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."

Comments

Why not just pay?

[eaddict]

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.

Not seamless?

[3Suns]

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.

Software patents are bad

[Aadain2001]

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).

Is Eolas/Doyle only against Microsoft?

[Rayban]

What about this article in Cringely's pulpit?

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit2002110 7. html

"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...

From Eolas "about us" page

[stratjakt]

...Eolas' seminal research in next-generation Web applications, ... has led to patents for the development of fundamental and revolutionary Web browser technologies, including the systems which currently provide plug-ins and applets to over 500 million users

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?

Re:hater's dilemma!

[Hentai]

Margaret: "Father, the man is bad."
More: "There's no law against that."
Roper: "There is a law against it. God's law."
More: "Then God can arrest him."
Roper: "Sophistication upon sophistication!"
More: "No. Sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal, but I don't always know what's right. And I'm sticking with what's legal."
Roper: "Then you set man's law against God's?"
More: "No. Far below. But let me draw your attention to a fact. I am not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, there I am a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God."
Alice: "While you talk, he is gone."
More: "And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law."
Roper: "So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law!"
More: "Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get to the Devil?"
Roper: "I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"
More: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat. This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man's laws, not God's -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety's sake."