Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Plans IE Changes Due to Plugin Patent
aWalrus writes "Microsoft has outlined some of the strategies they may pursue for modifying the way Internet Explorer handles plugins (annoying the user may circumvent the patent) if they lose their legal battle against Eolas Technologies (which claims they invented the seamless procedure for running plugins). There has already been a previous ruling against MS which they continue to appeal. This is likely to have repercussions in the Open Source Community too. If MS is found to be infringing the patent, that ruling could be extended to other browsers like Opera and Mozilla. Usability expert Jeffrey Zeldman provides an in-depth commentary on this issue and its implications."
correct me if i'm wrong, but opera isn't open source. The phrasing of that posting sure implied that it was.
we hate MS, go Eolas!!!
we hate patents, go MS!!!
umm... *pop*
At first when I heard this, I wasn't too disappointed. That's what they get for stealing technology. But no Flash in IE? That affects...well...*does some mental math...carry the 1...*a lot of websites that I enjoy. If you can't seamlessly play Flash media in IE (or Mozilla or Opera, eventually), well that sucks. Who the hell are these Eolas guys and are they intentionally trying to send the Web's progress back about six years? For once, I think Microsoft has been wronged, mostly due to the implication that this will affect ALL web browsers.
Perhaps even MS will learn the evils of SW patents, and call for an end to Software patents. Perhaps Slashdot will go 24hrs with SCO story also.
Why not pay the $521 mil and keep the browser going? If MS can pay it and the competitors cannot then they will become the platform of choice due to functionality.
"If you are on fire you can just stop, drop, and roll. If you fall into Lava you are just dead." - my 5yr old daughter
The interesting thing about patents (and copyrights) is that you can enforce them selectively. Unlike trademarks, you can sue whoever you want whenever you want. Look at how Unisys didn't even mention their GIF patent until two years before it expired.
So, anyone with $700 to blow might could think up some random tech just to prevent Microsoft from using it, if they wanted too. If Eolas doesn't need to go after mozilla or any other browser if they don't want to.
(I'm also mentioning this because I keep seeing people post who believe you have to 'actively' enforce copyright and patent rights or lose them, and this annoys me.)
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
It might actually be nice, to force Web AdminDUHstrators to not rely upon plugins for everything. It might be nice to actually see web sites using HTML for a change. It might be nice to browse without having to see Flash ads screaming at me to BUY BUY NOW YOU BASTARD!
www.eFax.com are spammers
There hasn't been one of these since, like, '99?!
WHOA!
Am I the only one that won't miss crappy plug-ins like Flash, embedded midi players, ActiveX controls making IE required, etc...?
I say take the things out, and don't replace them.
What a troll. Nothing in the posting suggests MS bashing. It simply states the facts and notes that Mozilla and Opera may need to think about this.
Why is MS acting like it's going to lose this lawsuit. It has never done that before. All the times it's been sued (too many to count at this point) it has always put up a public face of invincibilty and constant press releases about how the suit is groundless and how it is positive it's going to win.
Maybe this suit is so strong they know they are going to lose or maybe they want to lose so they have an excuse to make IE even more closed then it already is.
Maybe they will just abandon standards altogether with the next version of IE and blame it on the lawsuit.
We may be about to witness a complete bifurcation of the internet soon.
War is necrophilia.
It could happen. Imagine a new MS suite built around free code. No need to worry about OE development anymore either.
While schadenfreude against Microsoft is slightly less fun than that against SCO right now, let's remember that this is the kind of stuff that stops innovation. No matter who is suing who for whatever perceived infringement du jour, this abuse is going to fsck all of us over.
This sig no verb.
Like some famous guy said when ActiveX was first released (quoted in Wired I think): "The only active supporters of ActiveX, are active criminals".
This will actually be very good for competing browsers, as Microsoft will lose one one stranglehold. Things like Windowsupdate will probably work in Mozilla and Opera too.
Or maybe they will just invent another proprietary protocol..
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
You'll have to download a new version of IE every time that you want to "add a plugin". That seems about natural, considering how service packs work... :)
stuff |
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't plugin installations in Mozilla (and opera? no xp) not seamless? I thought this lawsuit applied only to seamless plugin installers that can isntall the plugin without asking for input. In my experience, mozilla always pops up a dialog box asking if you want to install it. That only makes sense, security-wise anyway.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
Eolas could become very rich, or be made to look very stupid in a jiffy since, at core, an operating system loading an application can be seen as a plugin-based system (i.e. separately loadable piece of code that extends the functionality of the base software). The only software that can't be seen as having the ability to load plugins is a monolithic application, for embedded devices for example, that have everything they need inside to run on a given platform.
...
In short, I don't think it'd be too hard to prove prior art
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
This is a perfect example of why software patents are bad. While I enjoy watching MS wiggle at the end of a hook just like everyone else here, this will definatly effect the Open Source community. A lot of the web's best features revolve around plugins in the web browser. A company like MS might be able to pay the little company enough money to let them keep doing business as usual, but how could the Mozilla team, or the Opera team? They could be forced to "downgrade" their programs, thus being less useful/relavent than IE. And if MS can't/won't pay them off, then everyone will suffer from the loss of plugins in web browsers. This is something that doesn't just affect the geek community. It will cause huge ripples through the corporate world and in the home user markets. All because people can get patents on software. I'm moving to Europe (if things go well over there that is).
Space for rent, inquire within
It uses plugins for more then just crap on the web.. Which personally i wont miss.. what ever happend to just using standard HTML?
But what about the other 'plugins' such as smb support.. etc..
Considering its all 'intergrated'..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Does anyone have information about exactly what behavior the patent covers? If it really somehow covers plugin behavior it seems like there will be a lot of collateral damage including all the browsers, Macromedia, Java, ...
If software patents like this start anoying large corporations, they may start providing pressure to get laws changed. This would probably be a good thing(TM). I mean, if some retarded patent prevents Microsoft from doing something it wants (like maintaining it's monopoly), and the value of not having software patents outweighs having them, maybe things can change! Microsoft has money and money == power, hopefully Microsoft (and other corps) see how hindering software patents are and we get these BS claims tossed out the door.
Speaking as someone who *still* can't get Flash to work with Moz on Linux, I can say that the plugin installation procedure is anything but seamless, ergo Mozilla shouldn't be affected by this.
:-)
(1) Mozilla 1.4+GTK2 on Gentoo 1.4 - any suggestions for getting Flash working?
...but I find it strange that a "usability expert" would have a page with small brown fonts on a tan background.
So I'm curious whether the end of the line development of IE for Mac OS X will be extended to achieve some compliance with what MS feels are its legal obligations to avoid infringing on Eolas patent, or whether that issue will be up to Apple and its support of Safari?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
For once, we have an issue where blindly hating MS and wanting them to lose every case that goes against them is a bad idea.
/. -- GO MS!!
After all, as the original poster said, this could be a very bad thing for browsers in general if MS loses this suit. I, for one, am hoping that their ridiculous legal team/budget win this time, because it means F/OSS and other browsers won't have to put up with this crap themselves.
So, in a statment I never thought I'd make anywhere, lease of all on
How To Get Humans To Mars
I find myself constantly amazed at the American patent law system, and how general and sweeping patents are allowed to be. Like the company that tried to claim it invented e-commerce.
Isn't there some stipulation that you lose your patent if you don't defend it? It seems ludicrous to me that you can quietly patent something, wait for years and years while a huge industry develops around it with hundreds of companies involved and then say "oh you can't fo that".
The line at the end of the article on the linked website "We find ourselves in the unaccustomed position of rooting for Microsoft." is especially true. Go Bill!
I don't think MS cares about plugins anymore. They've been planning a switch from ActiveX plugins in IE to .Net assemlies running in a sandbox for quite awhile now. From what I've read on MSDN, this could take place as early as next year.
Yeah, patents suck and all, but there's one thing I'm not understanding here.
If Microsoft is forced to pay off Eolas, doesn't that mean they've paid for the patent? Does anyone seriously think that Eolas won't license the patent to Microsoft, or even be forced to by the judge? Why is the assumption that Microsoft will automatically be forced to remove the technology when they just paid half a billion dollars for it?
I admit I'd like to see Microsoft forced to remove it to highlight the fact that patent criticisms like mine are grounded in solid reality and not abstract fantasy, but I just can't see that happening this time. Instead, Microsoft will probably just pony up, because unless they really realize this is going to keep happening, over and over again, they probably still think the patent system is still a net gain for them, allowing them to use the system like this against certain pesky start-ups that may refuse to be bought out.
What about this article in Cringely's pulpit?
0 7. html
,
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit200211
"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?"
Sounds like Doyle is not a Microsoft fan...
æeee!
Unfortunately, the two are not the same, though conforming to accessible guidelines would definitely enhance usability for a great percentage of the population. The worst thing is not that the fonts are small, but that they are not scaleable by adjusting size within the browser.
That is just wrong, and hence another reason I've never paid any attention to Zeldman.
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. - G.B. Shaw
From the article:
One such option would move the data to the Web page itself, rather than pulling it from an external source. To answer complaints that such a method would weigh down pages with heavy data loads, Microsoft proposed shifting that data to a separate frame.
How does this reduce page size? Now, instead of downloading 1 page of X bytes, I'm downloading 2 "pages" of (X - Y) and Y bytes. Fine and dandy, I don't have to dowlonad the frame in certain circumstances -- for instance, if I don't have Flash installed. But the article mentions this as a workaround to an "ungainly dialog box". Without prompting me if I want to load the frame or not, how do they plan to do this and remain free from any "automated interactive experience" that Eolas has supposedly patented?
What horribly obvious thing am I missing?
Microsoft's often taken the view: We are for STRONG intellectual property and patent laws - which protect inovation. Without such laws our ability to inovate will be seriously hampered
I wonder how much of their own "inovation" they feel has been protected in this case? I guess adding a dialog before launching an external application is inovative? I have one question for MS:
How does it feel to be bitten in the ass by the very laws that you have been defending because they helped you maintain your monopoly?
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
This is why software patents are bad.
If this goes through, I could lose my job.
The company I work for has flash and windows media all over the place, and sells a content management system, one of the key features of which is the management of these types of media.
I don't think the company would survive such a change in this environment.
Damn the USA.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
"Don't depend on flash," I said.
"Nonsense," from the web-site head.
"Don't tie the site to flash," I chimed.
"Hush, silly boy," they replied.
"We tied our site to flash," I mope.
"Go rewrite the site," they cry, crushing all my hope.
So, who else sees an all-nighter coming up real quick-like?
Thomas Galvin
I'm shocked that Legolas would sue over patents like this! He looked so innocent when he jumped up on that horse!
As much as I dislike Microsoft and their software, I think this lawsuit is a bunch of BS. And in any case, it could threaten people in the OSS community too, not just MSFT. I hope Eolas loses their lawsuit.
In very simple terms... If I discover that I can get the answer "5" by instructing the computer to add 2+3, and I apply for a patent on a method for computing the number 5, someone who discovers a way to get to "5" by adding 1+4, or subtracting 4 from 7 should not be found to be infringing on my patent.
That's exactly what Eolas is trying to do with this patent -- they've found an "answer" and patented a particular method at arriving at that solution. That shouldn't stop other people from developing alternate methods of arriving at this answer. I doubt very much that the code to implement this functionality is identical, so why does this patent have any sway over what other browser developers come up with for their particular solution?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Could this action spark renewed interest in native media-rich implementations? I'm specifically thinking of SVG support.
No matter how many of my rights are taken away, somehow I still don't feel safe. -Frigid Monkey
Get rid of all plugins and give us plain html files with out all the crap!
Evolution of Language Through The Ages: 6000 BC : ungh, grrf, booga 2000 AD : grep, awk, sed
+5, Insightful
Lord knows I'd love to see the return of some diversity in the browsers that visit my site, and maybe then webmasters would stop ignoring HTML standards by developing sites that work correctly only in IE (man, am I sick of those).
Optimism may equate to naivete in this case, but I'm hoping this might help the online community in the long run (not that I agree with how Eolas is going about it).
Wow. Here's an issue that leaves me quite divided.
;-).
On the one hand, I'm not a big fan of plug-ins in general. They can be very useful in small quantities, but they are a complete and utter PITA when a site revolves around them. Like, say, a Flash-only "rich media" site. Ugh.
On the *other* hand, things like PDF plugins can be quite handy. One less window to be spawned on my desktop. Or perhaps a plugin to handle embedded audio in a page... nice. Applets? They can be OK.
So I'd like to have the *option* of using plug-ins. And, as much as I hate to root for the bad guys, I find myself sympathetic to MS in this case. I don't see how plug-ins as a concept are something the should be patentable. Like most computer folks, I look at concepts like these and am just arrogant enough to say "Oh, well, OK... but cmon -- *I* could have thought of that solution to the problem too! It's *obvious*!".
So, I think the best of all possible worlds is that the appeal succeeds (and we get to keep plugins without the annoyances MS is considering as circumvention routes), but Microsoft wastes a lot of money in the process, and enough FUD is generated to drive up usage of browsers other than IE
It's a strange world -- let's keep it that way
Oh man, I hope this will turn MS into a friend in the anti-software-patents game. And I DON'T hope that this is just a smart move to get a monopoly on in-browser media players - by making Flash, real and other plugins illegal. Making only MS's integrated windows media standards legal in IE.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a plugin essentially the same thing as OLE, which has been around since before Windows 3.1? I mean, OLE does stand for Object Linking and Embedding and it was developed by our friends at Microsoft.
It would seem to make sense to just license the technology and be done with it wouldn't it? So why are they going for a change that'll force everybody to change/update their MS OS.. I mean MS browser?
There was something quite a while back about Eolas not looking to "be friends" with Microsoft and that they had no intension of going after anybody else. This would mean that any "negotiations" with Microsoft wouldn't go so well and they would most likely not be willing to pay the licensing fees Eolas would want.
Does this "ring a bell" with anybody else or would there be another reason MS would go for the full rip and rewrite option they seem to be going for?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
And since it isn't a proprietary standard, they don't need to latch it on through a plugin.
Everybody should take a look at SVG, it's really nice, and Mozilla already got some (basic) support.
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
Yes, you are right! Die Microsoft! Just die....
I'm not anti-microsoft. I'm anti-bullshit. Which means I'm anti-microsoft.
> (annoying the user may circumvent the patent)
I can't parse that in any way that makes sense to me. What am I missing?
Am I the only one who thinks the whole concept of software patents sucks big rocks?
Hmm..
Friday's Slashdot Preferences:
Pro-Microsoft.
Anti-RIAA
Anti-SCO
Pro-RedHat
Anti-AOL
OK, uh, Pantents Bad!
How would this affect Java? Java ain't inluded in windows anymore, and it's such a huge (and separate) download I don't see it being affected. But java applets aren't "plugins" - so again I see this as having the potential effect of supporting the wider adoption of standards based tech. How many who use IE don't trust it to run any activeX controls but don't feel nearly so vulnerable when leaving java enabled?
Software patents completely suck, but in this case I think the cloud may have many layers of silver linings.
frivolous patents own Microsoft
Firstly, I don't want "fundamental" browser technologies patented.
Secondly, this is apparently applets too, not just plug ins. Seems to say that embedding that JAR file puts you on the wrong side of da law.
Does their patent only cover "on the web"? Do plugins in winamp or the like meet the criteria too?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Probably not. This is probably a play by Eolas to be bought out by MS or to license their patent portfolio to MS. In fact MS bending over so easily may indicate that this is exactly what is happening and MS is just strenghtening the patent rights they are about to acquire. IE maybe the only browser that can use said plugins in a year or so.
Mozilla "Bug" 217601 - patent 5,838,906 embedding of objects in hypermedia documents
According to the CNet article, 25% of the settlement will go to the University of California. Since this University receives public funding, they aren't legally allowed to do this under California statutes. Specifically, while they can copyright some things, they also have to license these patents for public use, free of charge. This law exists in most states to make sure that universities receiving public funding continue to work in the interests of the public. If Microsoft loses, expect the University of California to get hammered by Microsoft in a seperate lawsuit over this.
Another reason why software patents are a stupid idea. Running plugins transparently is obvious to anybody working on something like a browser. You've got a file, you've got its filetype, and you've got a registered list of plugins and the filetypes they support. What the fuck else would you do?!!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
What I find interesting in all patent infringment cases are when companies like microsoft get screwed literally and totally unjustifiably, they just put the blame on the SPECIFIC INCIDENT and not the fundamental issues with software patents. They all know that software patents are benefecial for big players in the long run despite of occasional set backs like this. So when cases like this expose the inherent problem with software patents also, they are carefull not to denounce software patents. In the long run small firms and Free software community are the one who loose out of software patents.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
This is a good thing because it hurts Microsoft financially.
No, this is a bad thing because it promotes harmful software patents and their use to sue anybody in sight with deep enough pockets.
No, this is a good thing because it will make HTML more secure for most people (no more harmful ActiveX plug-ins).
No, this is bad because it will hurt client side Java (what's left of it, anyway).
No, this is good because it will promote standards such as SVG, making content more portable and turning the browser into a viable application platform.
No, this is bad because it will bury the notion of turning the browser into an alternative to the OS by running 3rd party code.
ARRGGHH!!!
This is just an indication of the mess we have gotten ourselves into during the last twenty years (yeah, I know, this dates me). Can somebody please repoot the world from a snapshot taken in 1983, before breaking up Bell killed any chance of wide-spread adoption of UNIX on PCs? Anyone? PLEASE?
and browsing the web is so much better. If a business site relies on flash and I can't see anything - then I simply go to a competitor's site...
That's all that this is. If all that they're claiming is the right to plug-ins. Come on, Unix has supported pluggable modules which can be installed at runtime for user benefit for decades. Fonts are a semi-plugin to enhance the user experience, and those have been around since moveable type. So will they start to claim that fonts (and the ability to load new ones at runtime) are applicable under this too?
Seems way too broad to me. I mean, Apache uses runtime module loading. Perl has done this for years. And C has had the ability to dynamically load modules, should they be needed by the end user, for decades.
think of the jobs that this will bring back. Its the 90s again, company car & stock options for HTML people!
Siggy Say, Siggy Do
...then I will personally distribute patches to return it to its original behaviour. Screw patents.
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Get the flash player package .tgz)
./flashplayer-installer
/path/to/mozilla/plugins
Unzip it:
tar -zxvf flashpackage.tar.gz (or just
or
tar -xvf flashpackage.tar
or
tar --bzip -xvf flashpackage.tar.bz
goto the install folder
If you have an install script, such as flashplayer-installer, just run it:
(and make sure to specify the path to the directory that holds the "plugins" subdir for mozilla).
or
Copy the shared object file over:
cp libflashplayer.so
Assuming a ruling holds up which prohibits seamless plugin usage, how long before freenet and other p2p networks are flooded with tweaked versions of mozilla (as well as instructions on how to mod the source if people want to do it themselves) that do plugins seamlessly anyhow?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
can't hurt if Mozilla attempts to strike some kind of deal with the patentholder. If it works out they will actually have an edge in usability over IE.
As far as Flash is concerned I had take it off my computer. I just wasted too much time watching advertisements. If I had more control over what flash did on my machine, like I have with images, quicktime movies, and PDF, I would be more than happy reinstall and use the content. I think Flash is a good product. I just think it disrespects the computer user.
I believe that solutions exists that will not only render the patent meaningless but will also make the web a safer more pleasant place for the general users. I believe it can be smilier to giving the users to stop popups, which sometime lead to inappropriate content or sequences of windows that took over the computer.
Which is why MS is having such a problem with it. IE is a framework that, in part, allows content to pushed onto users whether they like it or not. It would be very hard to keep that functionality without technologies included in the patent. In other browsers, in which the user is respected with functionality that allows a more customized web experience, removal of the seamless technology will only be a nuisances.
Which is why we need to take all MS statements with a large grain of salt. They have quite a bit to lose if the push philosophy is destroyed. They are not the only ones. Will the advertising houses use flash it users have a choice of it's viewing, or will the just use Quicktime. Will MS web products lose importance if IE does have the ability to force content? I think not.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Kudos to you, Ironix! /. UID (in this case, the first 25%...) join the dark side!
It's alway nice to see someone with an low
Second thought: Microsoft and Macromedia partner to COMPILE FLASH INTO IE. No more patent problem with plugins... and no more third-party plugins, ever. No Quicktime etc. No Java.
This could be quite worse than it seems. Despite the joy at seeing Microsoft suffer, I'm worried.
Since when?
devise.
it's still quite sucksassfull, however, we have no plans to copIE it, as it contributes to the already excessive abundance of censorship/mindphucking manipulation devises already eXPeriencing overbullowned sucksass, in keeping the wwwool over yOUR eyes.
lookout bullow.
consult with/trust in yOUR creator. the rest is almost easy.
We have the source code for our browsers, and most of the plug-ins. Why not just ditch the plugin system and merge the code from the various plugins into the tree for the browser. And into the browser binary. Hey presto same functionality but no plugins required.
Oh and it would be a shed load easier to install, no screwing about trying to make sure everything is in the right place etc.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
For some it might be, but other people enjoy flash because it is versatile medium.
where would candystand.com be without flash and shockwave? homestarrunner.com?
If you don't use flash, you have animated gifs(not versatile) or movies.
I enjoy flash content. Who cares if it is in the page? I have a decent connection.
The only annoyance to me is popups and google is very effective at blocking those.
I would think BBS's would be prior art.
One of the issues with copyright/patnet enforcement, is that in order for you to defend is against one person, you must defend it against everyone. This came up a year or more ago in a Slashdot story when someone was asking why Apple was C&D-ing teenagers. They had to, in order to C&D the major companies. Unfortunaly, I can't find the original Slashdot story that contained the link to the law. If anyone can find it, I'd be much oblidged.
I can never get them to work properly in Lynx.
~Berj
He said Microsoft sent out a letter to Sun, among others (Macromedia, etc) saying that they thought it was their problem, and they may simply drop plugin support. If Microsoft were to embed their own technologies into the browser, they have re-established noncompetition at the mere cost of $521 million. Not only would they be using unfair practices, they could testify in court that they were forced to - a scary situation.
Of other note, he mentioned that Sun was working on some Mozilla additions, which would be released soon, to embed content in web pages without violating the patent. This has already been tied into their 'Mad Hatter' desktop.
I'm not worried about losing Flash.
I'm worried about losing important functionality in "other stuff". A lot of our development work is either intranet web-based, or uses browser components as UI in some way.
This is a big deal.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Today I am going to sue Post-it for $521 million. Because when I was 0 years old and on my way back home from the hospital I accidentally drooled all over my birth certificate (hey I was 0, alright). This made it sticky on the back and later on my dad noticed how it had stuck to my vaccination card. And because of this he patented this "high-tech" "mission-critical" "behavior" (see section 34 dash A) with the US patent office.
Ahh, screw good honest work.
I'm off to Hawaii.
I thought you couldn't enforce a patent against non-commercial use. Since Mozilla is decidedly non-commercial, I think that would make it immune to any lawsuit.
Hope you like realplayer's interface
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
...it's called dot Net.
If every time you opened a browser window, it had something that you had to click as "on" (like a checkbox in a convenient place) to enable the plugins, or even various plugins.
Not only convenient for ignoring flash when one wanted to, but not quite so "seamless" as always automagically playing them. Would that work?
I think movie is out too, at least when embeded seamless into the page.
[]'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins
^[:wq
From the article...
"Even these clumsy, expensive, painfully disruptive approaches might not satisfy the patent holder. If they do not, then where rich media is concerned, the web could soon look like 1993 all over again."
If everybody had to do this, maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing. Most of the fancy flash animations are just annoying ads that consume vast amounts of bandwidth anyway. I would love the web to be blindingly fast again. (And I have DSL, I can't imagine what this is like with dial-up anymore.)
My rights don't need management.
Candystand has never worked under linux. It
does sort of work (extremmely slow and useless)
with crossover plugin.
Extensibility via plugins is a defacto standard in the industry... outside of Internet Explorer... will this impact other applications? WHere is the line drawn?
Will windows explorer extensions be liable aswell? What about 3d Studio max plugins, or the various ERP type applications that make use of plugins?
The vague or generalistic patents have to stop!!! They really have to stop letting judges and patient offices impede the development of technology! The law is killing inovation. Just because Microsoft is the victim in this case, doesnt make the lawsuit just that screwed up!!! And how the hell are they coming up with the cash amounts from these lawsuits anyways!?!?!
"When you think about this, having to go around the patent highlights the stupidity of the patent system," [Wallent] said. "Everyone in the field is very saddened by the whole thing, that we have to go through this exercise. The W3C has worked very hard to make the Web remain patent free and this might be the one thing that screws it all up. It's really very frustrating."
It's good to see that even those within a large company like Microsoft are finally getting tired of the patent system the way it is. Maybe we'll start to see some effective lobbying from such software giants. I can't think of another instance in which the industry has been stung so badly by one of these ridiculous patents.
Opera is a Norwegian company and the patent metioned is a US software patent. Now, can Opera be sued for software patents violation, although software patents aren't allowed (yet) in Europe? Denying inhabitants of the USA to download Opera won't be possible and to remove an offer just because a single country thinks it violates against their laws wouldn't be a solution too (just imagine what would happen if China would get that idea *g*).
Cone
Saddened at another innovation being stifled by a greedy company.
Elated because I am sick and tired of lame web designers relying so much on bloated flash/shockwave/etc - how many sites have you been to that 'require' some plugin just to get into the site?
If you think this is a lame creation, take a look at their site. They claim to have invented the 'stylized "e" logo' - what a bunch of buffoons!
A final note: Eolas also 'invented' (designed, actually) the now-ubiquitous stylized "e" logo. IBM purchased rights to use it from us in 1997.
I'm currently running Mozilla Firebird without javascript support. Every time I install the plugin, the browser crashes at the first sniff of a java applet. I had to remove the java stuff just to get my browser to work.
And despite all of that, I can still websurf with only minor inconvenience.
Ahhh.... The refreshing feeling of legal compliance!
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
So what say we develop some new web standards? How about overhauling javascript, developing a standardized XML-based vector graphics format that's integrated with the DOM (or at least embrace one of the existing ones), and writing some decent authoring tools for people uncomfortable with hand-coding graphics? While we're at it, what say we throw in decent PNG support?
All pie-in-the-sky wishing for now, but man, wouldn't that be great? Browsers have stagnated for years -- tabbed browsing is nice, but it's not exactly making me wet myself with excitement.
This is bad, bad news for Macromedia. But it *could* be good news for DHTML authors, and it might even stem the tide of flash pop-ups. Unfortunately they'll probably just be replaced by DHTML popups that make it halfway across your screen, throw a javascript error and sit there on top of the page's main text...
Eolas could actually turn out to be a hero of the browser wars.
License the patent to open projects for a penny, or for "advertising" in their documentation ("this product contains patent technology licensed by Eolas"). Charge companies like Opera & Apple a modest fee, and refuse to license to MS.
MS almost instantly looses the browser war that everybody thought was over.
Bo ho ho, just use straight html none of the plugin stuff works worth a hoot anyhow.
Got Code?
I don't think Flash is inappropriate when the medium being conveyed is in Flash's domain (i.e. homestarrunner). However, if it's being used for "splash pages" (thankfully mostly extinct these days) or navigation, it's being misused. HTML links work perfectly well.
How the hell is "plugin technology" patentable ? Could I say that I invented Model-View-Controller and patent that ? Its a design style, nothing more. I certainly won't be changing any of my design styles to fit in with the US patent office's latest fart.
A final note: Eolas also 'invented' (designed, actually) the now-ubiquitous stylized "e" logo. IBM purchased rights to use it from us in 1997.
The patent laws need to be changed so you can't wait a number of years until infringing technology saturates the market and then pop up and say, "Oh gee. that's my invention. You need to pay me."
Unisys did this with gif's if you remember.
I say Eloas (which is a one man operation if I remember correctly) get's dick.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
that right. we're giving away the kode, right here. it works on several dimensions (more than 3) for almost anyone.
*eyecon0meterkode*
get more oxygen on your brain
consult with/trust in yOUR creator
seek out others of non-aggressive behaviours/intentions
stop wasting anything/acting frivoulously
pay attention (to yOUR environment, for example), as it leads to insights on planet/population protection/restoration
get ready to see the light
*/eyecon0meterkode*
you may use/copy/distribute the eyecon0meter kode without fear of reprisal/litigation.
listed here.
Who would have thought the organization behind BSD would screw software developers the world over in this fashion?
Bill Joy is rolling in his grave now.
... the competition might force MS to pay up so they can be seemless too.
If Chaos Theory has taught us anything, it's that we must kill all the butterflies.
This is the first time I approve of any enforcement of a software patent. And, as a side benefit, it harms microsoft... GO, EOLAS, GO!
The images accompanying the patent text are TIFF files. My browser informs me that I need a plugin in order to view them.
In order to read the patent, I must violate it.
and they're still $500+ million poorer...
I hate MS: Go Eolas!
I hate patents: Go MS!
I hate flash: Go Eolas!
Agreed. Flash has its uses, but I hate it when I stumble into a site some fucktard thought would be cool to do 100% in Flash. After gritting my teeth over -click not working to open a link in a new window and the right-click context menu not being available, I invariably hit or - out of habit to navigate back one link and end up backing out of the whole damn site, forcing me to thread my way back in to whatever buried page I was reading. Rule #1 of web design should be don't fuck with higher-level UI elements, and Flash fails miserably in that regard.
Such a vague and moronic patent calls for a moronic and vague workaround. The patent is "Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document". So basically, you have to change the concept of a document in such a way that the patent is not infringed. Have the court determine "what is a document?" and change a subtle detail or two. A simple border or window superimposed over the area ought to be enough.
Plugins basically bypass the browser security model. This will make life harder for snoopware if they don't have a way to bypass all that stuff.
It seems like there should be some sort of time limit to file this kind of lawsuit. It's not fair to simply wait 10 years for everyone to unknowingly infringe upon your patent and then sue them.
The judge should have asked why they didn't file this complaint years ago? Now to ask every single software company fork over millions of dollars in unreasonable.
The judge should have said that it's too late. It's not like Microsoft tried to hide that it was using plugins. It's been in there for years. Everyone knew about it the plugins. No one knew about the patent.
Same goes for the SCO....
On another note, why can't big companies get better lawyers? What's up with companies losing really stupid lawsuits all the time?
I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance.
it has been discussed on this forum over and over and over again. Nearly everybody here agrees that we need reform. It is harder to say what actually needs to be done. Personally, I feel like a lot would be accomplished by including some trademark-like rules. A company has to protect its trademarks or it loses it. I'm not suggesting that companies protect their patents, that is what they are doing by suing. What I'm suggesting is making inventors take steps to actually implement and develop their idea beyond a mere patent if they want to enforce it. They should have to actually try to find some commercial use for it other than litigation if they want to enforce it.
You know what else this could mean? No plug-ins. Microsoft probably has the clout to just remove plugin capability from MSIE and then tell those who made plugins (the plugins that they like, at least) that now they must hand them over to MS so that they will instead be builtin to the browser itself. It sounds like that wouldn't solve the problem for Java applets, but it would for everthing else.
Guess it's time to sue MS for infringing my "Bug riddled, insecure web browser" patent.
Make some easy money and get an improved IE.
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
We may hate the microsoft tiger ...
<P> But it seems the wolves are at the door.
"However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
WTO? The World Trade Organization?
;-)
Do you know why so many farmers protest? Do you know why so many humanitarian groups protest? Do you know why so many environmentalist protest? Do you know why you should protest?
Because WTO is on the path to universal patents. Less I be mistaken, some form of across the border patent recognizations already happens. Patents filed in the USA have to be accepted by all countries with a presence in USA (and that means any big company that wants to make money
So grow up. Isolating your biggest market is not a good idea for any company. Suberting a plugin installing with an additional click doesn't hurt anyone.
now supporting:
cmdrTaco for president '04
michael for oval office intern summer '05
Now, don't get me wrong; I don't think there's anything wrong with a browser downloading Flash, or data in any other format.
What I find really annoying is that current browsers insist that they are going to handle a list of file formats themselves, in their own window, and you can't do anything about it.
If they were forced to give me the option of saying to handle MIME type foo/bar in a separate app, that would be a huge improvement.
For example, on my cute new Powerbook, I've found that I can't feed things like Flash or XML to an independent app. The browsers (IE, mozilla, Safari) insist that they will handle those themselves, with their standard plugin. It doesn't matter whether I have an app of my own to handle them; my attempts to add the handler to the list are rebuffed.
The XML case is especially annoying. I'me testing some XML apps, and I'd really like to use some of them as plugins. I've asked a couple of times in the usual mozilla fora, and the answer seems to be "Tough luck; we're smarter than you, and we know how to handle XML, so we won't let you do it." Right. Their XML handler chokes on the slightest syntax error, fails to show any of the text, and thus gives a big middle finger to any poor schmuck trying to debug his XML generator.
Similarly, when I download MP3s or MIDI files to mozilla on my Powerbook, it insists on feeding them to the embedded Quicktime, and ignores my attempts to use a separate handler. The Quicktime plugin has only a dumb slider for backspacing, plus start/stop buttons. You can't do anything with the data at all. Again, I asked in a couple of newsgroups, and was told in no uncertain terms that I'm too stupid to know how to do such things, and I should just leave it to my betters.
It's interesting that on my linux box, MP3 and MIDI can be handed off by mozilla to a separate app. This lets me do lots of interesting stuff with those formats. But with mozilla on my Powerbook, the same thing doesn't work.
If "seamless" plugins are eliminated, maybe we can get browsers that are friendly to not-so-dumb users. It would be really useful (especially for XML and MIDI) if we could point to a separate app to handle all files of any specific type.
Actually, I suspect that the ability to do this might be buried in the current browsers. But it doesn't do me much good if I can't learn how to use it. And note that, with mozilla, Preferences -> Navigator -> Helper Applications doesn't allow one to override the builtin handling of some types (such as XML). Some types are handled by builtin plugins, and if they don't do what you need, tough.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
It's almost obvious--- how do you maintain a total monopoly on the web without getting caught?
Have some someone sue the only open aspect of your product.
Who is this really affecting? Quicktime, Real Media, Macromedia, SUN (Java).... all of those things that Microsoft has hated all those years it can now shut-out and remove from IE and tell every Webmaster on Earth to conform to their new standard because of the lawsuit.
Of course Microsoft will have the advantage because Real, SUN etc... will not have the changes made to the browser and will have to start development after the release (this is just speculation... but Microsoft will still have some advantage since they develop the product).
Ultimately this whole lawsuit is furthering Microsoft's grasp on the WWW.
This affects everything embeded in a web page that runs as a plugin, so get off your high-flash-hating-horse and get a clue.
Besides, Flash does not suck. What does suck is using Flash inappropriately.
How far backwards will we have to go before we reform the patent office. I hope this shit continures to happen to giants like MS and ... are there any giants left? Oracle, AOLTW, Etc and patent reform actually happens.
What really needs to happen is the guy who patented making a web page to show news, or to update, or to have common areas stay the same needs to sue the MEDIA companies. Then it will be in the news and then it will get changed.
Oh well. We're all gonna die before the world becomes a better place anyway. So fuck it all.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
(Possibly offtopic) Of all flash sites. I'm sorry, but I must say that in terms of humor, Homestarrunner just doesn't tickle my funnybone. For real flash humor with a lot more creativity check out the romp. The hat trick episode of booty call is great.
The humor is a tad more colorful, and the choose your own adventure style makes it "money".
non sig -Man with hole in pocket feel cocky all day.
Software patents are bad, so this ruling is bad.
Microsoft is bad, so this ruling is good.
Innovation is good, so this ruling is bad.
Flash is bad, so this ruling is good.
Looking at the world in terms of black and white is bad, so this ruling is bad.
Lynx is good, so this ruling is good. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
MS should just license Flash and include it directly in IE. No plugin needed. Better yet, charge Macromedia for the right to be included. Macromedia stands to lose a lot more than MS does.
For all the criticisms, MS appears to have never used a software patent against any other company or developer. They do collect software patents in the US, but the only use seems to be protection "don't sue us, cause we got enough to get back at you, and in the end we both lose and the lawyers win".
I know nothing about their patent collection, but I wouldn't be surprized at all if they had something that could be used against most of Linux/KDE/GNOME/GNUsomething/*BSD/apache/Samba. some of the above is protected by other companies, or prior art, but they could still cause a lot of problems if they tried.
Don't forget that appeals cannot appeal a result directly. They can appeal that something was done wrong by the court, new evidence (which must be very restricted), or invalid laws, but the result stands unless one of the above changes is. Thus MS does not want to lose since they cannot appeal the decision. No appeals court is required to take an appeal, it is standard practice to appeal something, but standard practice is for the appeals court to reject the appeal - MS does not want to take the chance that they wouldn't be granted the appeal, or they would lose.
I could not have said it better myself
Us Lynx users aren't effected by this at all :-) :-P
About damn time to get rid of the ridiculus plug-in crap anyway - keep it all HTML.
I doubt that this situation was unforeseen by MS.
What is the biggest threat to MS? Linux. Why did MS buy a SCO license? Hmm.
They can't compete with the price tag of Linux, but they can buy opportunities to spread FUD and keep the barrier to entry for other apps very high. Their biggest asset is the applications barrier, which is what this is all about.
This case is just in the early stages, but MS is not going to get screwed in the long run. They always have a plan and the uncanny ability to see the bigger picture. Whatever the price tag ends up being, it is the price of competing against Linux, its methods and ideology.
The browser wars are a bad thing. In fact, competition in the browser industry is a bad thing. The best thing for consumers is to have ONE standard HTML rendering engine - otherwise, there is a schizm in the standards and programming methods for each browser. Authors have to pick a standard or two, since they can't possibly cater to all of them, and cross their fingers that the majority of their clientele will be using that browser. This means that anyone not using that browser (usually IE these days) will not see the site the way it was intended to be seen.
I hate to say it, but it would be better for web pages if SOMEONE, not necessarily microsoft (although that is how it's looking these days, and IE really is an excellent browser whether you like MS or not) but SOMEONE destroys the competition and we web developers have only one platform to worry about.
Assuming our legal system is so pathetic that MS loses the fight, wouldn't a company as large as MS have it's own software patents which it could pull out and extort people with?
Unless the appeal goes in Microsoft's favour, Eolas already made a dime: 5,210,000,000 US dimes to be precise. To put that in perspective that 521,000,000 times the average earning of the average American worker before taxes and expenses for a lifetime. Is it possible that the preference for power will exceed the fellow's desire for money? Cringley's interview certainly indicates that possibility.
Actually, they know they won't, but they're using this as an excuse to cripple the usage of existing plugins, if only temporarily. Microsoft may not have a direct competitor to Flash or Acrobat yet, but they're more than glad to cut into Real Networks' and Quicktime's installed base. As an added bonus, by losing the case, they add a strong precedent for "concept" patents that could be used against competitors and open source.
does the dreater of this not have the right to make money? Should a large corporation be able to utilize someone else's invention without cost?
it really depends on how eolos enforces there patent.
The only problem with software patents is that there is no easy recourse when someone patents something thats been used for years.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I guess you've never been to *news* sites that put flash ads smack in the middle of news articles you wish to read. That flashing, animating crap, makes it hard to read text that is around it.
Take a bit of time to understand this case; either Eolas wins and Microsoft gets screwed pretty heartily or Microsoft wins and Patents on software are weakened some way or another. They can't rule that this patent doesn't apply or else all patents don't apply. They can rule something like "the function is significantly different" or some BS like that, but then the goverment looses even more credibility and respect and it generates controversy.
And those of you who thing the OSS community will loose out have another thing coming to you. Eolas is a patent creation company, they make inventions and lisence them out to other companies to be used. Read their "vision"
To create and develop the inventions that allow information technologies to enhance the quality of life for everyone.
OSS is for everyone, anything under GPL is for everyone. MS on the other hand is stifling this so they are going after MS, plus they can get some dough. I may be wrong, and they might be a company run by greedy bastards but if they were, they'd sue a smaller companys first and work their way up. It just doesn't make logical sense for them to be the bad guys.
It's a win-win sitution for the people. Either software patents are weakened or MS gets hit upside the head with a sledge and their browsers are insuperior to the likes of mozilla. Besides, how many companies are going to recode their entire plugin so they'll work with IE? I'd find it cheaper to push the customer base onto mozilla short term and start new projects long term.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
The round hole is HTTP, and the square peg is the notion that a web site is a video or movie, an animated entity, an event-driven application, interactive somethingorother, or any of the other things it really isn't.
Where I work they put someone in charge of our web site who has done video production, and lo and behold, she wanted to make the web site into a video. She eventually got her way, and a zillion bytes of flash later, the site sucks to look at, is hard to navigate and they bitch that they can't tell what people are looking at from site reports since...it's all a huge flash "application".
Actually of all the browsers I have (IE I don't know) Konq is the only one that will display it. Even w3m will not.
The problem with flash is not that it's not useful, but that it's not an open standard, and doesn't integrate with webpages, instead it is either embededed in a box in the page, or it replaces the page.
Instead there are the Scalable Vector Graphics and Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language Specifications.
Second problem? Until you wait for the Flash animation to launch, you CAN'T get any station information! While the schedules and pricing are hyperlinked, you can only get station location information by clicking in the Flash animation.
So now, when I'm on a low-bandwidth connection or using a browser that can't handle the Flash, I have to do a Google search for the station name so I can get to the HTML page for that station!
Sadly, enough people must have been drooling over the "cool animation" to not realize that the site is harder to navigate now.
A whole mess of reactions to this:
They are stuck between a rock and a hard place now. It sounds like there is a viable business model out there of "patent something really obvious then sue Microsoft for patent violation". As the biggest fish out there they are clearly the most attractive target, given a sufficently 'strong' case. On the other hand, Microsoft's patent portfolio is its ultimate trump card and which they are presumably saving for the final defence, in the event that open source starts to seriously affect their viability. They can't suddenly start lobbying to remove patent protection without invalidating their own portfolio too.
They brought it upon themselves.
Call me an optimist, but I have a strong feel in my right gut that Eolas will provide dual licensure for the patent, similar to Trolltech and Qt, where free software (BSD, GPL, Artistic license) gains free use and closed-source has to pay a "reasonable" fee.
Reason I think this is that (a) legally, it's a pain in the colon for lawyers to sue open sourcers; (b) it's horrible PR, just look at that company in Utah. Then again, lawyers tend to not give a flaming f--- about reasonable measures.
And to be clear, I hope to high heaven that they get as much of the $5 x 10^8 they can, because UC could _really_ use that cash to defray what the state's screwing them out of.
just don't mod me down, please.
I used to be someone else. Now I'm someone better.
Real life is underrated.
Use Avant Browser. It uses the IE engine so everything is displayed correctly, but it includes 3 functions: popup blocking, flash blocking, and image blocking. I usually leave the popup and flash blocking on at all times. It has 3 buttons for each on the main toolbar to turn them on and off easily.
It also has tabs like Firebird and themeing support. Since it is tightly integrated with whatever version of IE is installed, it uses the same bookmark directory so no need to import and worrying about links staying in sync. I will never go back to regular IE or Firebird after this.
Avant Browser
Um... how is this seamless experience really any different than say X-Windows opening a display on a remote computer? Of course, I believe Elvis will return.
Let me get this straight. Micro$oft repeatedly says in the press they are all for paying for intellectual property (patent rights) and they pay SCO millions of dollars for a technology they don't want or need. But, Micro$oft will spend millions of dollars to fight Eolas Technologies for a technology that everybody wants. What's wrong with this picture???
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
I'm curious if the Eolas patent could be applied against Apple's Safari browser.
A plugin architecture is part of the Objective-C based dynamic runtime environment that Safari's GUI is built upon. It sounds like just the act of developing a web browser with Cocoa will put you in jeopardy of violating this patent unless you go out of your way to sabotage the underlying plugin architecture.
Hmmm... perhaps the fact that Apple offers WebKit services embeddable in any Cocoa application may make these email readers, help viewers, blog readers, and html authoring products targets of Eolas due as well.
By never intending to make a product for sale that uses the patent in question you never have to pay the royalties for other patents that your product would undoubtedly infringe upon. For example, Microsoft probably owns the patent to object linking and embedding (OLE) outright. They could charge Eolas a large amount of money to license the OLE technology if Eolas ever made a browser product. But there's the rub - Eolas won't. So in the US legal system you are rewarded for never producing a product. What a disincentive to innovation this is! Surely the founding fathers never had this in mind.
So how can this patent stupidity be combatted? Simple. File millions of stupid and trivially obvious patents that build upon a previous patent and extends it to some new domain - for example, using an OLE control in a browser while using a spreadsheet. Every programmer in the world should be encouraged to each file a single patent. A computer program can be created to generate them randomly. And yes, I realize it costs around $1000 to file a patent claim on your own, but hear me out. If everyone files enough of these silly patents eventually one will be denied. At that point you take the US Patent Office to court for denying your patent while admitting equally "valid" patents to expose the stupidity of the patent system. Why not?
some anonymous programmer releases code which infringes a patent?
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
Use your real name or be ignored? Are you saying your parents named you dacarr?
fingusernames
Fuck You.
Why hasn't anyone added the numbers yet? MS has been going in this direction since the onset of their Active X plugin change. When they changed IE so that Quicktime wouldn't work, it was because they changed the way the browser read plugins. It became an Active X control requiring a new plugin from Apple.
MS doesn't want to use plugins, they want to use their own proprietary media readers and force everyone to do the same. This whole stupid thing could very well have been a ploy by MS so their new Monopolist actions would be acceptable to the consumers and developers alike. And Macromedia is already on board. Now, plugins are outlawed! The only company creating a n alternative with a vast installed base is Microsoft! Everyone now has to obey the MS standard.
I can see it.
So what ?? Even Scott Macnealy is not a microsoft fan. But now he is in bed with SCO to screw up Free softwre community and linux.
http://www.nasirudheen.blogspot/
I really wish this had happened years ago, before the *&^%$ embedded crap was so ubiquitous. But even so, I think it's great for the web. While the clueless side of the marketing departments will still strive to make web sites bloated and useless, they'll at least have to work at it. I have nothing against th etechnologies such as Flash, I simply don't want them embedded in my web pages. There's nothing wrong with "popping up" external apps in such cases.
I hate software patents. All the ones we hear about, at least, are being used to *stifle* innovation - exactly the opposite of what patents were intended to do.
At least this one may do something useful for everyone.
I have often wished I could uninstall plugins more easily. In 'doze I know of no good way to do it other than uninstalling the product (Flash, Acrobat, Quicktime, whatever ...). I have done this on more than one occasion.
Adobe Acrobat is an example. IMO, the plugin version is far worse than the standalone version. You don't have proper access to all the controls, file management, printing, and full-screen mode. At least I don't know how to access them. I have the same problem with many of the media players.
Flash is a bane. With Mozilla I can block image and pop-up ads but the Flash plugin is an open wound for infection with annoying ads. Flash is not alone - just the other the tell-tale cup-o-java appeared in an ad. Fortunately Java is so slow that I was able to ax it before it started.
So for the most part I'll be happy to see the world revert back to launching stand-alone helper applications. I want to use my browser for browsing, not playing video games.
From the FAQ:
Q. What is the relationship between UC and Eolas?
A. Eolas has had exclusive rights to the technology since 1994. Under the terms of the license agreement with UC, Eolas is to pay the University for products it makes under the patent and for licenses it grant under the patent.
(putting on my Matlock wig)
If the above FAQ is an accurate summary of the contract, then UC may not see a dime from this lawsuit.
As far as I have read, Eolas does not intend to license the technology to Microsoft under any circumstances and Eolas may never produce and sell a product based on the technology. If those are the sole rights UC has to make money from the technology that they have exclusively licensed to Eolas - they may be out of luck with regards to the Microsoft patent $ettlement. UC may get nothing. Of course, you'd have to see their contract to know for sure.
Other would-be Matlocks are encouraged to pick apart my Law And Order inspired argument.
You can install an extension in MozillaFirebird that will replace flash in every web page with buttons. The buttons say 'Click here to run flash foo' or something.
Would this be helpful, or how is 'seamless use of plugin' worded in the evil legalize?
This is all about forcing the download of "plug-ins" that you probably didn't want installed anyway. If the player for some form of content came pre-installed, there's no patent issue. If your browser came with PDF and Flash viewers, you can see most of what you want to see. This patent discourages sites from trying to force Flash N+1 or PDF N+1, each new version of which has more dreck you don't want. (PDF WebBuy - do you want that?) This may force more format stability, since you can't force the user to upgrade.
however, since ESR says that being a hacker is lazy, i'll leave it up to you, the reader to dig that gem out. it is there.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." - Rahm Emanuel
The one Troll mod was meta-moderated as unfair, as it should have been. I guess the system works sometimes.
only sometimes.
Most universities and large business sift through the fruits of their employees' work and look for intellectual property that can be patented and possibly licensed or traded like any other property of real value. It helps them cover their investment (capitalism, and all that stuff). Heck, I found out a couple of months ago that I am the holder of two patents that had been filed by an old, old employer. You can be a patent holder and not even know it. Most of us sign something when hired by a company assigning the company exclusive license to intellectual property developed there in the course of one's work.
Having actually done some research on this Eolas patent and how it relates to the Microsoft judgement, I found out some interesting stuff that should be considered before we all condemn this in a knee-jerk response to the infringement this places on our freedom to develop software.
A few guys were working at the University of California and developed a plugin technology with the old NSCA Mosaic browser that allowed a server to ship executable content down the line along with the HTML and then have the browser do things it couldn't do before. Routinely, a patent application was filed by their employer on this work. The guys who did the work thought that this was neat technology and worked a deal with the University that they could try to maybe get this technology out into the wider world, and so, as there was a patent filed on it already, they worked an exclusive licensing agreement with the University.
So these guys form a company and start making calls on the big players in the Internet technology world at the time. They visit Microsoft, demonstrate this plug-in technology and the cool things that it would allow a browser to do, and received a big yawn and sent on their way with a "don't call us, we'll call you" sort of brush-off. They call on a number of other Silicon Valley companies, but these guys aren't businessmen, they're academics. They don't know how the commercial IP game is played. The end result is a lot of people in a lot of companies was this technology and took a pass on licensing it into their own products (which most probably would have been very, very cheap to do back then).
Time passes. These same companies start enhancing browsers with their own plug-in technologies for executable content. No action is taken initially by these guys. Finally, Microsoft starts to dominate Netscape. Attempts are made to reopen discussions by these guys and are rebuffed. These guys start involving lawyers to try to get Microsoft's attention. These attempts are rebuffed too. Finally, they file suit against Microsoft for patent infringement. Many years pass as Microsoft makes motion after motion in hearing after hearing to have the suit dismissed and each time, fails. But they achieve one of their goals which is to delay the proceedings significantly. Meanwhile, the Internet bubble comes and goes. There are many products that now do this plug-in sort of thing. The idea becomes obvious because everyone sees it going on around them in other products. Finally, the patent infringment suit against Microsoft goes to trial. After many weeks of trial in which mountains of evidence are presented by Microsoft, twelve regular joes on the jury aren't convinced that there was (1) prior art or prior effort on Microsoft's part, (2) lack of knowledge by Microsoft about the invention or patent (2) or an invalid patent granted to the University of California.
The Federal jury trial found for Eolas and against Microsoft on all counts. Apparently the evidence was so strong that jury deliberations took just one day. You can say what you want about jury trials, but having seen what judges have done, or not done, when the decision is theirs alone [when Microsoft was found gui
If the patent holder decides to pursue this against open source/free software - then we will just have to do things the old fashioned way: kick off a separate application to run the widget in. No skin off my teeth (this means my life as a sysadmin just got 50% easier with regard to configuration management - I would no longer have to maintain plugins, and stand-alone patches).
If the patent holder does this, they won't make any money from it other than getting damages from deep pockets, like M$, and will kill the technology in the bargain.
This would be a canonical example of the Wrong Thing
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Believe it or not, the SWF file format actually is an open standard, but I hear you there... I will be one happy mofo when reliable SVG support comes to the major browsers.
I'm really hoping that Microsoft doesn't try to pull their patented "Our browser now supports X, but our implementation is just different enough from everyone else's as to make it more or less useless" thing with SVG.
Is there any way to get around this for users from other countries without software patents? Can a mozilla "fork" that will be based entirely not in the US keep these capabilities? And could the main mozilla branch be kept completely compatable with the fork so that they would merely have to swap one compartmentalized chunk to restore plugin abilities and remain up to date?
True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
I've noted that the W3C standards aren't affected. Maybe this is the push that standards needed, because it will force people to do "rich media" using those standards (as well as any in the future), and get away from plugins with their associated problems (ActiveX)?
BTW Is the definition of "automatically invoked" changed by a "user setting" that says "do you want all plugins to run automatically?", and make the default no?
Eolas means "information" or "knowledge" in Irish Gaelic. Maybe I can sue them since I own a limited company registered in Dublin in 1992, called OLAS (O'Leary Application Systems) that traded as eOLAS (I enjoyed the wordplay at the time).
For example, if the flash has been used for form-based input then you may consider some sort of program translator to translate source of all flash scripts in a way that it will generate functionally-equal HTML forms.
Something can be done to animation, if you would use SVG with javascript in Mozilla.
If it goes through your company willbe desperate looking for a way to convert the problem into the profit. And if you know how to help in it better than the new guy from the street - thye would rather give that coversion/migration job to yur than to randomly hired and not-trained-yet guy.
Personally, I hate plugins, and I hope Eola will win and browsers will run as HTML-based content browsers, not as plugin-starters.
Less is more !
RTFP! The patent actually mentions that it is similar to OLE, but OLE is used in things like Word and Excel, which are not hypermedia.
But this is all amazingly silly. This is so obvious to a "practitioner of the art" that the patent office should have instantly rejected it. Displaying data where it's requested is a fundamental notion. And invoking a program based on its type is also a fundamental notion. COM and DCOM were developed specifically for this reason, for example: to enable in-line display and manipulation of data. They both precede this patent (COM certainly does) making them prior art.
The patent wasn't even filed until October 17, 1994. But Java was publicly demonstrated on September 1992 (originally called Oak), and Safe-TCL came out in 1992 as well. It wouldn't surprise me if they also met this patent, and were prior art too.
This is a junk patent that needs revoking.
- David A. Wheeler (see my Secure Programming HOWTO)
no one will miss you
bye
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
This would suck but OSS systems could just build support for all common MIME types right into the browser. Then it wouldn't be a "plugin".
It could be less painful if say Mozplugger were built right into the browser. Mozplugger just makes external programs work like plugins but you need some lines in a config file just like browser "helpers". Such a system is arguably an extension of mime types rather than a "plugin" yet we wouldn't have to recompile the browser to support new MIME types.
I first heard about this lawsuit back in '99-2000. After watching what Amazon was able to get away with vs. B&N, I knew the s**t would hit the fan sooner or later.
MS has known about this for 3+ years, and didn't do much to stem the tide of something bad happening about this until now. All of the web developers complaining about how this will affect future development plans can thank MS for being so forthcoming these past years and warning them that something like this might happen. Instead they waited to spring the news that this might be bad for developers 3 years later, after the embedded stuff had a chance to further mature, and more people bought into the technology. I know, I know, they can't comment on pending litigation, but it sure seems to me like they left a lot of people high and dry.
If users are sued for patent infringement (like the RIAA is suing ordinary people for copyright infringement), they just might. Part of the reason patents on algorithms used in software are onerous and should be abandoned is because patent holders can go after ordinary computer-using members of the public. Paul Heckel, a patent holder on some algorithm that was implemented in Apple's Hypercard, was able to get Apple to license his patent after telling Apple he would sue Apple's users for patent infringement. Apple, rightly, took this threat seriously because they did not want to lose their customers to legal hassles.
Unlike the RIAA's lawsuits against ordinary music consumers, the fix for MSIE would ostensibly be a few clicks away. Download a downgrade to MSIE and you're in the clear (from this patent). Given that the cost of infringement is so high and evasion is so inexpensive and easy, I think a lot of people would obtain a changed MSIE.
Digital Citizen
I do not mean to be so harsh...
But my main point is that it is just bits and bytes. Why do people think in terms of borders. Many companies are starting to see this and as such are setting up shop in other countries. Eg the DMCA was just enacted in many European countries. What did those shops do? They moved offshore...
This is why I find it silly that one IP holding company in one country can hold the world by its short and curlies...
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I'm really hoping that Microsoft doesn't try to pull their patented "Our browser now supports X, but our implementation is just different enough from everyone else's as to make it more or less useless" thing with SVG.
How could they patent that? Surely Netscape had prior art.
Then you haven't been looking hard enough. A lot of apps export to SVG, with corel's latest offering being an example. You might want to google for slashdot articles on SVG for more example, instead of embaressing yourself in a public forum.
Remember "out of sight, out of mind" doesn't equal "doesn't exist".
Um, can't I write my own code and algorithm for doing seamless plugins wihout infringing on this patent? If Microsoft stole their code, or algorithm, then it is infringement, but otherwise you cannot patent an idea, correct?
god's lonely man
Didn't MS always want to destroy the web so everybody would have to use their MSN BBS?
Now they have an excuse.
Everyone seems to not be noticing that this action will probably play to microsofts interests. Of course MS would rather not pay 0.5 Billion dollars in penaties but now that they are they can tunr this to their advantage. here's how.
.NET the killer app. MS would love to see plug-ins die, especiall y if they die for other browsers too. What's left to step in its place then? basically two things, .NET and a chaos of non-standard solutions.
.NET is part of our OS and the browser had to be integrated there's no other solutions due the breadth of the EOLAS patent.
.NET and other fee based licesced extensions for MS.
1) it makes
2) MS would love to be able to go to the judge and say, look we had to integrate the broswer into the OS. there was no other way since it lost all its stand-alon functionality.
3) MS can appeal and maybe ret the 0.5 billion penalty reduced. and they can string along the usefulness of IE till 2005 when longhorn emerges. then pfft. MS will say EOLAS was totally right and has a solid case against us and all the other browsers. And here's our payment in full so you can fund your legal effort.
4) Maybe MS will invest another 0.5 billion and buy the IP from EOLAS. its will have been tested in court and they could shutdown all the other browsers that didn't use
we're hosed.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
As I'm sure many others have said, I can't stand plugins and all that, and have never installed Flash and have Java turned off. So good, perhaps this patent will rid the web of those irritating flash only web sites.
Maybe this will spur M$ support for SVG in their browsers, as I believe that qualifies as a standard, not a plugin. Oh, hey, and maybe there will be fewer word, excel, and powerpoint files on the web. Hooray hooray.
What was so revolutionary about a "plugin" architecture back in 1995? Were the browers the first applications every to support it? Hardly. Given this, it would seem that using plugins with respect to internet-based apps was merely an extension of an already-existing methodology.
The True Believer: Can Mike Doyle Do to Microsoft What the Rest of the Computer Industry and the Department of Justice Couldn't Do?
Wonder why MS isn't licensing the patent from Eolas ? Perhaps they think that negociating for that would imply that the patent was valid and they aren't willing to do that yet... maybe they are hoping that public pressure over breaking plugins on thousand (millions?) of sites will make Eolas back down... sounds like lawyer games run amok.
The quotes from the cringley article imply that Eolas may not want to license to MS, in some attempt to change the balance of the browser market. If so, it's pretty annoying/arrogant that a one-person company thinks they know what's best for the internet enough to pull that kind of stunt... The costs of website conversions that shouldn't be necessary could run awfully high.
Wonder if anyone has thought of suing Eolas over the fact that they are screwing up their websites, and costing everyone money to convert away from plugins...?
Fuck You Too.
For both the plugins and the "moving hotspot" hyperlink technology Eolas describes on their webpages, I see Apple/Claris's HyperCard as being prior art. In fact, hypercard was the first web browser, except that it wasn't connected to the internet. Apple should sue everyone... Stupid Eolas. Do something useful instead of patenting broad, "fundemnatal" ideas. I hope MS crushes you.
god's lonely man
I think this is all a part of Microsoft's plan! They coerced Eolas into suing them and purposefully lost! I don't believe this so called "former employee" even exists. MS will lose the case, pay out to their ficticious friend, license the patent and then use the patent to take every other browser existance!!!
If the EU needed a better example of what is wrong with software patents, this is it - even if it is a rare instance of a large company being on the wrong side of it. Just wait until US lawmakers and EU MEPs start asking why their screens are suddenly filled with pop-up dialog boxes every time they visit a flash site.
To summarize:
Amen. .NET will take their place.
Actually this will happen either way whether EOLAS goes after other browsers or not. if MS no longer supported plug-ins then no web site is going to use them. That is like it or not most people are going be using IE as their browser and not Mozilla. They aren't going to switch. So that means plug ins will slowly die off and
moreover EOLAS cant just sue MS then offer the technology to the world for free but somehow exclude MS. If the try to GPL it then Opera, and maybe Safari and Omniweb cant use it. EOLAS could quietly decide not to sue but then All the other browser will have the sword over their heads.
Remember that the patents are held by the University of California, EOLAS is just the administrator. UC is going to have a funding crunch so someday they will see this as a fat source of revenue. they will collect from everyone not just MS.
MS wins again by being the biggest gorilla
Eolas was founded by a man with a score to settle with Microsoft. As I understand it, one of the principals of Eolas has a Computer Science Ph.D. and was directing his work toward using Netscape as the primary GUI for interacting with a computer (Flashback: Anyone here remember when Netscape was being touted as a Windows replacement?).
fast forward to the recent past - Eolas has a solid patent that covers corefunctionality of not just IE but also Windows. That same Ph.D. - founder has said that he intends to use his patent to spur competition and development in the industry. I also recall reading a comment where he stated that he would license the patent to ANYONE BUT MICROSOFT. I have no inside information, but I would not be surprised if developers of other browsers got licenses for VERY reasonable sums, or even free, based upon their particular circumstances.
Now, how does this help competiton? The functionality claimed in the patent is that of launching a process external to the browser when clicking on a hyperlink to handle the linked-to content. For example, when you click on a link to a PDF file, your selected program for reading PDF files will launch and open the file. If IE becomes more difficult to use, all other browsers become more desirable because easier to use. I think you can appropriately extent the analogy to the Windows OS as a whole.
This last part is strictly my opinion, based on my following of the public information about the case, but I'd say that M$ just got its @$$ kicked HARD and has little of any chance of having this overturned on appeal. I congratulate Eolas and its attorneys and hope that they do something truly innovative with the $500 Million they will get from M$.
Laws affecting technology will always be bad until enough techies become lawyers.
Mozilla has got native SVG support
How small a thought it takes to fill a whole life
In the seas of drivel the above comment series may be only insightful one here.
its all a conspiracy!
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
No large patent holder has to actually do this. IBM holds the most patents and they said in their "Think" magazine that they get 10X the value from cross-licensing that they do from licensing patents. Considering suing for infringement involves spending money, not necessarily making money, it stands to reason that cross-licensing would still be far more valuable than winning patent infringement lawsuits too.
Also, consider the scare factor.
RMS happened to browse the weekly patent column in the New York Times when he came across a listing for a patent that appeared to cover a data compression method that the GNU project was going to use in a compressor they were about to release. That patent, and the implicit threat of losing an infringement lawsuit, killed this program before it was released. Nobody had to sue the FSF to get this result. Later the GNU project released gzip which went on to become a defacto standard, but it would have been nice if we could compete (as you say) "on actually making and selling software" instead of locking up ideas in an artificial economy so as to kill competition before it has a chance to benefit the end-user. RMS describes the experience and explodes the myth of patents benefitting software developers in his talk (or if you prefer, read the transcript).
Bill Gates once said:Patents push people into an arms race of sorts--as Gates obliquely illustrates, the patent system makes people react out of fear, not what's in the best interests of community or consumers. By creating this system and issuing software patents, the US Government has abdicated any desire to allow consumers to benefit by picking from a healthy competitive marketplace. After hearing what RMS has to say, I don't see how anyone can come away thinking those who don't sue for infringement are substantially better than those who do.
Digital Citizen
This is a big flap over not much, really.
If you read the claims, the patent covers
embed tags including type information. To
avoid infringing the patent, simply disregard
type information in the embed tag in the browser,
and get it by analysis of the head of the
referenced stream instead.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Okay, implement that.
Oh, and while you're at it, add in another feature that allows you to auto-click OK on different kinds of dialog boxes that popup (even before they show on screen). I, as a user, can set that "macro" to accept all requests for Flash, applets, etc.
There's my contribution to keeping embedded object semi-free.
Jay Jennings
Well, to be fair, companies that make their money off of custom controls (and I'm sure there are plenty) will have a tough go of this decision. However, I'm kina surprised that the W3C is so upset by this decision, the reason being that there already exist multiple XML vocabularies for doing a lot of what the plugins most people are worried about do.
For instance, PDFs could be expressed as XSL:FO snippets embedded in a webpage. Similarly, Flash could be replaced by SVG embeds. Movies would be a problem, but there's always the possibility of using SOAP/XMLProtocol to launch an instance of the player remotely. The beauty here being that XML namespaces essentially allow for lots of different XML to be embedded, mixed and matched. How much time has Microsoft taken in getting around to supporting the various W3C standards? Right: a really, really long time.
The game then shifts from the company that supported plugins and scripting best to the company that has the best renderer for a particular XML vocabulary. Not only that, but it would give a lot of the XML vocabularies that are having trouble picking up support (like SVG vs. Flash) a big boost. Further, it would force people to finally start writing some HTML/XHTML compliant web pages to allow for validity checking in tag interop. The W3C has been trying to get that going for years.
So, tell me again why the W3C or "Little Browser, Inc." is so upset? I think they just got handed a huge competetive advantage in disguise.
The Sun is proof that we can't even do fire properly.
well, mozilla has a very cool extention called Flash Click To View That replaces all flash animations with a white box. If it is content you want to see, then a simple click will start loading the movie. I love it, I can watch all the flash movies I want, without the annoying, seizure causing ads.
SAILING MISHAP
please die
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I've always hated the web plugins. "c'mon download and install this wonderful (spyware-infested & buggy) plugin and see this (crappy) web page!" Yech!
Flash, in addition to being heck'uva annoying, is mostly proprietary, yet a large subset of the net assumes that you reel of joy when you can click on buttons that say boing. I'd say link Mozilla with SVG-libraries and let's kill the whole flash. (Assuming linking isn't covered by the patent.)
I also resent the notion that "without plugins web goes back to 1993!" Most impressive changes in the web have been on the server side. PHP, mod_perl, ASP, etc. Dynamic pages, sessions, shopping carts! oooh... Most work perfectly without any plugins, though some implementations want javascript too.
If it turns out, as has been suggested, that Eolas is looking primarily to hurt Microsoft and licenses free of charge the technology to OSS browsers, should OSS browsers accept it?
On the one hand, it could give them an enormous edge over Microsoft.
On the other hand, it would be benefiting at the hand of a deeply flawed patent system.
But on the other hand, massively popularizing a OSS, standards-compliant browser would do a great amount of good for many people and businesses.
On the other hand though, it could be seen as implicitly endorsing Eolas' behavior.
.sig Realistic fines for copyright in
I'm kind of neutral on this one. I don't want to see Microsoft shafted just for the hell of it, (I'd like to see them shafted for the other crap they did.) I don't think the patent is a junk patent. I can't recall any prior art in existence when the patent was filed. I'm just wondering why they sat on it for almost a decade.
Well, actually I don't wonder. If they had enforced it immediately, software developers would have worked around it, and the patent would have been worthless, since both the University and Eolas aren't producing a product to benefit from the patent. In the grand scheme of things, I guess this just points out how the patent system is really a poor fit for the computer industry, especially when it involves software.
But, what I would like to know: Is this patent going to fix some annoyances with the current implementation of embedded content by forcing s/w developers to change things? For example, my Linux box is perfectly capable of playing both complete files and streams of just about any format on the planet. But, when I go to a site that calls for an embedded Quicktime player, it looks for specific Windows registry hooks, or a program with a specific name, so I can't use my media player, even though there is no technical reason why I shouldn't be able to. Likewise with sites that want Winamp, and only Winamp, when XMMS works just fine.
I'm crossing my fingers and hoping Netscape/Mozilla developers with add some feature to ignore this embed tag bullshit if I so desire, and will consult my helper apps list first. Call me naive, or call me an optimist, but one of these days all this litigation is going to have to result in some good for the consumer. Entropy must play into it. Just something good, even if by accident, would be nice.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
You don't pay for IE, sure you probably pay for it when you buy a windows license but they don't charge for it as a stand along product. What this means is financially it won't hurt them nearly as bad as it could others. Companies that it will hurt are like macromedia and real who depend heavily on plug in functionality. User will be slow to migrate off IE so if there are annoying pop ups and stuff to use plugins people simply won't use many of them.
If your not cheating your not trying. If your not trying your not winning and if your not winning why play?
I've just blogged this. The most interesting part is that:
Back when the patent was issued, Mike Doyle of EOLAS said in a message to www-talk, a W3C mailing list that:
Please note from our Web site that, in almost all cases, Eolas' Weblet-related technologies will be licensed free of charge for noncommercial use.
Well, looking at this, Mozilla could be in a very good position as the only browser currently not infringing.
Check out http://www.tnl.net/blog
Is Microsoft(tm) overlooking something here? Or are they still in knee-jerk dollar-miser mode?
How great would it be for Microsoft if they could BUY the Eolas(tm) patent, and then bar competing browsers from implementing seamless content displays?
Microsoft is currently spreading plans on how to alter web pages to work around the patent- they shouldn't do that! They're blowing a big chance to head off any future browser competition. (Like the long-rumored AOL-branded settop Linux box). Web publishers are currently reluctant to code for any target but IE- the only way to encourage them to edit pages to dance around the patent is if Microsoft demands it.
If Microsoft owned the patent, IE wouldn't need changes, and the bulk of web pages wouldn't need editing. Then Microsoft could sue AOL (or anyone connected to Mozilla) to destroy the #2 web browser. Apple would be next- they'd have no choice but to beg for the return of Mac IE.
Microsoft should hurry and buy the patent now, before the upcoming case (which has the risk of strengthening the patent and increasing the price into the $ billions). They also need to stop any effort by web publishers to work around the patent, so that Mozilla will appear maximally bad when their next revision drops plugin support.
Then again, prehaps Microsoft wants to hold off on anything resembling monopolist behavior until the next US President is picked out...
...might be upon us. At last.
I'm not so sure that losing some of the things like Flash, RealPlayer, etc. would necessarily be a bad thing. Crimeny, there are some sites that are almost unbearable what with all the glitzy crap they present to the user. Hell, there's a guy at work that wrote a web application login page that required a freaking Flash plug-in.
Let Eolas have his patent and good riddance to all these damned plug-ins. (I know Eolas isn't a person but it is a one-person corporation.)
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
According to the GPL "Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."
Therefore, if MS is restricted by this pattent, no web browser under GPL is allowed to use plugins.
Vote for Pedro
I have had a horrible thought - all that Microsoft would need to do would be persuade Macromedia/Adobe/etc to licence their code to embed within the Internet Explorer application. Doing so would mean that no external applet is loaded and that would mean the patent does not apply.
Now assume that the use of this requires exchange of $$$ (or even, I am sure they have thought of it, Microsoft buying Macromedia) - and suddenly you have the situation where IE could become the only browser that can display Flash content (assuming that Eolas didn't give Open Source permisson to continue as normal).
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
He is the same kind of heavy handed tactics that we all get pissed off at corperations and IP firms for. He is trying to use patents as a weapon, not a tool.
Patents are SUPPOSED to be for making money. The idea is that if you are an inventor that comes up with some new brilliant processor or design, you can protect it so everyone can't just rip you off. People will have to pay you license fees for access to your idea. This is good for small inventors that have the skills to invent but lack the capital for production, and for large research firms, that spend billions of dollars to develop a new material or something that is cheap to produce, but was expensive to discover.
The problem is in the computer world we see lots of asshole like Rambus trying to use patents as a weapon. They try to use them purely to drive competition out of bussiness. This is anti-capatalistic and completely against teh intent of patents.
Well, that's just what this guy is doing (from the sounds of it). He wants to drive MS out of the browser market using this as a weapon. Despite the target being MS, that makes him no better than any other scum that uses patents to force away competition.
Take something like a areversed situation. Suppose I invent a new magic kernel algorithm that literally doubles the speed of all applications (I know it's not possible, but for the sake of argument). This is actually a novel process and actually something worth of a patent. So I publush it and apply for a patent. I go ahead and let everyone use it and don't say anything for years. Then I'm in a bar and Linus is there, and he and I get in a big fight in which he whips my ass six ways from Sunday. So I get all bitter and decide to enforce my patent against Linux only to make it suck. I certianly would be villified (and rightly so) for doing this.
Also the real problem is, he won't succeed in driving MS form the browser market, only making them work to lock it down tighter. Since they won't be able to do easy embedding with an open HTML solution, they'll come up with their own proprietary solution that circumvents the patent (and only work with Windows/IE). Given their size and market share, I give them a better than average chance of succeding and furthering their grip on teh browser market. In the event of a court challenge, they have this patent to point out how they TRIED to be open and interoperable (never mind how hard they tried), but got sued and so have no choice.
- Browsers are remote display technologies. So is X.
- The patent claims that its' "innovation" is to be able to seamlessly display the output of programs running on remote servers. Their definition of a "hypermedia document" is something that can contain images or sounds. Their definition of a browser is something that can display such a "hypermedia document" locally or remotely. Sounds like X (here's where I think they went overly-broad - in the definition of a hypermedia document)
- The patent makes reference to various protocols, including TCP/IP. Again, sounds like X's ability to export over TCP/IP networks.
- The patent makes reference to the user clicking on images and things happening, without the user doing anything else to view the image. Sounds like X. You can rearrange the icons w/o help of an external process, or a scripting language, etc.
- The patent talks about using "powerful servers at 1 or more locations" to give the client machines access to more computing power than they have locally for rendering, etc. Sounds like a bunch of low-end X-based boxes connected over a network to 1 or more X servers (and a prediction of Sun's SunRays).
- The patent doesn't use the term "internet browser", though it makes mention of several by name. It confines itself to "browser", as being able to see local and/or remote files, images, etc. Sounds like X, which can do the same thing.
I could go on, but I think that, in an effort to make the patent cover a broad area, they made it overly broad, and will lose out on appeal.In addition, any X-enabled application doesn't need to "spawn an external viewer". The patent was about plugins that avoid the need to spawn external viewers.
In that context, even emacs on nfs qualifies, as you so kindly pointed out (which I didn't think of - doh - it's Friday :-)
...not wear cotton-polyester blends
Leviticus 19:19
Doesn't anybody realize that Prof. Ed Felten was the plaintiffs' expert witness in this trial, and he testified that the patent was both valid and infringed?
He specifically showed how the Viola "prior art" didn't do what the patent did, and that it didn't even work on the internet in 1993.
Software patents lets you patent an idea, not how to perfor or manufacture a unique item. To be able to patent ideas is beyond stupidity. All software patents accomplish is screeching software development to a grinding halt even if its still in its infancy.
I really hope the EU understands what a stopper of all competition software patents is. A patent is a sanctioned monopoly. That monopoly should be short in timespan and narrow in its scope. An idea cant be considered a narrow scope since it covers every possible way of accomplish the same end result. Todays copyright is more than enough protection and allows for competition while software patents hinders all form of competition thus harming the entire society and the industry.
Software patens has some short term winners but no long term benificiary at all. We all loose on them in the long run.
HTTP/1.1 400
If it weren't for advertising and people with limited imaginations, who needs Flash (or Java for that matter). Think about it...
Do you think it is possible for a bunch of people who don't like patents to each invest in patenting ideas and then cheaply sell those patents to an organization that would then sue businesses that over use business and software patents?
I'm thinking of something where the FSF creates a Patent Division that everyone who hated patents could sell their patents for like a $1 each. Then the FSF could then turn around and sue business like SCO for being freaking idiots and trying to destroy OSS. Basically, the FSF would do what IBM is doing now. And, this would be economically sustainable in itself (they could purchase more patents when they won rulings). The key is that they would only choose to sue organizations that overzealously used software patents, as a form of social engineering through monetary punishment.
If such an organization got enough software patents, could they basically make the entire system of software patents practically useless (regardless of what "new" software patent gets created, a given business couldn't possibly be immune to ALL software patents)? Kind of using the system to destroy itself?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
"No matter who is suing who for whatever perceived infringement du jour, this abuse is going to fsck all of us over."
If people where to turn over patents to the fsf, then the fsf could selectively sue only those companies that brought up software patent lawsuits. The proceeds from the lawsuits could then go back to the fsf to buy more patents that would give them even more power to punish those "software patent" using companies. Eventually, they could become so large that they could effectively make software patents worthless, by make the price for suing over software patents too great.
I believe THIS kind of software patent litigation would be quite beneficial to the industry and our society. I think when our community realizes that "anyone can sue, over anything" and uses it to our advantage, we will really start to see drastic changes for the better.
So who is for creating a FSF Patent division?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Here a smart thought. If Eola would grant Mozilla, Epiphany etc. the right to use the technology for free Microsoft HAS to license the patent. As most people who have used both IE and Mozilla knows IE is by now long after in the race tech vise, Mozilla is simply better. If ie wouldnt be able to render the pages but Mozilla did what would people do? If MS had to choose between license Eolas patent or give the market away to Open source what would they do? No sane person would follow MS if they tried building a new www standard so i am sure business would continue as usual should MS decide to try another MSN aka the -95 version.
I have a hard time imagine companies sitting on needles waiting to have something unessesary to spend money at such as a total rewrite of the net.
HTTP/1.1 400
They are a reality and we might as well learn to live with them (in America). Just accept it!
Now that we accept it, this is what we do . . . we start getting people and companies to donate software patents to the FSF, who starts suing companies, only when a given company files a software patent lawsuit (that is the good thing about patents, you get to CHOOSE who you sue). The $ from the FSF lawsuits goes back into the pot to buy more lawsuits and sue more companies that use them. Eventually, noone will want to touch software patents because the FSF will have so many patents that they can sue ANYBODY for violations (but, again, they ONLY sue those who file software patent lawsuits).
So software patents are not bad, as long as we (the "good guys") have so many that we can make the system useless:)
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
or just really greedy.
Anyway, why doesn't the FSF take matters into their own hands and start collecting as many software patents as possible and "punishing" the greedy software patent owners that are suing everyone by suing THEM?
Then again, I agree with you. Software patents are dumb because they give the holder so much power that, if the owner hates software patents, he can sue ONLY those companies that actively use software patents. Theoretically, the system can be used to destory itself . . . if enough people were to organize (and reinvested proceeds from lawsuit victories).
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
blimey, if all those things died too I'd think it was Christmas *and* my birthday.
No java, come on, you just want me to come in my pants, stop it.
All this extra crap needs to die, not flourish.
please start to think before posting
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
- You never know when a patent lawsuit will pop up.
- You have assets to be seized.
- The sale revenue is proof the patent has commercial value and can be used by the court to establish the damages.
On the other hand, the lawsuit bastard has an advantage because he does not sell anything. He does not need patents, therefore he is not vulnerable to defensive patents countersuits.The rule of the game are rigged in favour of the lawsuit bastard. Once venture capitalists figure that out capital for software development will dry out. On the other hand capital for patent lawsuit companies will be plentiful.
Oddly enough this may (somewhat) help open source. Some companies may see open source development as a way to shift some liability to the hackers. And it will harder for the patent lawsuit bastard to claim damages if there is no sales revenue in the first place. Of course some really odious scumbags will make a business model of suing individual hackers, seizing houses and turning them into identured slaves for life.
When you write to politicians about patent laws, I urge you to mention how the system is rigged in favour of the scumbags. This is a language even the most pro-business of them will understand.
how does Google like indexing your oh-so clever JS menus?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Am I the only one that sees this? Microsoft, though putting up a good fight, stands to benefit ultimately by closing the browser off to third party plugins.
Conspiracy theory: Microsoft may welcome Eolas's forcing of their hand to close off flash, java and other ultimately competing technologies. I'm sure MS is really sorry about having to pay off SCO, now a linux foe, too.
It would be surprising if someone at MS has not thought of this. And just wait, MS may now be able to buy Macromedia at a lower price.
Thanks for giving Microsoft an excellent excuse to lock most internet users into IE. I hope your CEO chokes to death on a fish bone.
Might as well patent the penis, as yet another automatically-launched external device intended to seamlessly enhance the user's experience. We can call it the new MicroMedia Flesh plug-in. Besides, if this debacle doesn't get across to Congress precisely why software patents are a bad idea we are well and truly screwed.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
If Microsoft loses, sure they can change their browser, but if you believe SCO etc. everyone who has such a piece of software in their possession should be liable for license charges levied by Eolas.
I'm confused.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
And what if a big corporation like Sun, with lots of patents goes broke and starts sueing everyone? Wouldn't it damage the whole industry? Consider it - one patent is worth 500 million, 100 patents ?
I don't use browsers ( something to do with the peeping Tom ?? ) - so this patent has nothing to do with whatever software I use to scan Internet - Opera, Mozilla or even that MS software to read Internet sites ?? have a nice day.
p.s. I write Internet scanners ( make your own name ), not browsers as the patent says..
check out this extension
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
If the patent is based on plugins being applications, then if the plugin was a pure DLL, with no external application, then it would solve the issue, correct? If this is the case, all it would require would be a new DLL interface for the plugin files to make use of, correct?
Erik Brandsberg
Oh No!
Not Strongbad!
Not Trogdor! Trogdor!
Oh No!
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
So I tend to agree... death to flash...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
...an american court might decide to take action anyway. Personally, I hope that leads to a "US-patent crippled version", which is the only legal download for people in the US. Maybe then someone might get a clue...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There may be a few shreds of altruism in Doyle's motivations (not to say he doesn't also wish to reap many dollah), if one were to take his comments to Cringely of a year ago as sincere. We won't know till this plays out further of course.
0 7. html
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit200211
Simply steer clear of pages that are ill-designed, be it 100% Flash, IE-specific coding or red font on blue background.
The easiest way for Microsoft to get around this patent is to purchase from Flash, Adobe, etc rights to embed their plugins as an intrinsic in IE.
Ok we know the cloud. Grumble stupid patent laws every jerk patenting everything.
There has GOT to be some prior art I mean Mosaic supports plug ins. Goddess I mean even LYNX supports plugins.
Hay Microsoft we hate patent laws have your lawers check out the prior art Slashdot users find... GRRR
Ok well anyway the good news in all this is that we won't have a bunch of crazy extended protocals tacked on. While this will cut features down like say flash media it will also cut down compatability issues such as say flash media.
Plug ins mean that a company can tack on some new protocal and that was a good thing at first.
But what we've experenced over time is companys making plug ins for one browser on one operating system for one processor... While the last part is usually not noticed given that it's usually IE/Win9X/Intel but when it's IE/WinNT it's still Intel and when they shoot for many platforms...
MacOS horray but only PowerPC...
Linux GREAT but wait... only Intel..
Then you have companys that go all out....
MacOs 9, MacOs X, Linux, Win(All versions), Solarus, BSD....
Intel, Alpha, etc etc etc...
Netscape/Mozilla, IE....
Mosaic? No, Knoqour? No.. Aweb? No...
And a few skips... Nothing for 68k. Nothing for Palm or Blackbury Nothing for Qtopia (Used on Linux PDAs)...
There is one overwhelmingly good reason for this...
Linux/BSD/Solarus Ok all very similare it's not to difficult to make a code that compiles on them all.
MacOsX is a bit diffrent so a bit more work is needed.
Windows vareations don't change much on the code side. So just as you could easly make a code that compiles on Linux/BSD/Solarus you could make a code that runs on the vareous versions of Windows.
Actually using Make you could make it all one code but thats not the point.
There would only be small diffrences between the *nix systems and small diffrences between the Win systems.
So you have basicly two develupment efforts but testing on as many as 6 diffrent operating systems.
But then compile on... HOW MANY? NT and the *nix systems work on a wide range of proccesors.
So now you've dubbled your develupment budget and jumped your hardware cost many times over.
Then you have Palm.. and Blackbury... Do your eyes have the the anime sweerly eye "I think I'm gona be sick" effect yet?
Then you have Amiga and Apple II GS...
How many develupers said "Screw it" yet? How many of you think you can support ALL of that?
Wait.... we haven't gotten into all the browsers that are out there...
Ready to give up yet?
That is why plug in develupers don't support everyone. They CAN'T.
And I did forget BeOS and OS/2 for a reason... See even with all that listing there are still operating systems I didn't mention.
A very large list I might add.
The web was designed originally so we'd all have one commen (admittedly evolving) standard on the client side and have the new features added SERVER SIDE.
If you do need more features on the browser side that is what Java is for.
And if Java dosen't do the job then get on the job and make your own standard browser side language we can all support.
I don't actually exist.
On the contrary, it's entirely obvious. Even if you know nothing about software, the fact that Netscape published an implementation in 95 should strongly suggest that someone over there had considered the idea in 94 or earlier.
.sig.
Probably they did, but although the idea may have been common to two or more people (which in itself doesn't make it either obvious or non-obvious), the fact of the implementation in 1994 is what was patented. First one there wins.
And from a perspective of basic computer science, splitting a piece of software into separate modules (plugins) is a fundamental transformation you can apply at any time. It changes only the development and distribution methodologies, not the functionality of the product.
Except that we're not actually considering the splitting of a single piece of software into different pieces; we're discussing a browser (which up until then could display text with static images and limited formatting) exposing an API to external apps, embedding those apps within the display of a page, feeding the downloaded document to that app, and allowing that app to present an interface of its choosing to manipulate that document. If the implementation of such an idea was obvious in 1994, then why could Microsoft and its IP team not show sufficent relevant prior art to break the patent? MS, IBM and Apple barely had COM and OpenDoc working in that timeframe (ever use COM in Windows 3.11?)
Seeing the words "with a plugin" or "from the web" in any patent should should flag it as invalid by obviousness.
So it is now impossible to come up with an original idea to be used with HTTP?
--
See grandparent post for the remainder of my
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
Although they weren't talking about 'hypermedia' it may be possible to argue that plugins are just an incremental extension of this approach.
I hate to be rooting for MS but patents are starting to suck just a bit too much. This type of thing encourages investment in invention how again?
Get rid of those stupid f***ing plugins once and for all and go back to good-old-fashioned links.
Prior art exists with Mosaic 1.1 circa 1993. Look at the release notes for remote invocation. You owe me 1 Billon dollars for something that your lawyers should have caught. But wait, your lawyers were only looking for prior patents, not at opensource (Mosaic) or public domain software.
.SO? In any programmers terms, its a loadable module that can exist at the host or client and invoked by a command via the network or the user.
I also don't understand why your lawyers failed in making the point that a remote computer could always invoke a library function (Plugin) at the host or client level. Do you know how much time I wasted trying to get netDDE to work in Windows 3.1 back in 1992? This is prior art with your own software.
What is the definition of a plugin? A DLL? a
Fire your law firm and teach the new one about computer technology. You don't owe me a billion dollars, but you owe me lobbying congress about granting stupid software patents.
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
They're gonna use this as an excuse to force webauthors into using some MS-specific alternative to plugins, probably Microsoft(R) PlugX(tm) for Internet Explorer(R) Make This Work in Mozilla and We'll Sue.
OSS is simple to recompile and reinstall. As new technologies (like JAVA) are introduced, a person starts to think "I need to update my browser". Guess what? It's free. Update it when you want. New version has JAVA, integrated.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The patent makes reference to the user clicking on images and things happening, without the user doing anything else to view the image. Sounds like X. You can rearrange the icons w/o help of an external process, or a scripting language, etc.
Umm, ever try running an X session without an "external process" called a window manager? You won't be rearranging many icons in a bare X session...in fact, you won't even have any icons.
Sounds like a bunch of low-end X-based boxes connected over a network to 1 or more X servers (and a prediction of Sun's SunRays).
X isn't a good place to draw this sort of client-server parallel. The X servers are what run on those "low-end X-based boxes". What you're referring to as "servers" are the hosts where the client applications run.
The Biggest Dipshits in the Entire Universe yet again prove they are the Biggest Dipshits in the Entire Universe.
So what else is new?
Time for a party! :-)
Had you actually read the patent, surely you would have seen the phrase "executing at said client workstation", which does not describe a terminal server like X11. Not to mention "Hypermedia" and so on.
Karma Whore, Fanboy, Dumbass -- You pick, because you're absolutely wrong.
So you can only view the images in a browser using a plugin? C'mon dude. I am sure you heard about Imagemagick, The GIMP, and XV, for example.
I see the point you are trying to make but the point is moot...
open (SIG, "</dev/zero"); $sig = <SIG>; close SIG;
Maybe that is the problem. The idea of plug-ins were obvious way before HTML and HTTP were invented, teh X11 windows system is designed for it, in that processes can open windows within other windows owned by other processes. Lucid Emacs supported this (and Epoch probably did before that), which is why the Emacs w3 browser was the first web-browser to offer embedded video. It was an obvious application of well-known techniques in a new area.
It might not be obvious to 12 regular joes, but it was obvious to anyone in the field.
The question in terms of "prior art" is not whether someone could do it with the existing technology, but rather whether or not someone else has done it or otherwise made it publicly available.
Isn't there a law against sitting on patents for such a long time? They filed in 1994, it became a patent in 1998, and now, FIVE years later, they decide to take up the matter. That seems criminal to me. But really, the fact the the UPSTO does not throw out their patent for letting it just sit there and atrophy until the right time, to maximize lawsuit profits just seems plain wrong.
Contributing to Eclipse
Unlike something like a trademark, (I think it's trademarks) there is no reason they have to sue [i]everyone[/i] for copyright infringment.
They are perfectly within their rights to pick and choose who to sue.
Pretend the UBB tags are actually html...
When I was referring to servers and clients (in reference to Sun Rays), I was pointing to the patent claim about how low-end machines can access computing power of one or more servers to render the graphical interface. The application server is creating the data stream, which is where the prior art lies. Otherwise, if you wanted to create an argument "reductum ad absurdium" (which is what most of these patent wars are, anyway), you could argue that the bitmapped graphics rendering routines in any compiler, and any vga card, are also prior art. :-)