Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Plugin Patent to Mean Changes in IE?

Posted by michael on from the speakeasy-has-spent-two-weeks-without-placing-my-order dept.

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.

5 of 437 comments (clear)

  1. You would think... by Distan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:You would think... by Talthane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "This is why men never share their feelings; because women always remember." -Just Shoot Me.
    2. Re:You would think... by yintercept · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

    3. Re:You would think... by henrygb · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

  2. Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what? by Serapth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.