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*
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.
There hasn't been one of these since, like, '99?!
WHOA!
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
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
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
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!
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"
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!!!!
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();
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
7-4=5?
That's new, and non-obvious, but is it useful?
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.
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.
Bill Joy's not dead, dude!
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