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...

[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...

[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...

[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...

[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:"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.

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.

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: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.

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.

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.