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."
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.
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
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 ----
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.
absolutely true, and I have read that Eolas was more interested in going against MS, simply because they were MS (quotes like 'this should level the browser playing field against those evil monopolists').
However, that's all rumour and/or speculation - even if Eolas *says* they won't go against Mozilla, who's to say they really won't. And Mozilla group won't have $500m to cough up if Eolas changed its mind sometime in the future, probably they'd get even more because they could then claim these browsers knew about the legal position, and ignored it.
So, would you stake all your assets on that?
No, so almost certainly, the alternative browser developers are going to have to cover themselves. This patent simply hurts everyone.
(there is another version: MS in conjuntion with Macromedia, Adobe etc, creates an alternative to the plug-in which they incorporate into IE. The majority of the web sites start using it, leaving the alternative browsers even less ability to keep up.)
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!
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
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.
You can take a look at the patent here.
From the link above:
[snip]
Assignee: The Regents of the University of California (Oakland, CA)
[snip]
Am I missing something here?
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!!!!
Overcaffeinated. Angry geeks.
-Hentai [in vita non pacem est]
Couldn't Eolas offer to license it to Moz (et al) at a signifigantly reduced cost (say, maybe $0) in the same way that educational institutions can get cheaper software licenses because they don't have the funding? If all Eolas wanted to do was stick it to MS I'd think that would be the way to do it, although I don't know the legalities of it all.
do not read this line twice.
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
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.
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...
exactly. no-one can just keep on keeping on and hope that Eolas doesn't blind side them whenever they feel.
You have to develop the alternatives now - which means you're taking the hit just as much as microsoft.
much harder actually, as microsoft has so many talented hands onboard - they can keep their time back to market smaller than anyone else. Opera would be a mess for much longer than IE.
furthermore, can OSS even rely on Eolas -saying- they won't prosecute? It'd be like SCO successfully suing IBM for using their SMP code, and then saying 'don't worry guys, i won't come for you next'. are you going to trust SCO? so how could you trust Eolas?
i mean, its not like microsoft's implimentation of plugins is what gave it the advantage. taking plugins away will not level the playing field. it will force Microsoft to angle for a proprietary seamless solution - that ultimately will be a huge loss for everyone.
if IE can no longer have embedded movie trailers in its browser, or embedded shockwave files - then it simply creates an alternative. Some MS-proprietary data streaming service. if there is no hypertext involved - then it doesn't infringe on the patent. you can have plugins and seamless integration all you want if it isn't 'hypermedia'.
which simply means - unless things change - expect to see a beefed up version of Media Player and a proprietary content network to support it.
this is a terrible loss for open standards.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
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?
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.
The prior art is the ability to view and launch programs interactively from a remote server (X can export its' display to your machine while running the app in the server. One of the claims mentioned in the patent application is the ability to run a program remotely and communicate with the client machine. X predates the patent by almost a decade).
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.
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
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.
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 $ettlement. UC may get nothing. Of course, you'd have to see their contract to know for sure.
Other would-be Matlocks are encouraged to pick apart my Law And Order inspired argument.
Everyone seems to not be noticing that this action will probably play to microsofts interests. Of course MS would rather not pay 0.5 Billion dollars in penaties but now that they are they can tunr this to their advantage. here's how.
.NET the killer app. MS would love to see plug-ins die, especiall y if they die for other browsers too. What's left to step in its place then? basically two things, .NET and a chaos of non-standard solutions.
.NET is part of our OS and the browser had to be integrated there's no other solutions due the breadth of the EOLAS patent.
.NET and other fee based licesced extensions for MS.
1) it makes
2) MS would love to be able to go to the judge and say, look we had to integrate the broswer into the OS. there was no other way since it lost all its stand-alon functionality.
3) MS can appeal and maybe ret the 0.5 billion penalty reduced. and they can string along the usefulness of IE till 2005 when longhorn emerges. then pfft. MS will say EOLAS was totally right and has a solid case against us and all the other browsers. And here's our payment in full so you can fund your legal effort.
4) Maybe MS will invest another 0.5 billion and buy the IP from EOLAS. its will have been tested in court and they could shutdown all the other browsers that didn't use
we're hosed.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
As I'm sure many others have said, I can't stand plugins and all that, and have never installed Flash and have Java turned off. So good, perhaps this patent will rid the web of those irritating flash only web sites.
Maybe this will spur M$ 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.
Problem is, the Open Source community needs to act on this if it's a valid patent. We can't really sit around and wait, hoping they'll give us a license. Knowingly infringing a patent could cost the Mozilla developers a LOT of money and grief. And if this patent is Eolas' only business, they don't have any PR incentive to let Moz off the hook.
Royally sucks. And they filed in 1994 so there might not be any prior art.
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
You laugh, but the Patent Office also requires barcode fonts for some types of patent submissions, (these fonts are copyrighted). They freely redistribute the font without permission from the author. Upon notifying the Patent office of this, I never heard from them again.
(IANAL, but I work for a patent firm)
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
The patent will be more specific than that, and will typically cover one or more specific implementations.
What planet are you from? A patent covering "a specific implementation"? Whoever heard of such a thing!
If your attorney draws up a patent that's not vague enough to cover any competing products, it's time for a new attorney. Even I know to paste the magic boilerplate: "The specifications are to be considered as illustrations rather than restrictions, and alternative embodiments shall not be considered as outside present scope"
You almost sound like you expect the patent sytem to make sense!
(Seriously, read the patent itself. It is NOT more specific)
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?
They are exempt from that. The goverment can loot whatever patent, copyright, or whatever for whatever use they want. Its part of the deal when you patent or copyright something. You let the goverment use what you have done for FREE. You are creating a legal exchange through a contract that they will help protect you, but you give the right to use at will. But you knew this right?
Thanks, you just got me severely confused.
Here's my take on it, in my own words, which is inspired from the divine: If God is everywhere, omniscient, he must be everything and everyone. If he is truly everywhere, then there can be NO thing that is NOT God. Thus everything and everyone IS God, which means that everything that exists and happens (same thing) ARE according to the highest plan. There's nothing we have to do to make God "happy", nothing we can discover that God doesn't already know. A God that is angry and vengeful, is a weak God. Such is not a full representative to the One And True God and are man-made.
It's usually the lower plans that has an agenda and is miserable because of it. God's plans never fails. It's easy to mistake powerful beings for God. God is bliss and bliss is God, no matter what happens. God is love.
God loves the devil, wether he exists or not (why is the devil always male?), because he is omnipotent as well as omniscient. If God was not omnipotent, he would be afraid of the devil's plans for overturning Him. Instead, he embraces the devil, for the two are in truth One. The devil is just an externalized symbol for Man's rejection of God and ambition to become God himself. This does not make God sad, because He knows that Man will again see the truth that Man and God is One. Everything is One, not Two - Man and God. Truth prevails, because all else is illusory. Thus there is NOTHING TO FEAR, ever.
If I made sense, congrats. If I didn't, don't worry, experience takes you back to God. It's just a (rough) journey into ignorance and back into Oneness.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
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!
However, as I said, I don't agree with all of your conclusions. In particular, I don't agree with you when you say that God and the Devil are one in truth. This is a very eastern philosophy that is frequently described as Yin & Yang. I would love to take a huge amount of /. database space and expound on the problems with that particular philosophy, but I'd rather refer you to someone who does a *MUCH* better job than I could.
I strongly encourage you to read "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. It's an absolutely stellar description of what Christians believe. And the best part is that Lewis is not expecting his readers (as non-believers) to believe him. He's simply laying out what Christianity teaches. You're free to believe it or not as you see fit. Here's a quote (somewhat out of context) that expresses this:
So, anyway, I recommend you read that book. You're also welcome to hit me in email if you want to discuss this more.Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.