of taking M$'s side......
This seems to be another example in an alarming trend of individuals or companies who had the forsight to patent an "idea" in technology for which they take no steps to develop, sit on it until they see that idea manifested and realized in someone elses work, and then sue them to make their money.
It seems to me that a better way to quantify these patents would be to require some set of initial source code, architecture or methods of arriving at a techinical solution for the idea being patented rather than allowing the patenting of an idea whose makeup & implementation are left floating in a technological ether.

Re:IP patents v.s. Demonstrated Product

[Ricofencer]

The patent included a source code implementation, 375 pages on microfiche.

Re:IP patents v.s. Demonstrated Product

[deanj]

Source, from Mosaic...which the company Eolas didn't license, but distributed on their website...

Re:IP patents v.s. Demonstrated Product

[DavidBrown]

I absolutely agree with you. The USPTO is giving away too many patents to "inventors" who present ideas with no actual proof of concept. A good idea for patent reform would be to require patent applicants to actually deliver a working model of the invention to the USPTO - in the case of software patents, it would have to a compiled program that works the way the patent claims.

But that's not all. So many patents are sort of obvious (one-click shopping, for example). For some reason the USPTO considers that to be new "art", even though one-click shopping is just the software extension of a retailor keeping your billing information on file and automatically billing you for the products you purchase. There seem to be patents issued for software for "inventions" that merely impliment in software business practices that already exist in other forms in the real world.

IAAL, but IANAPL (I am not a Patent Lawyer).

the eolas tax . . .

[kraksmoka]

is actually firmly pointed at microsoft. as i recall from previous I,Cringly bully pulpit sessions (is this guy Bruce Almighty or what?) the Eolas kind folks planned on hitting m$ solely for the purpose of striking at their desktop monopoly in the heart. we can only hope that some money hasn't changed that.

however, if they deny usage rights to m$, a glorious victory of the type that m$ can understand has been won. truly a case of Schumpertarian creative destruction if i have ever seen one.

mynuts won: phlame on

[Anonymous Coward]

you're so fuddIE robbIE, you're making getting a mynuts won/subversion of va lairIE's pateNTdead PostBlock(tm) devise, a goal/reality.

we'll see you/lairIE after the big flash?, no DOWt?

10% markup on robbIE's phonIE ?pr? ?firm? stock markup FraUD fortunes today. must be the immesurabull sucksass of the aforemeNTioned PostBlock(tm) devise?

Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft...

[BlabberMouth]

own patents exclusively as a defensive measure. 1) As you said, it gives them amunition in their lawsuits. 2) The more patents you own, the better the chances that your patents will cover any new software that you put on the market 3) They sign cross licensing agreements with each other stating that they won't sue, thus doubling their protection.

Re:Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft...

[Gherald]

Big companies working together, you say?

The conspiracy theorists are going to have a heyday.

Re:Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft...

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

hey sign cross licensing agreements with each other stating that they won't sue

This is not what a cross licensing agreement says.

The typical big company cross licensing arrangement goes like this. Okay, we've settled our dispute. Let's not bring patents into the war. (Like nuclear weapons.) So we will cross license eash other with each other's patents. I now have rights to all of your patents, and you have rights to all of my patents. This forecloses the possibility that you will ever sue me over any of your patents. But you still might sue me because I give you defective copies of Windows because I don't like the way you cozy up to Linux.

Re:Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft...

[circusnews]

I have always wondered why the open source community didn't do the same thing. I am sure that it would be easy enough to start, and that a few of the lawyers among us might take this on. This would give the open source community more than a few nukes of its own to fight back with in cases where we don't have big blue taking the stand. This would go nicely with RH's linux defense fund...

Re:Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

So we will cross license eash other with each other's patents.

The act of cross-licensing patents between several large corporations smells oddly like a violation of trust laws.

Re:Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft...

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

Probably because open source people see this as patent abuse. Ten years ago, nobody would think it wise to spend time and money filing for numerous obviously stupid patents. Why would we? Only now is it becomming obvious why you need a large stable of obviously stupid patents. To fight off the same but now grown up bullies that used to stuff you into a locker in high school.

Re:Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft...

[circusnews]

Any one up for starting a project to collect and manage patents for the OSS community? Perhaps a fund to aquier more software could be attached to this (ala Blender). ...Pipe dreams have this way of comming true...

Re:Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft...

[SuperDuperMan]

It's also expensive to get a patent. That revenue stream that you have from your free product just doesn't pay the lawyer bills like you'd hope.

Re:Result of Lawsuit: Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

I know gloating about hypocrisy feels good and all, but most of the posts here are complaining about patents, not MS. Try a different straw man next time.

Re:worth reading, again

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I agree. Too bad the truth *always* gets modded down here at /.

I'm impressed...

[brucmack]

I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned this, but I'm impressed with the story outlined in the W3C statement... faced with a potentially large problem, the major players in WWW technology got together and had a really mature discussion about what they were going to do about it. It makes a good change from most of the practices that used to go on in the browser market.

Also, they surely must share the same opinions as the majority here do on these sort of broad software patents... if companies like MS keep getting burned on stuff like this, you can be sure they're going to lobby for something to be done about it.

MS Only?

[Malicious]

The effect this has on Microsoft will be almost nil.. What do they care about what people see in webpages?
The real people to worry should be Quicktime and, Macromedia.
See: the people who use/rely on this technology.

Re:MS Only?

[Anonymous Coward]

The real people to worry should be page authors.

I hate to think about going back and retrofitting any site I've done becasue MS change the way IE works. It's not just Quicktime and Flash either - any filetype which determines how it should be opened on the client is an issue. I'm wondering about PDFs and the like...

Re:MS Only?

[cpeterso]

Don't forget client-side Java.

Too bad Microsoft isn't changing anything, right?

[AntiOrganic]

Internet Explorer 6.0 SP1 was the last standalone release of Internet Explorer, right? So, really, they're not changing a single thing.

Re:worth reading, again

[JessLeah]

Especially when it's anti-Microsoft. But hey, off-topic (but TRUE) posts about our current "leader" are a great way to get modded down. The word needs to get out somehow, but hey... SlashDot moderators won't LET it get out on here...

tsk, tsk

[lerouxb]

This might be more bad publicity for Microsoft, but look at the bigger picture.

Software patents are bad. We are now probably not allowed to embed just about anything anywhere. What about flash, java, pdf documents that open in your browser, mime attachments in your emails, stylesheets, etc?

What if someone patents the command-line interface, GUIs, icons, toolbars, media players, p2p technology, archiving, backups, compression, encryption, the way we interact with pcs, vector animations, etc. ?

Patents hurt society in the long run. One person might become rich, but it harms innovation and productivity.

Besides - mozilla-based browsers, konqueror, safari, etc all use plugins. What about them? Do we have to remove this functionality from these opensource browsers as well?

Where will it stop?

Re:Result of Lawsuit: Hypocrisy

[molarmass192]

I'll go on the record saying that I hate the business practices of Microsoft the company, however, this patent ruling is a Bad Thing (tm). I was scouring google for some shred of prior art evidence but the patent filing date is October 17, 1994 when the WWW was really in it's infancy. Netscape was at it's 1.0 beta release at the time. The kicker in this patent is that it states "the program object is embedded into a hypermedia document", which I take it prevents applying prior art outside of hypermedia documents. The first plugin I can remember for Netscape was the Adobe Acrobat reader plugin but I'm almost certain that that was later than fall of 1994. Does anybody have an example of a browser plugin that predates October 1994, maybe something in Mosaic?

Re:eolas?

[BenjyD]

Nearly ;) From the Simarillion:

Eol: Called the Dark Elf ; the great smith who dwelt in Nan Elmoth and took Aredhel Turgon's sister to wife.

Yes, I did read the Simarillion.

Bah!

[cavemanf16]

Just do what I do -> ignore it and move on. Maybe eventually everyone will realize that shrink-wrap licensing is crap and software code is all just mathematical in nature, and therefore, not patentable; or licensable. C'mon! I mean, if Isaac Newton had patented the concept of gravity and charged $699 to everyone for simply using gravity, we'd all be broke!

Re:Bah!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like how books are just random letters on pages, and plagiarism is crap too!

what I would love to see

[the_2nd_coming]

I would love to see software either being totaly copyrightable and nothing else, or totaly patantable and nothing else.

if it the former, then anyone can write software tat does the same thing the same way, but the copyright lasts for a long time.

if it is the latter, it stifles inovation due to patent suits, but the ability to protect the code expires after 15 years.

the former I think is more favorable.

Re:what I would love to see

[mccoma]

I'm more for the stricter rule:
if it is copyrightable then it cannot be pantented

The Patent

[PetoskeyGuy]

Here is a link to the patent

Personally I think software patents are evil, as I'm sure many here do. Computer Science means learning from the work of others and advancing the field. Someone save us from the USPTO.

BTW, Does anyone know if Eolas got their $521 Million?

Hopefully...

[Simon X.]

If major websites are influenced by this, it may serve as an effective illustration of the effect of software patents on innovation. Note that Microsoft is not taking a license, instead they are choosing to change IE so that it avoids the patent; this will probably not be an improvement.

I just hope some of this becomes clear before the Euro Parliament vote on the software patents directive (I heard that the vote is pushed back again, to september 22)

Re:Hopefully...

[Bo Diddly Squat]

"I just hope some of this becomes clear before the Euro Parliament vote on the software patents directive (I heard that the vote is pushed back again, to september 22)"

Where did you hear that ? Any URL ? The closest I've found is this URL: http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=12 455

It states this:
"This report, which was supposed to be debated in Strasbourg next week, is being met with increasing pressure from political groups within the European Parliament, who want this report to be deferred to another session."

Re:Hopefully...

[Simon X.]

The latest I heard (from a guy who took part in the demonstration in Brussels last wednesday and talked with a number of MEPs) was that the vote is probably going to be held next tuesday or thursday, and less likely on monday. I think I misunderstood about September 22 somehow.

Eolas spoke

[Dark Warrior]

from The Pulpit (November last year):

But what if they won't settle for money? This brings us to Mike Doyle, who runs tiny Eolas Technology Inc., which controls a patent that covers embedding plug-ins, applets, scriptlets, or ActiveX Controls into Web pages -- the use of any algorithm that implements dynamic, bi-directional communications between an app embedded in a Web page and external applications. That more or less defines how the World Wide Web is used today. As I have written before, Eolas is suing Microsoft for patent infringement, and has been generally wiping the floor with Redmond. Of course, so did the DoJ, and look how THAT turned out. The suit comes to trial in the spring and should be very interesting, not just because of the principles involved, but also because Mike Doyle and Eolas insist they are looking for more than just money.

"It would sure be nice for someone to actually consider all of this from our point of view, rather than MS's," wrote Doyle in a recent message to me. "It amazes me that everyone just assumes that MS will be able to merely write a check and make the whole thing go away. What if someone went through the following, purely theoretical, of course ;-), logical analysis?"

"Is there any practical settlement amount that is worth more to Eolas than a victory at trial? Considering the facts in the case and the magnitude of the stakes here, a highly likely outcome is that it will actually go to trial, and, once it does, that a jury will award us both damages and an injunction. Injunction is the key word here. That is what patent rights provide: the power to exclude. What if we were to just say no? Or, what if some other big player were to acquire or merge with us? What if only one best-of-breed browser could run embedded plug-ins, applets, ActiveX controls, or anything like them, and it wasn't IE? How competitive would the other browsers be without those capabilities? How would that change the current dynamics in the Industry?"

"One possible scenario is that Eolas would have the power necessary to re-establish the browser-as-application-platform as a viable competitor to Windows. That would be an interesting outcome, wouldn't it? How much would that be worth? The Web-OS concept, where the browser is the interface to all interactive apps on the client side, was always a killer idea. It still is. It lost momentum not because it wasn't economically or technically feasible, but because MS made it unlikely for anybody but them to make money on the Web-client side. Therefore, nobody could justify the necessary investment to take a really-serious shot at it. It doesn't have to be that way, does it? Just think of how we could use this patent to re-invigorate and expand the competitive landscape in this recently-moribund industry. What if we could do what the DOJ couldn't, and in the process make Eolas and everybody else, possibly excluding MS, richer? Wouldn't Eolas stand to profit more in such a scenario than any kind of pre-trial settlement could provide? Wouldn't everybody else?"

"The last couple of years in IT seem to have convinced people that the current status quo will continue indefinitely. They seem to have forgotten what seemed so obvious as little as three years ago, that change is the only invariance. That axiom has always proven out in the past, and I'm certain it will continue to do so in the future."

So will Mike Doyle give in to the Microsoft checkbook or will he opt, instead, to change the world of IT as we know it, knocking Microsoft down to size along the way? And notice how he referred to mergers and investors and being acquired? What if an IBM or an AOL or some party behind door number three was to do exactly that?

As I said, it should be a VERY interesting trial.

Re:Eolas spoke

[amcguinn]

Very interesting. But he didn't promise anything: he even claimed to be speaking hypothetically.

This could be interpreted as just trying to inflate the value of his patent. "Not only will I screw vast $$$ out of MSFT, I will then also be in a position to auction technical leadership in the browser market to the highest bidder."

Re:Eolas spoke

[calethix]

"What if we could do what the DOJ couldn't, and in the process make Eolas and everybody else, possibly excluding MS, richer? Wouldn't Eolas stand to profit more in such a scenario than any kind of pre-trial settlement could provide? Wouldn't everybody else?""

Sounds to me like Mr. Doyle isn't really any better than Bill Gates. He's not looking to change the way things are as much as just change who's in control and has the most money.

Re:Eolas spoke

[*weasel]

Mike Doyle clearly is seeking not a simple settlement. he is either on an anti-MS crusade, or looking for a more lucrative licensing deal for his patent.

He could license the ability to run plugins to browser developers. guess where that most likely leaves the small market boxes? Linux, Unix, and Mac. behind and under-attended to. the developer couldn't release the code under the GPL, so the community wouldn't be able to fill the void.

Alternatively, if this guy is on a little quest to knock down MS, and withhold the tech from them, or any developer with plans to release their browser to them, i think he is insane.

Microsoft does not lose.

would MS -really- lose if it isn't -their- browser on the desktop, but, for example, Netscape's? did the emergence of the web before MS had dominance lead do a decline in MS desktop sales? history tells us that they'd perservere, and find some way around it, to provide the same functionality with their own proprietary code.

what happens when mr doyle flips his switch and 95% of the browser market (IE) can no longer watch flash videos in a web page, chat through a web page, watch a movie clip on ifilms, or use simple scriptlets or custom applets (potentially not even take advantage of mime typing or any function which invokes a dll)?

why, microsoft would simply -stop- using hypermedia. it's not like they've been shy about breaking from standards in the past.

They'd create a proprietary tangential protocol, that allows them to create a proprietary application that continues to offer full media control. if there is no hypermedia, there is no patent infringement.

no longer will a page be an open collection of tags. rather it would be, potentially and probably, a DRM'd stream of data from provider to consumer, invoked and displayed according to user request, but never using hypermedia, or an industry standard.

every URL becomes a 'msnet' network stream request - probably with simple XML still, but not in the 'hypermedia' sense. simply put - there is no longer an open standard.

we are left at MS whim on whether they want to provide access to their new network on competing operating systems. (mac would be almost guaranteed, linux/unix and abandonware OSs would be in limbo).

businesses -must- deal with the realities of MS corporate market share, and the web would fade into the mainstream background like IRC and Usenet, as underutilized text-only forums from a simpler time.

you can accuse MS of many things, but losing, or rolling over to someone else's proprietary 'standard' that threatens their dominance (*cough*java*cough*) has -never- been one of them.

Re:Eolas spoke

[phorm]

They'd create a proprietary tangential protocol

But is this about protocol, or a mix of something including implementation? There may be a lot ways of embedding stuff (in fact, there are), but if the patent is held up by court and covers the general browser-plugin process...

It won't matter how it's done, the plugins would be disallowed... they'd have to find another way.

Re:Eolas spoke

[Helios7]

Why not require all browsers that use this patent to be Open Source? That would be a hoot! Maybe MS would make IE Open Source and since IE is an integral part of Windows they'd have to make half Windows Open Source... This has potential!

Re:Eolas spoke

[AbbyNormal]

What if MS bought the patent out? Scary.

Re:Eolas spoke

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one would not weep for seeing the plugins dissappear. For every browser I install I turn off animated pics, cookies, java aso. To save myself from headaches (flash and banner ads etc)

I use the web to read. period. If I want to play a game I either download it or buy it. Same with movies.

I do not consider a webpage less useful if I have to download, save to disk, open the document in OpenOffice.org i'm used to doing that anyway since I tried lynx and even in the days of the Netscape era.

IE for Mac

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean they will be FORCED to update the mac version?

I know they dropped production- but if it violates patents won't they have to go back and change it?

Prior art not allowed by judge

[Anonymous Coward]

http://college3.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2003/0 8/12/1106203.xml

A Microsoft spokesman, Jim Desler, said that the company
planned to appeal and that the court had not permitted the
jury to consider information on the validity of the patent
filed in 1994.

Re:Prior art not allowed by judge

[jafuser]

the court had not permitted the jury to consider information on the validity of the patent
filed in 1994.

WTF?

So the PTO hands out patents left and right with the assumption that "they'll get knocked down in court if they're not valid claims".

Then the courts come around and exterminate the ability to disprove the validity?

WTF???

And what else pisses me off is I feel heistant to really say anything strongly negative about the US government, becuase The Department of Homeland Security (AKA Big Brother) is watching.

Re:Prior art not allowed by judge

[Anonymous Coward]

And what else pisses me off is I feel heistant to really say anything strongly negative about the US government, becuase The Department of Homeland Security (AKA Big Brother) is watching.

I don't. They can lock me up if they want.. I'm sure it make news if they did. Maybe once in the fed slammer I'll be able figure out where they are locking up all those Muslims without the trial rights they should have if it weren't for Ashcroft.

Ein Volk
Ein Reich
Ein Fuhrer

Bow down to your superior Anglo Fundamentalist Protestant masters. And don't invoke Godwin's law on me either, unless you can prove there's much a difference between Hitler's genicide and Ashcroft's memicide.

Re:Prior art not allowed by judge

[Anonymous Coward]

The MS lawyers blew it big time on this. They should have raised viola as prior art with the USPTO, not in the courtroom. If it is so significant as prior art to make Doyle's claims obvious, then the USPTO would have overturned the patent.

If, however, the USPTO determined that viola was not significant prior art, then they would let the patent stand, and MS would never have a chance to raise it as prior art in the courtroom.

So they chanced it by bringing it to the judge, who basically seemed to believe that they should have raised it with the USPTO if it is that significant.

They took a calculated risk.... calculated at $550M... and lost.

I hope one change

[Snaller]

...will be that you can actually specify you don't want to load active x components: WITHOUT HAVING TO CLICK NO ON EVERY FUCKING PAGE!

Re:I hope one change

[Anonymous Coward]

Tools -> Internet Options, Security Tab, click "Custom Level" ... Rejoice.

Re:I hope one change

[faaaz]

There's a patch for that you know, available here.

Re:I hope one change

[Snaller]

There's a patch for that you know, available here.

I need compatability with MSIE's javascript model.

Besides, i did have a look a few weeks ago. It was big bloatware. What happened to mean and lean anyway?

Re:I hope one change

[faaaz]

Besides, i did have a look a few weeks ago. It was big bloatware. What happened to mean and lean anyway?

Well, there's firebird. I've been happy ignoring IE for the past 2 years or so.

Re:I hope one change

[Snaller]

Well, Firebird seems smaller. However one big strike against it is that it saves its configfiles in windows\application files, it does this without asking me and apparently you can't move it. That alone means i'll never use it. If it had saved in the install directory i might. Though: You can't scroll a page with the middle mouse button, like in MSIE (I know there was a hack to mozilla thatm ight work here as well, but its a slowish solution i think should be built in). There are javascript issues, and on the small spin i took it around the web it displayed some pages badly.

When IBM gets a preliminary injunction

[Anonymous Coward]

The granting of preliminary injunctions in patent cases are not commonplace events:

While the Federal Circuit has liberalized substantially the standard for obtaining preliminary injunctive relief in patent infringement suits, it has continued to state that such relief is an "extraordinary remedy which must not be routinely granted."

Nutrition 21 v. United States, 930 F.2d 867, 869, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1347, 1349

Re:When IBM gets a preliminary injunction

[shaitand]

So why is it I hear about a few of these injunctions every couple of weeks... and that is just on the highly publicized cases.

software patents are bad... mmmmmk

[Anonymous Coward]

remember kids, the enemy of my enemy can still be a freaking jerk.

Solution?

[Wolfier]

Outlaw submarine patents.
Disclose pending patents.

uhhh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Microsoft get its start exactly the same way? Who wrote DOS? How Did Microsoft get DOS?

Re:uhhh...

[digrieze]

FYI, when IBM was coming out with it's original PC it bought the hardware design from a company in Seattle (that's right, IBM DID NOT design the original PC 8088 and 8086 systems). They decided they could get someone to do it better than the original designers and started hunting for an OS. Microsoft in those days was known mostly for programming languages, custom apps (like the apps on the tandy 100, the first laptop) and (of all things) FLIGHT SIMULATOR! They bought the original QDOS from Tim Paterson for $50,000.

In those days the 800lb gorilla on OSs was CP/M from Digital Research Incorporated. DRI gave IBM the run around and the deal failed, so IBM asked microsoft to do a custom OS that worked like CP/M but didn't violate patents (that's why the prompt became C: instead of C/).

How did MS get DOS? They took a risk and bought something that "sortaworked". I know, I had QDOS and MS-DOS 1.0, DOS lived because (wow) it worked, QDOS (almost) worked.

DOS was bought and paid for, that was how they got it.

Re:uhhh...

[radsoft]

DOS was bought and paid for

Uh - not quite. MS had to later pay Paterson $400K, who was threatening to sue.

Re:uhhh...

[digrieze]

If I remember correctly the later settlement was due to additions in a later version of MS-DOS that Paterson claimed were his and were not included in the original QDOS purchase.

Microsoft finally had to enter the world of the "big boys". Sometimes it doesn't matter whether you're right or not, as long as the guy doesn't ask for more than the trial will cost it's cheaper to settle.

P.S. Lawyers suck

Re:Result of Lawsuit: Hypocrisy

[spitzak]

Hey stupid, before you troll, you might actually try reading what the "slashbots" are posting. I would say 95% of them are against these patents.

Indeed

[Snaller]

Patents like copyright are amoral evils, which should at the most last a few years.

MS Robustness Test

[Flamesplash]

Well this will at least show how robust MS can be when changes _have_ to happen.

I personally like IE, I used to like netscape, then netscape started sucking and IE was better to me, blah blah blah, but this could hurt IE's market share if they aren't able to implement these changes effectively and with transparancy.

No to patents of concepts

[axxackall]

Speaking about the concepts. There should be no patent for a concept, instead they should accept only patenting a non-monopolized implementation. If you have a concept and you implement it you can apply for the patent, but youcan get any approval only when someone implement the same concept in an alternative way. So, your first implementation will be protected as you have already applied, but you cannot use the patent to knock down anyone if your implementation is giving you a monopoly over your idea. But once someone implement it differently then you can submit the reference to the alternative and now you can knock down everyone who will try to use your implementation.

Also, software patents (actually all computer related patents!) must expire in 18 months - exactly accordingly to the Moor's law when they worth half of their original. Anyway, the real money comes on a hype, but what's a hype after 18 months?

But the best way to stimulate the industry is to drop all patents at all. Altogether. Monopolies and big corps will be unhappy of that, but they will survive. But we will se several times more start-up companies and new investments to R&D.

Re:No to patents of concepts

[emilng]

Your first paragraph has many good points, but I have to disagree with the last two paragraphs.

exactly accordingly to the Moor's law when they worth half of their original

I think Moore's law says that the number of transisters will double - it says nothing about the pricing unless there is a "Moor's law" that I don't know about.
Dropping patents altogether is a bad idea - who is going to invest in the R&D if they can't own the rights to it. Would you like to spend a year inventing something just to have someone look at how you did it and duplicate it without any effort?

Re:No to patents of concepts

[axxackall]

I think Moore's law says that the number of transisters will double - it says nothing about the pricing unless there is a "Moor's law" that I don't know about.

The original text was about transistors, it's true. But later it was generalized. I'd better cite it from the latest Halloween document:

... the amount of computing power available at a given price point doubles every eighteen months. (This also means that a given amount of computing power -- memory, processor speed, disk drive space, etc -- will generally be half as expensive a year and half later.)

... The effects of Moore's Law on software can be seen by the fact that new versions of the same software come out every few years, and that even spectacularly popular applications like Lotus 1-2-3 and WordPerfect can stop selling a few years after their release unless successfully updated.

...What is the shelf life of a typical high-budget retail game? Not long. Somewhere between two weeks and six months... A typical game will make most of its sales during the first quarter, a few more sales during the second quarter, and end up in the bargain bin in the third quarter. Expect to get one good royalty check, if you are lucky, and if your publisher is honest. Additional royalties will trickle in for the next year, then your game is done. Its life span has ended. If you want an income after that, you have to write another game.

Re:Result of Lawsuit: Hypocrisy

[StormReaver]

"Just because this hurts Microsoft, it doesn't make it a good thing by any stretch."

Most of us would indeed be angry if this happened to a good company. Although most of us will agree that this decision is a very bad thing on general principle, we're not going to pretend that it couldn't have happened to a company more deserving of bad things.

We will all welcome prior art that invalidates this patent, or a reform of the patent system so that trivial and well-known ideas, concepts, and implementations are no longer granted patents.

However, we're not going to ignore the silver lining of Microsoft's karma starting to come full circle. If this had happened to a company with a history of fair play, good customer relations, and great products, we would all be in indignant revolt. Since it happened to Microsoft, we're feeling great ambivilance.

Think of it as making the best of a bad situation.

I've got your prior art right here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple's Hypercard.

It should be obvious, but just to go through it, you'd create stacks that had the whole interweb link things, and links that could launch images, sounds, and other crap.

Re:I've got your prior art right here.

[georgebray]

Apple's HyperCard from 1987 could call external commands and functions to/from external windows, other "stacks" and the calling "stack". It could play movies, show pictures, display rich documents. geo

Re:I've got your prior art right here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well well well, have you even glanced at the friken patent?

Have a guess at the first thing mentioned ...

Flying Logos

[Walrus99]

Does this mean that I can go to a web site and get actual information instead of waiting for an annoying Flash or Java applet to download and play through. If so, then I'm all for it. Most Flash is wasted on useless visuals of the company logo flying around or other nonsense.

OK, morning rant over, back to designing real web pages.

Evil MS vs. Evil Patent Grabber

[clausiam]

What's a poor /.'er to do when you can't just choose side and bash the usual suspects...

This is a bad thing for OSS

[xutopia]

This means that Microsoft now has an excuse to use more and more proprietary standards so as not to support the W3C standards.

This means that using web standards will only ever work in Mozilla or other OSS browsers.

Quite a bit of prior art on this bad boy

[Felinoid]

If I read the webpage right this patent extends back to 1994.
Internet Explorer was at one time a liccensed version of Mosaic as maintained by Spyglass and 'enhanced' by Microsoft. I realise this isn't true anymore.

However it seams Microsoft dropped the ball on this one quite bad. Maybe suing Microsoft for intelectual property is Microsofts kryptonite.. no wait that makes them seam like good guys.. Microsofts dropped house... much better.

Microsoft has a bit of a history of losing intelectual property lawsutes. It's a long term blind spot for them.

Mosaic has had plugins for a while and with Interenet Explorer being just part of Windows now I wonder if this applys to web browsers or dose Microsofts own Windows explorer also qualify as prior art.

It was mentioned this could apply to Unix mime but that would make Unix mime prior art.

Someone suggested this could also apply to any method of matching an application to a document type even one implemented in the operating system.

Mac Os, Windows 286,386,2.xx,3.xx, OS/2, Geos [64/128/Apple], Geoworks [PC/PDA/Cell phone/wordprocessor], Amiga Os, Atari ST/TTs TOS, some interface programs for CP/M and some for Dos, GemOs, TI Explorer.

I'm sure you could find all kinds of software for all operating systems that could handle this.

That is presumming I got this right.
That we are talking about is a patent on a program that recognises what a docment is and forwards it to an external handling program that was issued in 1994.

Re:Result of Lawsuit: Hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

I Don't like most IP laws as they stand, and I don't like Microsoft. I think it is good that Microsoft one of the kings of IP in our age gets hurt by it. Why shouldn't I enjoy Microsoft getting hurt? This decision illustrates why patents are bad. It is a hell of a lot better for this to happen to Microsoft than an Open source/Free Software project.

You don't seem to understand that human opinion about things is not a simple dichotomy. I am tired of people always saying "Do we hate them or love them today?" It is up to the individual to decide whether to like or not like somthing. For example there are things about Apple I like, and there are things about Apple I don't like. Yet I generally like Apple. I don't have to agree with everything Apple does in order to like them. Just like you don't have to agree with everything your friends do to like them.

I'm sorry you can't understand that people can be happy about a bad thing happening to someone who deserved it. And in this case it is absolutely just. Usually some suffering is required by a bully in order to sympathize and understand those he bullied.

Cool! Let's get the FUD rolling...

[jonadab]

This is an excellent opportunity for web-standards zealots to roll
out the FUD. "If your website uses plugins, you could be sued for
patent infringement, forced to pay back royalties, and put out of
business! Quickly, convert all your websites to XHTML/CSS and be
safe from the patent lawyers!"

Re:worth reading, again

[Second_Derivative]

I dunno, I'd take that with a cubic metre of NaCl. Biggest stock market drop in history? I dunno, sure doesn't FEEL like a second Great Depression to me...

how can you patent embedding when you don't embed?

[*weasel]

you -cant- "embed" anything in w3c standard hypermedia. you place an tag and let the browser do the requested work. the object isn't 'embedded' in the hypermedia document, it's referenced by the markup tag.

there's no 'embedding' going on in the document whatsoever, it's a request to the browser to load an object from a specified location and launch it with specified parameters.

beyond all that, 'an object' is about the most broad concept one could possibly patent. not to mention the ambiguous nature of 'embed' with regards to a markup language.

if i have a that specifies an url to a swf target inside a frame on my hypermedia document, is that 'embedding'? it could look to a user every bit the same as if i'd used .

is it the functional 'embedding' of object data they have patented? (which as we can see -isnt- happening) or is it the visual presentation of an 'object' amongst hypermedia elements? because that would rule out java apps, -all- audio/visual components, swf, and any custom com/activex plugins.

does this mean that i could have patented 'embedding an image' in hypermedia documents?

Drugs

[yerricde]

But the best way to stimulate the industry is to drop all patents at all. Altogether.

Clarification: This should apply only to patents on inventions that can be usefully implemented as a program running on a generic PC. People who suggest abolishing the patent system entirely may not realize that doing so would kill the development of new drugs.

Re:Drugs

[axxackall]

I saw several reports saying that the current patent system slow down the whole drug industry. They either renew existing patents, or slightly modify them and apply again. There is no motivation for big drug companies to invent new drugs. As for small companies they invent new drugs and patent them, then big companies buy their patents and keep in their librarie with no motivation to bring them to the market.

After talking to several people working in that industry I've realized that it's true: the drug industry will be developed faster (with a better quality !) if it would not suffer from patents.

Re:Drugs

[yerricde]

Then how would the drug companies recoup the cost of research and development for the ten drugs that fail for every one drug that the FDA approves?

Re:Drugs

[axxackall]

and how exactly does the current patent system help them to recoup?

Re:Drugs

[Phillup]

How about more efficient research?

Seriously...

It is just like any other fat in the business (or govt.), it won't run at peak effeiciency if it doesn't have to. Right now, it doesn't have to. Ten failures get balanced by one success (using your numbers).

That sounds more like gambling... a crap shoot... than science.

Re:Drugs

[devilspgd]

It means that they get to rake in the dough for a few years when they do have a successful drug

Re:Drugs

[axxackall]

they get to rake in the dough

I am not sure I understand your English, so I still do not see how patent protect R&D investments in the drug industry.

Re:Drugs

[Nucleon500]

I agree. I don't know what's best for the drug industry, or any other industry, but let them fight their own battle. Abolishing patents altogether is unrealistic, and we'd be opposing far too many people. Abolishing software patents, however, is exactly what we should be doing.

Re:Drugs

[joak]

As some one who actually works in the industry, this is just wrong. If you're curious what would happen without patent protection, there are various cases of non-patentable potential medications which might treat important conditions, but no company will spend the money on trials necessary to prove efficacy because the economics don't work out unless they can "overcharge" enough to make a profit. Without patents, they do all the startup work and other, non-research focused companies reap the benefits.

Aspirin is a simple example--it took many, many years for it's use in heart disease to be studied in detail since the benefits would accrue to everyone, not just the company doing the trial. Meanwhile, various other medications that were generally worse, less safe and more expensive for the same problems were invented, studied and marketed.

The companies (and innovations) that suffer from this are broadly speaking on the generic side (copying existing drugs, manufacturing drugs cheaper), not the companies which are actually researching the latest cutting edge drugs.

None of which means the patent system and related licensing laws aren't occasionally abused to eke out (or rake in) a couple extra years of profit. Such behavior is shameful and common across all industries. But that has nothing to do with the benefits of the patent system itself.

Re:Drugs

[S.Lemmon]

This only proves that the drug companies are greedy and will always go for the juicer bit of the pie.

However, without patents they'd have no jucy choice except develop new drugs at a lower profit or go out of business. They'll have to take what they can get.

As a side benefit, those unpatentable treatments you mentioned would suddenly be on a level playing field with everything else.

Re:Drugs

[joak]

You've got it backwards--without patents, the choice is stop developing new drugs or go out of business. All innovation would need to be focused at developing cheaper manufacturing processes, so they could compete on cost.

A billion-dollar-a-year drug is a wonderful success today. However, if lack of patent protection reduces the profit margin (excluding R&D) to a couple %, that means even the the best drugs are producing only 10-20 million a year in profit. Since a drug costs around $300 million* to develop, it simply becomes utterly uneconomical--no company can afford to make an investment that can't be recouped for 15-30 years, best case.

Incidentally, it doesn't even help that much on the existing treatments example I gave. Clinical trials generally make up the bulk of research costs, so it's still too expensive to sponsor the studies that would get aspirin to market.

(*Accounting in the industry can be weird, but that's a reasonable mid-range number for a single new drug. This includes the cost of drugs that go belly-up during pre-clinical or clinical trials. If you exclude these, you can still easily reach $50-100 million per drug, and you're left with no way of funding "unsuccesful" research.)

Browsers already set us back to the 70's

[DrSkwid]

The Common Application Platform that the Browser tries to be is braindead anyway.

It would be great to have HTML just that, no DHTML, no javascript.

I'd love to go back to programming applications again but every idea anyone has seems to end up "can we do that in a web browser" and we end up with cookies and an inability to rely on anything being in the other frame.

The result of this mess is the .NET platform for applications

The Web must die and we must be ready to rebuild it.

Browser innovation will stop...dead in its tracks.

[DrSkwid]

You say it like it's a bad thing.

What has been the innovation since the 90's?

XML, DHTML, Java, Javascript & tabs

whoopee do

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

mozilla bug filed

[Anonymous Coward]

bugzilla bug #217601

The changes...

[michaelhood]

I've got a few changes of my own I'd like them to implement while they've got SourceSafe open.. >:)

What does this do to XHTML 2?

[Zoop]

One of XHTML 2's more controversial points is removing the img tag completely and replacing it with the object tag.

This would superficially seem to put that strategy in jeopardy.

Or would it? Images, at least, have a very limited interactivity with the browser (if you don't specify width and height, the browser calculates it and renders accordingly). There is, absent an image map, no interactivity.

This is a serious question--does anyone know what this may mean, in light of the W3C's statement?

Two wishes

[teslatug]

Eolas leaves free browsers alone as they can't make any money off of them (good thing Mozilla was spun off into a free foundation), and Microsoft revises their browser and in the process makes it more secure (by getting rid of the damn Active X crap).

Wishful thinking? Well, yeah, that's what I said.

HTTP is a protocol

[DrSkwid]

you probably mean HTML

but then you are ranting so wildly you probably don't know the fuck you mean.

SourceSafe

[LemonYellow]

As an aside, I hear that Microsoft don't use SourceSafe internally but have another source control system. I'm not surprised, because SS is a buggy, unstable bag o'sh*te.

I know I've read a bit about their source control somewhere but I've not been able to track it down again. Does anybody here know what they use?

Re:SourceSafe

[michaelhood]

CVS? =)

Re:SourceSafe

[glenstar]

Wrong, wrong, wrong! One thing that MS does do is eat their own dogfood. I imagine that for some projects, like Rotor, they might use CVS or Perforce, or whatnot, but the vast majority of the MS codebase lives in SourceSafe.

And while you might find a few developers around the campus using things like the vim plugin for Visual Studio, etc.... the vast majority of work done at MS uses exlusively MS tools.

Is a hyperlink an obect?

[LightSail]

A hyperlink is an object in a browser window. Hyperlinks "send" commands to external systems. Commands are executed on a external system as a result of the click in browser window. Prior art that functions in the manner described, yet had not been labeled as object or embedded.

If hyperlink is used to launch plug-in, does that violate patent or demonstrate prior art?

What if hyperlink is "embedded" in image? Again prior art or violation of patent?

If browser is sending command to local progam(plug-in) which manages communication with external computer, does browser violate or plug-in? Should plug-in maker be sued for violation not browser maker?

This entire situation stinks: the Internet was all about getting information from external systems.
Distributed computing existed prior to the Internet, Mainframes and terminals. Object oriented programming also pre-dated patent. Throw existing ideas together as a new patent.
Example: Dumb Terminal- call limited resource system. Display- call browser window. Command Line - call computer object. Mainframe - external system. This now infringes on patent, except that existed 30+ earlier.

Names changed to make $$$?

The Patented Kiss of Death

[timotten]

The message from W3C indicates that Microsoft will drop infringing features from Internet Explorer. You can expect Mozilla and Konqueror to avoid this patent like the plague, causing a chain-reaction encompassing Netscape, Firebird, Galeon, Safari, and others. It won't matter if one or two obscure browsers adopt this patented technique -- it will be dead on the web, and that will be a lose-lose-lose situation for the users, developers, and patent holder.

Preprocessed Languages?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does this patent affect preprocessed code on webpages as in PHP, ASP, and JSP?

The answer is simple

[tjstork]

Make a new kind of thing that does what a web browser does, but isn't a web browser. MS could certainly push a new kind of content delivery engine, and create a "new web". Since the patent is for plugins into web browsers, they would no longer infringe.

Or, they could stuff all of C# into a web browser in such a way as the browser becomes a downloadable program selector.

I'm surprised MS lost this case.

Re:The answer is simple

[minister of funk]

Are you really surprised? Could the loss be a way to force competetor's out of business? Kind of business-akido (useing other's momentum against them)?

Where will it end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will patents eventually kill IT, and all new inovations because of peoples fear of patents?

Third of Nine

You are both right

[glenrm]

It is the fault of a "greedy IP company that is also not making a product" and the government for allowing it to go ahead. Also is there an open source problem here, for instance let us say that MSFT agrees to pay royalites to allow their web browser to continue to work correctly, then the company claims that browsers such as Mozillia must also pay royalities?

Re:You are both right

[Blkdeath]

Also is there an open source problem here, for instance let us say that MSFT agrees to pay royalites to allow their web browser to continue to work correctly, then the company claims that browsers such as Mozillia must also pay royalities?

I for one commit to paying upwards of 25% of the purchase price of the Mozilla Web Browser to this upstanding Intellectual Property organization.

Re:You are both right

[jeti]

then the company claims that browsers such as Mozillia must also pay royalities?

This could lead to an interesting situation. Let's say Mozilla takes out anything that could be offending and puts it into an extension (like JPEG images). The extensions are only distributed to countries where the patent isn't registered.

It would soon become very apparent how much patents hamper progress. It could even lead to a situation where the majority of users illegally use infinging software.

Re:You are both right

[glenrm]

This would only work if MSFT doesn't pay royalites, if they pay the royalties Windows users only choice would be IE. Which would be a shame since Moz rocks!

Re:You are both right

[shaitand]

royalties are a percentage of the take, an 80% royalty on nothing is nothing.

Re:You are both right

[DunbarTheInept]

No it wouldn't. That only works if all browsers do it. If, as in your example, only Mozilla does it, then the ignorant masses will just see that as something Mozilla sucks at doing, and chalk it up to bad software. Think of all the times we've tried explaining the difference between some software being broken because the laws won't allow it to work versus it being broken because the product itself is at fault, and think of how most people just don't care. Think of DVD's and Quicktime on Linux as an example.

Re:You are both right

[akac]

Hardly. I get royalties from an OEM on my product. Its $x per product, no matter if they give it away for free or sell it.

Closer look at the patent

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent is ridiculous and I hardly see the patent holder writing their own browser or selling their own system. No, they would rather sue some company and make their money that way...

Well, yeah, this is certainly just some company that's bought a patent and is trying to squeeze some cash out of it, and I think that's a reprehensible business model. But the patent itself... well, I'm not so sure.

The <EMBED> tag and plug-ins in general were a pretty innovative development. Looking back, we see the <IMG> tag (which the browser handles with different code depending on the type of the image) and <APPLET>, and it's very clear to us now where things were going. It wasn't that obvious at the time. Then, browsers were monolithic.

This patent isn't as trivial as, say, one-click buy. In that case, both the desire and the implementation were trivial. In this case, the need to go to a more pluggable architecture wasn't immediately obvious at the time, and neither was the solution (plug-ins and switching applications based on content type).

Re:Closer look at the patent

[SerpentMage]

This is a trivial patent, because around that time I showed in Netscape with an embedded Excel document how to buy stocks.

It is not that unique, and the applet tag falls into this category as well. Essentially that moves falls into this category...

Re:Closer look at the patent

[Minna Kirai]

In this case, the need to go to a more pluggable architecture wasn't immediately obvious at the time, and neither was the solution (plug-ins and switching applications based on content type).

No, it's completely obvious. Given a statement of the problem, any normal software engineer at the time would've decided to switch applications based on content type.

Commercial products that handed off to a different helper program based on a content-type string date from 1988 or earlier. (Although back then, the "content-type" string was often just the final 3 characters of a filename. But it's the same idea)

Re:Closer look at the patent

[Anonymous Coward]

...or a 4-byte string in the resource fork of a file, ala the Macintosh, or a couple of "magic characters" at the beginning of Unix source and executable files...

Re:Closer look at the patent

[Trejkaz]

Indeed. And the image tag is really just a type of media which doesn't happen to be interactive. Putting <img/> in is like putting in an <object/> with type="image/something", so you might as well ban browsers from having images too.

Finally something Lynx and Links can be proud of, right? They didn't violate this one. :-)

Bloody stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully, this will be able to be held up as an example to the European Parliament of the sheer idiocy of software patents.

More info on the patent

[Alien54]

Here is a link to a Q&A about the suit, as well as links to various news stories on the Eolas news page

one of the answers is interesting.

Q. What is the patented technology that was at issue in the case?
A. The patented technology is a key component of the interactivity available on the Internet today. It allows web page developers to embed interactive programs in Web pages. A browser, equipped with the University of California's patented technology, is able to deliver that interactivity to the user. For example, the technology is used often with stock information, video players, games, virtual real estate tours and other interactive content on the Web. The patent allows the Web to be a platform for fully interactive embedded applications.

Sounds like this has broader implications for the Internet at large which the web community may regret. It is not patenting hyperlinks, but I think it gets close.

Re:Mozilla

[Lodragandraoidh]

This is what Eolas says about their patent:

"First demonstrated publicly in 1993, this invention lifted the glass for the first time from the hypermedia browser, enabling Web browsers for the first time to act as platforms for fully-interactive embedded applications. The patent covers Web browsers that support such currently popular technologies as ActiveX components, Java applets, and Navigator plug-ins. Eolas' advanced browser technology makes possible rich interactive online experiences for over 500 million Web users, worldwide." - Eolas

Given that - I think Sun and Netscape have alot to worry about.

I don't see an honest reaction from the community

[Anonymous Coward]

The reaction of the community in general surprises and saddens me.

Ok, most of us view Microsoft as an enemy. Fine. I have no love lost for M$.

However, in this situation any competent software engineer can see that they are right. The patent is obviously invalid. Any competent software engineer who was around at that time knows that Microsoft had COM and embedded documents long before this patent. Application of these technologies to browsers was obvious and trivial, and should not be covered by a patent due to being obvious.

The honest position would be to fully support Microsoft in this matter, and not to search for possible positive outcomes out of browsers suddenly dropping plugins.

corrections, /. ate my angle brackets

[*weasel]

you -cant- "embed" anything in w3c standard hypermedia. you place an tag and let the browser do the requested work. the object isn't 'embedded' in the hypermedia document, it's referenced by the markup tag. there's no 'embedding' going on in the document whatsoever, it's a request to the browser to load an object from a specified location and launch it with specified parameters. beyond all that, 'an object' is about the most broad concept one could possibly patent. not to mention the ambiguous nature of 'embed' with regards to a markup language. if i have a 'frameset' that specifies an url to a swf target inside a frame on my hypermedia document, is that 'embedding'? it could look to a user every bit the same as if i'd used 'object'. is it the functional 'embedding' of object data they have patented? (which as we can see -isnt- happening) or is it the visual presentation of an 'object' amongst hypermedia elements? because that would rule out java apps, -all- audio/visual components, swf, and any custom com/activex plugins. does this mean that i could have patented 'embedding an image' in hypermedia documents? (one would think that if i submit with 'plain old text' slashcode could go ahead and change < to < for me, instead of assuming those mean i really wanted html.)

Any algorithm?

[LightSail]

Patent covers "any algorithm that implements ". Damn clever! No one is allowed to do any thing that works around my patent; I called it.

How can you patent "any algorithm" that cover everythings? Build a new technology, Opps, that is a new algorithm. Pay up!

This is a ridiculous patent

[samwhite_y]

Some say we should get rid of software patents. Personally, I am not sure that the issues with patents only apply to software. There is a large grey area where somebody has to decide "how obvious" or "how directly relevant" is the prior art before a judge or jury decides that the patent is legally enforceable. Currently, our courts are too likely to allow truly obvious ideas to be successfully enforceable as a patent.

To my mind, a good patent has one of the following two characteristics.

1. It requires much study to even comprehend the patent and a peer review of experts in the field say that it is a SIGNIFICANT advance.

2. The patent opens so much new ground in ideas that even though the ideas are somewhat obvious, the unique combination is so explosively new that there is clearly no prior art that could possibly be referenced to invalidate the patent.

By the way, I do not think that HTML at any point was a patentable idea. There have been many markup languages and even some that were used in an internet setting before HTML came along. HTML was successful not just because it was a clear and easy simplification of SGML, but because there was a good and "free" implementation (the Mosaic browser) of it readily available. Also, if you look at the RFCs for HTTP it is clear that HTTP rested very strongly on the notions already known in other internet protocols (email, ftp, etc.). HTTP and HTML are clearly evolutionay ideas (if you examine the context in which they were created), and it was how they were used that was revolutionary.

"plug-ins" = specifically this (from the patent)

[Anonymous Coward]

From the patent:

What is claimed is:

1. A method for running an application program in a computer network environment, comprising:

providing at least one client workstation and one network server coupled to said network environment, wherein said network environment is a distributed hypermedia environment;

So you've got a client and a server on a network. (For example, two TCP/IP hosts, one of which is a Web server.)

executing, at said client workstation, a browser application, that parses a first distributed hypermedia document to identify text formats included in said distributed hypermedia document and for responding to predetermined text formats to initiate processing specified by said text formats;

On the client machine, you run a browser. The browser can parse hypertext documents and do special processing based on bits of markup (like HTML tags) in the documents.

utilizing said browser to display, on said client workstation, at least a portion of a first hypermedia document received over said network from said server,

The browser gets a document from the server and displays it...

wherein the portion of said first hypermedia document is displayed within a first browser-controlled window on said client workstation,

...in a browser window.

wherein said first distributed hypermedia document includes an embed text format, located at a first location in said first distributed hypermedia document, that specifies the location of at least a portion of an object external to the first distributed hypermedia document,

The document contains a link to an external object.

wherein said object has type information associated with it utilized by said browser to identify and locate an executable application external to the first distributed hypermedia document, and

The object has type information associated with it. The browser uses this type information to identify and locate an executable application external to the document itself.

wherein said embed text format is parsed by said browser to automatically invoke said executable application to execute on said client workstation in order to display said object and enable interactive processing of said object within a display area created at said first location within the portion of said first distributed hypermedia document being displayed in said first browser-controlled window.

The browser automatically runs that application on the workstation to display the object, and let the user interact with it, in a region of the browser window.

There are other claims too; this is the central one.

Analysis: From a purely technical perspective, this covers the <object> and <embed> tags quite precisely. The only nit is that the patent calls the plug-in an "application", but programmers would call them DLLs or shared libraries (they're not stand-alone apps). A minor nit. Anyway, the patent itself mentions <EMBED> later on.

So, no, this doesn't apply to MIME types in general, only where they apply to applet-style plug-ins where the plug-in is located based on the content type of the object being displayed.

I don't see how browsers will get around it. The only hope I can think of is prior art.

Elitist

[IncohereD]

Just because you don't have access to a particle accelerator and radioactive substances doesn't mean that your ideas about nuclear physics are automatically invalid.

Same goes for rocket fuel, super computer clusters, or anything. What you're describing is a way to allow only the rich to get richer.

Re:Elitist

[Serapth]

Um... if you dont have access to a few million dollars worth of lab equiptment to start with... are you really going to be dreaming up new applicable radioactive substances... or particle accelerators... Hell... without going through the prototype stage, you cant even know that your patented idea, is anything more then a concept. I honestly think we should reward the person who makes something work... not the person that dreams it up!

An idea is nothing, if it isnt implemented! There is more value, and work involved in the first implementation than there is in the idea. Granted... this isnt always the case... but say one day I dream of ( 200 years ago ) sending a rocket to the moon, after I watched a fireworks display... is it a valid dream? Yep... but the person who recieves the patents should be the one that actually figures out HOW to put a rocket into space... and without some element of a prototype... its nothing more then a theory.

Re:Elitist

[Blkdeath]

Same goes for rocket fuel, super computer clusters, or anything. What you're describing is a way to allow only the rich to get richer.

Since presently the only people who can benefeit from patents are the ones with million-patent-portfolios and a peck of lawyers to defend them, it seems to me that the current system is merely a means by which the rich can get richer.

Re:Elitist

[WNight]

Exactly. Patents are about protection the "how", not the "what".

They are also supposed to only be applicable when a skilled technician in that field wouldn't come up with the same solutions when presented with the same constraints. Once seen it can seem obvious, but if you ask someone in that field, who hasn't seen the invention, how to do this and they come up with the same design, it shouldn't be patentable.

At least, that's how it used to be, now you can patent any damn thing.

Re:Elitist

[IncohereD]

Since presently the only people who can benefeit from patents are the ones with million-patent-portfolios and a peck of lawyers to defend them, it seems to me that the current system is merely a means by which the rich can get richer.

In the software industry, yes. Look further than that and you might be surprised.

Excellent!

[0123456]

The sooner we see the end of sites with stupid embedded Quicktime movies or "look, ain't I cool?" Flash crap, the better.

Ban all patents, not just software ones...

[Thinkit3]

You people would be the ones trying to ban just slave imports back in the slavery days. No compromises.

Active X?

[ggeens]

Does anyone still use Active X on a web site? I can't remember any site asking for it in a long time. Granted, I use Mozilla, which ignores Active X, but I would expect to see empty spots on the page.

Let's see what plugins I'd have to miss:

• Acrobat: I prefer to read the document in a separate window anyway.
• Flash: My stepdaughter will not like that, since all her favorite sites use it.
• Java: Not used often, but I'd still miss it.

Re:Active X?

[Minna Kirai]

Does anyone still use Active X on a web site? I can't remember any site asking for it in a long time.

The sites may be giving you a different page based on your browser-id.

Java and Flash (in various versions) are nearly the only plugins you'll see used on a modern website, but when IE users view them, the plugin is typically delivered over ActiveX.

Another attack on open source in the making?

[wils0n]

If MS "allows" itself to lose this case, are they not setting a precedent by which Eolas could attempt to attack OS?

Certainly a plug-in model exists in OS and has a GPL-style license. What's to stop Eolas from pulling a SCO and trying to charge everyone who uses OS-based plug-in technology?

It seems convenient that MS would lose on an important issue that could hurt OS much more than MS.

Re:Another attack on open source in the making?

[mpthompson]

It seems convenient that MS would lose on an important issue that could hurt OS much more than MS.

While I love a conspiracy theory as much as anyone else on Slashdot, I seriously doubt Microsoft is making much of a calculated decision here against Open Software.

If the ruling is allowed to stand it will indeed hurt Open Software, but it will hurt Microsoft and hundreds of companies that rely on embedded media on their web sites a 1000 times more than any Open Source projects. Some companies such as WebEx may see their business model evaporate overnight if browsers can't display embedded mixed media content.

In the end, if Microsoft does acquiesce, the descision will be made on legal and financial grounds, not because they want to stick-it to Open Software. At least not in this case because even Microsoft will lose, and lose big.

Re:Another attack on open source in the making?

[Anonymous Coward]

>
If the ruling is allowed to stand it will indeed hurt Open Software,
but it will hurt Microsoft and hundreds of companies that rely on
embedded media on their web sites a 1000 times more than any Open
Source projects. Some companies such as WebEx may see their business
model evaporate overnight if browsers can't display embedded mixed
media content.
In the end, if Microsoft does acquiesce, the descision will be made on
legal and financial grounds, not because they want to stick-it to Open
Software. At least not in this case because even Microsoft will lose,
and lose big.
>
>
And good ridance to all of you.

None of you will be missed. Trust me on this.

Death of OSS because of Browsers

[Anonymous Coward]

There won't be any web standards being used.

How will Mozilla and other OSS browsers pay for licenses?

We are seeing a potential end to anything embedded in a browser and the beginning of coded web pages in an MS proprietory web format.

Microsoft will no doubt jump at this opportunity and release tools to migrate existing technologies

MS and it's 95% market web browser share will annihilate the rest of the market and make it impossible for anyone, big or small to compete and they can use the Eolas as a valid excuse.

If you need to have MS Windows to run a MS browser to see the 20% of web pages OSS browsers can't decipher, how many people will switch to GNU? More likely people using GNU will switch back to MS!

Microsoft to own the patent?

[perly-king-69]

Suppose M$ bought this little company. Would they then own the patent? Scary?

A Question before we jump to conclusions

[linuxislandsucks]

Are we talking specifically about the way MSIE loads objects into hyperpages or Netscapes's way?

IE for example is it the object tag?

Given the period of 1994 when patent was applied for and not granted until 1998..w3c might be able ot talk elos into only collecting license fees that are limited or ask that the patent be donated to w3c..

and does MS's and Netscape's and SpyGlass's work from 1994-1998 become then prior art as patent was nto finalize duntil 1998?

Does this make anyone else uneasy?

[PPCAvenger]

The patent relates to the embedding of objects in hypermedia documents, and Microsoft has indicated they will have to make changes to Internet Explorer as a result of the ruling.

Given what this patent covers and this response from Microsoft I can't help but feel a bit uneasy.

In the old PBS interview posted further down the person behind the patent presented a hypothetical situation wherein they had the power to exclude Microsoft or IE from using these technologies and thus remove their ability to compete on a level playing field.

My big concern is just how extensive these changes will be.

Do they still have the clout to turn the tables? What I mean is could they create an entirely new form of "interactive content" that's not like a plug-in or ActiveX control, send it out as a critical update for everybody using IE versions 4 through 6 and remove the old functionality?

This would put everybody with interactive content in the position of re-writing their code and using this new, proprietary Microsoft format that *nobody else* would have the ability to use or have their site broken to at least 80% of web surfers.

I'm heading into territory I have little knowledge of now so please forgive any ignorance of the subject as I continue.

ActiveX is already gives them some of this power but it does share some basic similarities with plug-ins and thus allows for cross platform adjustments to be made to code. A plug-in and an ActiveX control essentially do the same things right? They just interact with the browser in different ways.

If this new format can be nothing like a plug-in then what's stopping them from using these "changes" and their market share from killing everybody else's browser off?

As usual, the web developers have the real power here but they tend to follow the biggest player and everybody else gets screwed.

I hope I'm wrong about this and the sheer entrenchment of these technologies would prevent such a move by Microsoft. The other hope I have is that interactive content is mostly developed using Macromedia and Apple tools so these two companies would have to participate. However, I highly doubt they'd just ignore IE's market share and say, "Download a Gecko or KHTML based browser" but it would be nice if they did.

Geez, that's enough doom and gloom for one day, it must be the weather.

on the flip side

[seibed]

If MS were excluded from using some of Eolass' patents, it would probably lead to a DOJ investigation into Eolas. assuming that didn't happen, it might make sense for MS to spin off IE, which would be a very interesting move, and do much of the invigoration that this guy is talking about.

Re:on the flip side

[gbjbaanb]

the guy speaks sense.

I think that if Eolas refused to licence to MS, but not to anyone else, MS would be running him through the courts for some form of anti-competitive behaviour. Once they won, do you think they'd not ask for quite a bit of compensation? (and that's not 'quite a bit' as I would know a large amount of money as :-)

I personally would like to see MS say 'ok then. no plugins of any sort anymore'. and for the other OS browsers to follow suit. Once the world had woken up to why their web browsing was suddenly dull (and advertisers no longer advertising) and the political interest groups lobbying the politicos, the law on these stupid patents might just get changed.

Either that or everyone would realise there were no adverts, and browsing was considerably faster... :)

Ask and ye shall receive

[melted]

Let's watch Microsoft shoot his company in the head, mutilate its dead body then let it rot and then burn its carcass - all using the US legal system.

At last, a Microsoft lawsuit the whole family (both pro- and anti-Micrsoft folks) can enjoy.

Re:Ask and ye shall receive

[MenTaLguY]

Let's watch Microsoft shoot his company in the head, mutilate its dead body then let it rot and then burn its carcass - all using the US legal system.

...and then Microsoft buys the smoking remains at fire-sale prices and enforces the patent they just bought for cheap.

Some hypermedia classics

[amevba]

I'll be shortly attending a studying seminar with a main theme revolving around hypertext and finding information, and their progress and development from "classics" into the modern World Wide Web.

The seminar homepage has currently only a few links, but they point to the classics, e.g., V. Bush's As we may think and some Xanadu stories. (Seminar homepage text is in Finnish, but links point to articles written in English.)

implementations don't really matter

[anonymous loser]

these vague patents... or more specifically, a patent without an actual implementation

It has nothing to do with whether there is an actual implementation. Patent law is all about the claims. If the claims are vague, then the domain the patent covers is also vague. Claims are deliberately worded ambiguously in the hopes that it will catch not only the implementation discussed within the patent, but alternate implementations or even other completely unrelated technologies as well. This makes the patent much more powerful and far-reaching, as we have seen.

Will this put RealMedia out of business?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the browser companies license? Will the W3C just remove plug-in media from the spec?

Browser developers who don't want to license this patent will end up just adding the code in for playing popular media formats directly into their products.

That's not a problem for public formats (MPEG, MP3, etc.) but what about exotic proprietary ones?

I guess QuickTime, RealMedia, and maybe Shockwave, will either lend/license their media playback code to the major browser developers, or have to open source it.

Who owns the patent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait. Who owns he patent? Eolas, Inc. or the University of California?

UC Press Release

FAQ

And now some stupid comments:

So maybe our old friends at Berkeley could help open source out? Or maybe BSD will finally use this to strike down Linux?

Microsoft does lose.

[twitter]

what happens when mr doyle flips his switch and 95% of the browser market (IE) can no longer watch flash videos in a web page, chat through a web page, watch a movie clip on ifilms, or use simple scriptlets or custom applets (potentially not even take advantage of mime typing or any function which invokes a dll)? ....

They'd create a proprietary tangential protocol, that allows them to create a proprietary application that continues to offer full media control. if there is no hypermedia, there is no patent infringement.

They have already done that and lost in court. Active X and all that crap is just what you are talking about. It cost them lots of money to aquire all that shit and work it into their OS, turning it off would hurt bad.

Now imagine that Doyle decides that free and open protocals and software can use his patents royalty free. This would put free software at a tremendous competitive advantage, precisely the competitive disadvantage that Macromedia and Microsoft would like to hold over free software. What Doyle says makes sense. There's no public good comes from big company dominance of the web. Him using the same deranged system that got us there to get us out would not be nuts, it would be wonderful.

Re:Microsoft does lose.

[*weasel]

Doyle has already decided that free and open protocols and software (html via the 'object' tag is free, open, and standard) can -NOT- use his patents royalty free via his lawsuit. currently, the 'object' tag implimentation of his patent -is- cross-platform standard, and -that- is why even the w3c is angry at this decision.

Internet Explorer is just as guilty as Safari, as Mozilla, as Opera, as the rest. anyone who supports plugins is guilty of infrigement. and selective prosecution is -not- available if he wnats to keep his patent. if he does not procede to demand compliance from all browser makers, then he will find his patent uneforceable, and nothing will change.

active X, and plugins in general are not within the scope of this patent. only those 'embedded' in hypermedia. he's not suing MS for creating activeX. they wouldn't have to turn it off in all its applications on their OS - only in hypermedia.

also, he cannot release a patent 'for free' and then dictate who can and cannot use it. if he releases his patented information to anyone who produces code that impliments it under the GPL - then microsoft is free to use that GPL'd code to be compliant. and then what do you have? you have a patented, GPL'd standard to 'embed' objects in hypermedia. which in your best case leaves us precisely where we are right now, but with an unenforceable patent over that 'object' tag.

he will either force MS to abandon html and make something new and proprietary (and take 95% of the desktop market with it) - or nothing will change.

there is no upside to software patents. regardless of which corporations are involved.

Re:Microsoft does lose.

[JoeBuck]

The parent article is not insightful. There is no legal obligation for a patent-holder to prosecute all infringers equally. Yes, a patent holder can, too, dictate who can and who cannot use the patent, and can be as unfair as he wants to be, because the patent is his property. Your claim that selective prosecution is not available if someone wants to keep a patent is total crap; perhaps you are confused since there is a similar provision in trademark law.

Protect our future from obvious patents

[worldcitizen]

Let's start an effort that squashes future obvious patents on technologies that are impractical today.

A joke I've already seen here in Slashdot is "let's patent Star-trek-style transporters". Actually, teleport-like tunnel-effects are possible at the quantum level but nobody has figured out yet how to do it at a macroscopic level. This makes it possible to write a "research" book (it cannot be a fantasy book because that wouldn't make prior art) that describes "innovative" uses of a device that manages to do this at a macroscopic level. If the descriptions have a sufficient level of detail that prevents future patents on the obvious it would be a really good thing.

The goal would be that the really innovative inventions can still be patented, but there is enough "prior art" to prevent the obvious from being fenced. E.g., whoever invents the teleporter will get rich, but nobody can patent afterwards a fire-extinguishing method of teleporting water over a forest fire.

Maybe Tim O'Reilly could be convinced to start a community site to fish for ideas and then get a good writer to compile them into a book series of "Future Trends" that describes what will be possible when certain technologies mature. I wish we had something like this that had described all Internet services over wireless devices and outrageous patents like email-over-wireless could be easily crushed.

STUPID

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft drops "plugins" (as defined in this silly patent) in the next version of IE and then simply bundles that version of IE in with the next version of Windows which will be dutifully bought up by the sheeple, what leverage will this company have? All the third party plugin makers will adapt to MS's new "not-a-plugin" plugin system and the MS monopoly will move on. Sorry, but like most of the dimwitted ideas coming out of the pulpit, this one wont work either.

Design around the patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Without seeing the court's opinion, it's impossible to tell how IE needs to be changed to avoid infringement. Based on the court's interpretation of the claim language, an infringing browser must do the "heavy lifting" of identifying and activating the plug-in for whatever type of object is being loaded.

I don't know how IE currently locates plug-ins. But, IMHO a possible work around might be to have this handled by an OS level service. That is, the browser passes the object type information to the OS which loads and returns an appropriate program, DLL, shared library, etc. The OS then provides an entry point to the browser.

I also note that the claim language requires 'text' to identify the objects to be loaded. Perhaps a binary version of html/xhtml/etc. would avoid infringing the patent.

P.S. Generally, the district courts don't specialize in patent cases, but patent appeals go to a court that was set up by congress to deal with patent cases. As as result, I think a significant percentage of patent cases get overturned on appeal.

Holy paradox, Buttman!

[Anonymous Coward]

The result is that people can (and have) patented almost every imaginable (and quite a few unimaginable) things.

I know the USPTO has allowed patents on ludicrous objects such as 1-click buying, but even they probably can't patent something that's unimaginable . . .

Re:Holy paradox, Buttman!

[AftanGustur]

I know the USPTO has allowed patents on ludicrous objects such as 1-click buying, but even they probably can't patent something that's unimaginable . . .

Can you imagine somebody patenting the wheel ?
(Yes, it happened)

the stylized "e" logo is also patented

[Anonymous Coward]

"A final note: Eolas also 'invented' (designed, actually) the now-ubiquitous stylized "e" logo. IBM purchased rights to use it from us in 1997."

http://www.eolas.com/about_us.html

This is all making me want to "e"-throw up.

Government Software review for patent infringment.

[warhaeden]

I think ALL GOVERNMENT software should be reviewed for PATENT INFRINGMENT. And of course, the infringing software must be removed after being found. Once they see how much they are screwed I think they would be forced to fix the patent system. Thats the ONLY way, I ever seen the software patent system changing.

Alternatives

[mwood]

I never heard of Eolas until this. How big could they be? We could pass the hat and buy them out, then place the patented methods in the public domain. End of problem.

Or we could just let them get away with it, and give up on using active objects in web pages. Most of the ones I remember are just silly or annoying anyway, and could be done better by other means. Anything that cuts down on the amount of Shockwave/Flash gunk I have to wade through will win my praises. :-/

Re:Alternatives

[Anonymous Coward]

>active objects in web pages. Most of the ones I remember are just
silly or annoying anyway, and could be done better by other means.
Anything that cuts down on the amount of Shockwave/Flash gunk I have
to wade through will win my praises. :-/
>
>
Not a bad idea. Let's face it, 99.999% of IE-focused WWW are basically crap sites anyway.

The key to this patent is the combination

[GeoGreg]

If you look at claim 1 of the patent (5838906) , the key seems to be a combination of 4 things: a browser, hypermedia (text with "clickable" links), a client-server architecture over a network, and dowloadable program code, executed on the client, that communicates both with the browser and bi-directionally with the server. The Eolas technology page claims the first public demonstration in 1993. Was there anyone else who had all 4 components in one thing in 1993?

How drug patents are supposed to work

[yerricde]

The patent system gives drug companies a temporary monopoly during which to charge for both developing a drug and manufacturing it in volume. After the patent expires, generic drug companies can just manufacture it in volume, paying nothing to those who did the research.

Re:How drug patents are supposed to work

[axxackall]

Perhaps the goverment should sponsor R&D in drugs, like it does in the space research. Well, the risk of death from drugs is even higher than from a space ship crashing. Drug production can be taxed, besides, bad drug manufacturers must be fined. Thus - no need for any freeking patents, IMHO.

Cringely, Microsoft, and Eolas

[ensignyu]

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20010816. html

Cringely predicted a whole two years back that Microsoft would do exactly that. Get rid of Java. Link the media player and ActiveX directly into the browser. And use Eolas as an excuse.

We just passed the eighth anniversary!

[GeoGreg]

Want to see some of the original discussion on this patent? Go to this discussion on the www-talk mailing list from 1995, including posts from Mike Doyle of Eolas and other players (including Pei Wei, whose work Microsoft claims as prior art).

Microsoft is being sued from all directions.

[iamnotaclown]

Cringely writes about this in his current story.

Re:"plug-ins" = specifically this (from the patent

[Phillup]

>>I don't see how browsers will get around it.

Perhaps that is why MS isn't going to ship a browser anymore...

Technicality? Yes. Exactly the kind that lawyer's like...

Cringely predicted this in 2001 ...

[ensignyu]

The Pulpit, Auguest 2001

Hey, and it's August again, a little over two years later!

Well, more importantly that Microsoft was going to try to kill Java and embed a media player in the browser.

Re:Cringely predicted this in 2001 ...

[crusher-1]

"Well, more importantly that Microsoft was going to try to kill Java and embed a media player in the browser."

Not if the EU follows through on their latest greatest "unbundling" push.

Can you do better than 1 out of 10?

[yerricde]

Ten failures get balanced by one success (using your numbers). That sounds more like gambling... a crap shoot... than science.

Biochemists still don't have a complete understanding of every little detail that goes on in the human body. A "crap shoot" is the best that science can provide as of A.D. 2003.

brought to you by...

[SeanAhern]

The preceding "brave" nose-thumbing has been brought to you by none other than the famous Anonymous Coward.

Re:brought to you by...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure posting as Anonymous Coward will thwart the feds to no end.

Re:brought to you by...

[SeanAhern]

Fair enough, but I find it rather amusing that, after posting a screed announcing that "They can lock me up if they want," the author decided to play it safe by hitting that "Post Anonymously" button.

If it ends Flash-based advertising

[blair1q]

then I'm all for it.

Oh, come on

[otherwhere]

the fact that this might have a positive result doesn't mean you should be "all for it". I'm "all for" the elimination of AIDS, but not by means of killing every HIV+ person in the world.

apologies if my analogy is overblown.

This may be far-reaching but

[erroneus]

Wouldn't the discription also apply to other MS Document formats? How about Word and Excel documents? They are also capable of having such embedded objects. Perhaps I'm missing something?

What should we care?

[Asmodai]

OK, just a very harsh and random thought, but...

Why should the rest of the world care? The patent is only in the US. I could happily use the manners described in Europe of Asia since the patent doesn't apply there...

Furthermore, I wonder why W3C is concerned, since it only affects, what, 10% of the world (no idea) or so? Sure, they have an office in the USA, but also one in Europe and one in Japan. Close the office in the US. And dang, too bad for Eolas.

Eolas = knowledge

[nepheles]

As a by-the-way, Eolas is the Irish-language word for 'knowledge'.

Re:Eolas = knowledge

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I would have guessed it meant 'asshole'.

Patents just for mega-corps

[nepheles]

In the argument against software patents, it is often said that they will be to the advantage of large corporations, who will use them against smaller outfits. They don't come much bigger than Microsoft, or smaller than Eolas. Which makes this case slightly ironic.

Patent the Implementation

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'll say it again: You can patent a cotton gin, but you can't patent the idea of cleaning cotton. Nor can you prevent other people from selling cotton cleaners while you have the patent.

You can patent a drug that treats asthma, but you can't patent treating asthma.

So, it follows, that you can't patent embedding objects in a hypertext document, you can patent a method of embedding objects in hypertext documents.

Re:Patent the Implementation

[JoeBuck]

Well, actually, now that the US allows "business method" patents, you can essentially patent the idea of doing something. For example, Priceline patented the idea of doing a reverse auction over a network.

Re:Mozilla

[Anonymous Coward]

the browser Viola by Pei Wei had this back in 91 and 92.

AFAIK they've never done that

[melted]

They've never enforced any software patents.

Microsoft Will CLEARLY Benefit From This

[SilentMajority]

If IE has to be modified in order to workaround this patent, then it means Microsoft can require everyone using Windows to upgrade to IE 7.0.

One of the challenges facing Microsoft (and other software companies) is getting their customers to install upgrades.

With a proper spin on this, it shouldn't be hard to get everyone to throw out IE 5.5, etc. and finally upgrade to 7.0. This will probably begin by convincing websites to modify their content to support a NEW plugin standard supported by IE 7.0 in order to avoid lawsuits related to this patent.

So in a nutshell, MS gets to "require" customers into upgrading without appearing to be the demanding bully. The only question I have is what else are they going to put into IE 7? Will this be like bills in our govt where they add stuff (pork) that won't get passed on their own?

Maybe they'll bundle their new antivirus product and make it a huge publicity win. i.e. "Unlike Linux (re: SCO), we respect other people's IP so we changed our flagship product. Plus, we've added antivirus code to make this the most secure browser technoloy on the planet! And the anti-virus code incorporates DRM so your employees don't accidently make your company liable for their copyright violations!"

YAY!!! Does this mean no more FLASH?

[Anonymous Coward]

I certainly hope so! :-)

Microsoft changes

[bobv-pillars-net]

Okay, so they separate their browser into the base, non-scriptable, free version, and the scriptable, "professional" version. They pay Eolas a kickback for forcing the issue, and watch the cashflow start rolling in.

Whatchawannabet?

How about Java as prior art?

[Anonymous Coward]

The patent lists Oct 17, 1994 as the filing date, however according to a timeline I saw, HotJava (the first Java web browser, which included applets) was first demonstrated on Sept 29, 1994. Now I don't know if this version of HJ included applets, but I think it would clearly indicate that this is not a novel invention.

Can somebody check this out?

aQazaQa

please mod up parent

[Anonymous Coward]

psuedo mod: "+1 Funny"

I hope MS destroys the "cool" WWW

[Lonath]

I hope they reduce their browser to displaying static content. I hope lots of people get pissed. I hope everyone explains to people that MS is NOT evil in this case. Software patents are evil, and if they want the WWW back, they need to write Congress to get rid of software patents! This could be the thing that gets rid of them. (Ok, not likely, but we can hope.)

Could the web server do the work?

[Battle_Ratt]

So the patent covers
"mechanisms for embedding objects within distributed hypermedia documents, where at least some of the object's data is located external to the document, and there is a control path to the object's implementation to support user interaction with the object"
Can the work not be done by the web server instead, and an addition made to the html tag system to allow for binary data to be streamed as "part" of the document? Have the web server grab all the information prior to sending everything, and then stream all the info in one big document to the browser. Sure some things will have to be done differently, but it would also have the added benefit of breaking a number of tracking methods used by advertisers.
If I can come up with this workaround in ten minutes, certainly other people could come up with more complete solutions.

does this mean...

[lordrich]

No more midis? Or does it mean the the plugin which kills midi's will be stopped?

Please don't shoot me...

[The Master Control P]

But I would have to side with MS on this. I don't care who they are filed against, software patents are bullshit. If it's some IP firm trying to hold all web commerce hostage with one-click-shopping, or some assholes suing MS because of their implementation of a plugin, the asshole loses.

You may disagree, but in my book scum lawyers trump MS. Not that it wasn't an admirable competition...

End-users guilty?

[ikekrull]

Are the end-users guilty in this situation?

Microsoft offers no indemnification for Internet Explorer, as far as I am aware, so should companies using IE hire a team of lawyers and pregrammers to carefully vet every single technology used in these products to avoid liability in this kind of lawsuit?

That's socialism

[yerricde]

Perhaps the goverment should sponsor R&D in drugs

I rather like this idea, and so would Perrigo and the other generic drug manufacturers, but the major R&D-producing drug companies would lobby heavily against such socialism, withdrawing re-election campaign contributions from the "pinko commies" who voted to increase government spending on drug R&D.

So if IE's part of the OS now....

[yukio]

...that can't be removed, etc etc.

Then why doesn't the scope of the ruling include - at a minimum - XP?

Agh...

[Majeric]

I knew I should have patiented the wheel!

everytime you patent, god kills an inventor

[tabby]

could someone please patent the patent system and get an injunction against the patent office.

IE 7

[RedHat_Linux_Man]

Microsoft is sorry for any harm it has caused by using other's Intellectual Property. Our reparation to all affected by our behavior is the new Internet Explorer 7. In it, we have removed all patent-infringing code that was present in previous versions. We are also proud to announce that the new version is 100% bug free, totally secure, and never crashes.

C:\Program Files\IE\IEXPLORE.exe------------------- Size: 0kb

Who gives a fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

I use Lynx anyway.

make your time...

[Cid Highwind]

Why should the rest of the world care? The patent is only in the US. I could happily use the manners described in Europe of Asia since the patent doesn't apply there...

You only have about 2 weeks left in Europe. Better get busy enjoying your patent-infringing plugins now...

Re:worth reading, again

[Anonymous Coward]

Right. My 401-K is up 8% in just the first 6 months of this year. I hope the original poster has to retire with only his "big government" supplied Socialist Security!

The recession that started under Clinton is over now thanks to W and the Demos are running scared. Watch out for their lies in the coming campaign.

BBS Software vs. Patent

[Anonymous Coward]

Would running BBS games on a BBS have any relevance? They were seperate programs which were called upon when the user selected them from the client and ran in their "browser" from the server machine. Some BBS systems were large farms even using RIP graphics instead of that oldschool ANSI screens.

The client never needed to download the game, it ran over the connection into their BBS software. These games and such were never part of the original BBS system, but external items. I bet everybody that went on a BBS can remember some of the horrid music some played. What is missing from this to make it fit the bill? Graphics(although crude), sound(also crude), and embedding program objects.