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."
I beilive the $521 Mil is the court ruling (i.e. damage and punitave costs). They would still have to licence the patent for any ongoing use above and beyond the $521. Assuming they lose all their appeals they're going to be paying that regardless of what they end up doing with IE.
This also applies to embedded media (movies) and applets, apparently. Basically, the foundation for most complex Web Applications client interface implemented in the browser may be infringing on this patent.
Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
Ah - I think you missed the point.
Microsoft has to pay $521 million for violations of the patent - they used the technology without getting a license first. It's a penalty. It does NOT give them a licence to use this patented technology.
To KEEP using the technology - they'll have to get a licence from Eolas. That's a separate negotiation - and Eolas can name any figure they want - $1, $100 billion, or even "Nope, sorry - you can't use this technology Microsoft no matter how much money you throw at us."
There's an interesting article by Cringley where he talks to the CEO I believe of Eolas. Check it out here
seamless every time you want to *use* it, not install it. The patent doesn't cover installation.
... 'click OK to non-seamlessly display "herbal viagra for u" ? '
So, you'll start to see a dialog box every time a flash/pdf/java applet wants to display itself. Before you think that is a good thing - think about every advert popping up a dialog box with just the OK button
"They did loose the antitrust case did they not ?"
:]
No, MS won the antitrust case. All the government did was find MS guilty.
I agree in part. The only thing I would miss if flash died would be some webcomics, but I'm sure their authors would just use gifs or pngs. At the moment this simple mozilla extension is the bane of flash advertising.
"The number of Unix installations has grown to ten, with more expected." (Unix Programmer's Manual, 2nd ed.; june 1972)
The article you are thinking of is here:
0 7. html
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit200211
It's well worth a read, as it becomes apparent that maybe Eolas doesn't want to stop *everybody* from using the technology, or squeeze cash out of them.
In terms of Open Source involvement, Mike Doyle is actually a respected member of the Tcl comunity.
http://www.welton.it/davidw/
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.
It's from the stage play "A Man for All Seasons", which is about Sir Thomas More, a lawyer and intellectual of the 15th-16th centuries.
There have also been several movies made of it, including the Oscar-winning classic (recommended), and also a reasonably good TV movie starring Charlton Heston.
DNA just wants to be free...
When Roper says that he'd cut down every law in Englend, he's actually being disobedient to God's law. So while this particular quote from the play indicts the common misperception of Christianity, real Christianity supports the same behavior More upholds.
NOTE: The above Bible passage is often misinterpreted to suggest that it empowers tyrants, etc. For example, some would say that the citizens of Nazi Germany were required, by the Bible, to support Nazi-ism. But that ignores a rather large, and obvious fact of life: Just because God ordains a person to a position, does not prevent that person from abusing their position or using their position improperly. God does not condone any authority that contradicts His own. So if you are trying to determine whether or not you should obey man's authority, the answer is yes, unless it contradicts God's laws as described in the Bible. If you're confused as to what those are, here's a good start.
$.02.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
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