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."

20 of 803 comments (clear)

  1. Opera is OSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    correct me if i'm wrong, but opera isn't open source. The phrasing of that posting sure implied that it was.

    1. Re:Opera is OSS by aWalrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're not wrong. I didn't intend the phrasing to imply that Opera is Open Source, just mentioned it as one of the possibly affected browsers. Actually all graphic browsers may be affected by this, since they all implement the allegedly infringing seamless execution of plugins behaviour.

      You can take a look at the patent here.

      --
      Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
    2. Re:Opera is OSS by arkanes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The patent actually specifically restricts itself to webbrowsers, general purpose apps with a plugin architecture wouldn't be affected. It's a braindead patent anyway, and a classic example of whats wrong with the patent system today.

    3. Re:Opera is OSS by Baki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct, but Opera is produced in Norway, where software patents such as these do not exist.

      Thus it won't have an effect on Opera.

      If it does, it proves to me the the US is acting as a dictator in the world: Others' laws are irrelevant in the US, but its laws are forced down the throats of the rest of the world.

  2. Patents.. by autopr0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. Odd behavior from MS. by Malcontent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. When will it end?! by dacarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Re:No flash...? by DrSkwid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The death of flash would be the most wonderful day in web browsing history since it's inception.

    For some of us, those Flash sites are *already* inaccessible.

    --
    There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
  6. Re:hater's dilemma! by Kethinov · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sarcasm aside, this is one court battle I hope Microsoft wins. Trying to patent an algorithm is like trying to patent "one click shopping."

    --
    You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
  7. Flash is dead, long live SVG by CausticWindow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  8. Re:No flash...? by SerpentMage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well here is the question I am asking...

    "How shives a git?" Seriously this patent only affects American users as the patent is only registered in the US. My take is screw the Americans, and let the rest of world use plugins as normal.

    MAYBE then the American law makers will see how truly dumb software patents truly are!

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  9. Re:hater's dilemma! by Frymaster · · Score: 4, Insightful
    rying to patent an algorithm is like trying to patent "one click shopping."

    ridiculous of course. edison patented the light bulb, not the theory that electricity passing through resistance generates radiation!

  10. Retarded patent by be-fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  11. Re:No flash...? by devphaeton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The death of flash would be the most wonderful day in web browsing history since it's inception.

    Do i hear a HALLELUJIAH!?!? (even if i can't spell it).

    While we are at it, i'd love nothing more than to ban HTML, Flash and embedded animated or static images from email and newsgroup postings.

    The 160th person to send me 3 lines italicized, purple MS Comic Sans Font on a dark blue background, with 280kb of images IS NOT FUCKING CUTE ANYMORE!!!!!

    Gawd, people.

    Flash is for www.newgrounds.com

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  12. it could make things better by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I run Camino. One reason it gets such a low rating is because it does not automagically run embedded content such as quicktime, flash and PDF files. This is the primary reason I prefer it to many other browsers. The 'crippling' really had no negative effect on my life. For Quicktime and PDF, the content get retrieved, stored and a friendly button appears that allows me to stop the download, view the file, or open it in an application. The benefits are clear. I do not have bandwidth wasted with things I do not want, and I do not viruses automagically running and destroying my computer.

    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
  13. Re:No flash...? by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The death of flash would be the most wonderful day in web browsing history since it's inception."

    Go to http://www.ninjai.com, watch the 7 chapters that are available, and then tell me again you think the death of Flash would be the most wonderful day in web browsing history.

    Flash isn't the problem, it's the gimmicky implementation of it. That doesn't mean it doesn't have some damn cool uses. Don't cure the disease by killing the man.

  14. Re:Why not just pay? by bigjocker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the Cringely interview:

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

    You can call it a fact that Eolas is really pissed at Microsoft, gives a shit about the money and the only thing they want is kill IE.

    --
    Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
  15. Re:flash by Lord+Dimwit+Flathead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. BSD and the screws: A hopeful view by d.valued · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  17. Re:Have you EVER heard of ... by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No, the patent isn't for the plugin itself - the plugin is just the way the patent is currently implemented. The patent is for :

    Distributed hypermedia method for

    automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document

    So, instead of automatically launching the plug-in, you would have to get the user to request it run.

    Mind you, the patent runs afoul of prior art. Here's the extract: A system allowing a user of a browser program on a computer connected to an open distributed hypermedia system to access and execute an embedded program object. The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document much like data objects. The user may select the program object from the screen. Once selected the program object executes on the user's (client) computer or may execute on a remote server or additional remote computers in a distributed processing arrangement. After launching the program object, the user is able to interact with the object as the invention provides for ongoing interprocess communication between the application object (program) and the browser program. One application of the embedded program object allows a user to view large and complex multi-dimensional objects from within the browser's window. The user can manipulate a control panel to change the viewpoint used to view the image. The invention allows a program to execute on a remote server or other computers to calculate the viewing transformations and send frame data to the client computer thus providing the user of the client computer with interactive features and allowing the user to have access to greater computing power than may be available at the user's client computer.

    The X windowing system demonstrates prior art going back a decade before the patent was filed. Let's look at the extract claims in that light, in reverse order:

    Patent: The invention allows a program to execute on a remote server or other computers to calculate the viewing transformations and send frame data to the client computer thus providing the user of the client computer with interactive features and allowing the user to have access to greater computing power than may be available at the user's client computer.
    X allows for remote execution of programs, interaction w. the programs' output, etc.

    Patent:Once selected the program object executes on the user's (client) computer or may execute on a remote server or additional remote computers in a distributed processing arrangement.
    X allows you to click on a program object, either remote or local, and spawn external programs.

    Patent:The user may select the program object from the screen.
    Nothing new there

    Patent:The program object is embedded into a hypermedia document much like data objects
    The X desktop fits the definition of a hypermedia , as it allows users to access graphics and text as part of its' normal operations. The only question is, is it a document? It meets the criteria for an electronic document
    Their definition of a hypermedia document" When graphics, sound, video or other media capable of being manipulated and presented in a computer system is used as the object linked to, the document is said to be a hypermedia document.

    Patent:A system allowing a user of a browser program on a computer connected to an open distributed hypermedia system to access and execute an embedded program object.
    Is X a browser program on a computer? It allows you to see what they define as hypermedia documents. You can certainly browse your computer with it, and you can (if the server exports its' display to your box) browse another computers' resources as well, so it fits the definition of a browser (note - the patent does not limit itself to Internet browsing, but all browsing activity).

    In summary: You can run external programs using X, which was supposed to be the new