Slashdot Mirror
Company Files Motion to Stop IE Distribution
RobHornick writes "According to CNET News, Eolas Technologies, a company that's already won a patent infringement judgement against Microsoft regarding Internet Explorer, has filed a motion to stop Microsoft from distributing its IE software until they remove Eolas' patented technology for running plug-ins, or pay up for a license."
Thank goodness closed source software is free of IP issues, eh?
I know that the vast majority of /. readers believe that the Net would be a better place with Internet Explorer. Hell, I'm one of them, having had to deal with the cleanup after having my users hit with its exploits.
But please realize that this patent bullshit has gone a little too far. Microsoft has already promised to patch IE to remove the offending patent work--isn't that enough? What we are all witnessing is the tyranny of the patent system as we know it. Just because it negatively affects Microsoft for once doesn't mean that it's good in any way.
Let's do what we can to get this mess straightened out once and for all for the good of the economy and innovation. Let's not rejoice in this unfair punishment.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
That they have to stop selling Windows to people/corps? After all IE is part of their OS, so anyone selling PCs with Windows on it is distributing software that was illegally infringing Eolas' patent. The crooks.
Anti-social? My code is just platform-specific.
The Redmond, Wash., software giant asked for the new trial, citing several factors, including the unusual proportions of the jury's judgment and the court's refusal to allow discussion of some prior art or similar technology that Microsoft believes predated the Eolas patent and should therefore invalidate it.
Microsoft mentioned one piece of prior art in particular, the Viola browser, invented by Perry Pei-Yuan Wei, an artist, software engineer and then a student at the University of California at Berkeley. That browser dates back to 1991 and its plug-in capabilities to 1992, nearly two years before Eolas filed for its patent.
Once again, prior art popping up. So, this whole thing will probably get turned on its head after about 3 more years of litigation.
Sigh.
evil adrian
Web developers face the possibility of having to significantly rewrite their pages or strip them of commonly used technologies like Macromedia's Flash.
Gentlemen, the tech employment slump is now over!
Please raise your hourly rates by $10.
$20 if you do Java Server pages, a bad idea whose time has come (disclaimer: I do JSPs).
Time to dig out those hookers' business cards!
(And the office foosball table suppliers' cards too!)
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
So far it appeared that websites had until about January to gear up for changes - now if this ruling comes to pass, websites that earn income from Flash ads could find themselves caught in a bad spot...
..." dialogue boxes are going to cause big time problems - beyond making many sites more combersome to use, such frequent clicking is going to only increase the chance of people accidently clicking open some nasty stuff.
..." dialogue box nonsense.
* Do nothing and watch the complaints roll in as folks bitch about lots of pop-up warning prompts; some will even think the warning dialogue boxes are pop-up ads themselves - geez!
* Continue to accept Flash ads, but add javascript and other nonsense to make them display with little or no warning messages - fine for many sites, but some sites don't use javascript anywhere for various reaons. So what to do?
* Discontinue Flash ads (sure that makes many happy), but the loss of ad revenues will cause some sites to either use all sorts of bizarre scripting or reduce services due to lost revenues.
Not sure the solution here. For as much as I personally don't care for Flash (nothing wrong with Flash per se, but is often over used and forced upon visitors) the addition of "Press OK
One possible solution, for as much as I don't care for Micro$oft at times, is for them to either fight this guy's IP claim to the max -or- settle and not change the browser -or- a long shot, find another way to get around the guy's IP claim without the zillion "Press OK
Lastly, if anyone is aware of a work-around to smoothly displaying Flash without using Javascript, please post and/or email to me. Thanks!
Ron
Actually this has to do with how plugins are used in the browser and could very well have Mozilla fall within the scope of their patent.
Let's not start singing Eolas' praises until we see whether they are friend or foe, they could just as easily attempt to extort $$$ from Mozilla or Netscape(AOL). This is probably the first lawsuit I had wished Microsoft came out on top.
Can I get an eye poke?
Dog House Forum
I still can't believe it when I read the court case for Amazon's 1-click patent. Apparently the *expert* witness could not figure out how Amazon would be able to sell something to people with just one click... apparently he had never heard of cookies... and this was one of the biggest reasons Amazon won, because it seemed possible that this was actually a revolutionary idea.
But back to my main point, where do people draw the line for giving a software patent? I read that microsoft patented the IM feature to see when somebody is typing something back. That is dumb. But is the only thing that we are ok with somebody patenting is something that is like a compression algorithm that is so hard to understand that we say the guy must have been smarter than me that made it?
I think the patent system is ok as it is, provided we have high quality patent lawyers out there that know how to code and maybe are able to put RAM into their computer... from my perspective, the patent system seems to be more angled toward granting a patent than not granting a patent. So its quite possible that you get a patent even though the quality of the invention is pretty lame.
I think my view on software patents is this. If any software at all can be found that had the feature before being patented by some other company, then its in public domain and not patentable. The thing is, is that alot of great ideas show up in software people make for all sorts of reasons, but few people besides companies have the money to get a patent that usually costs about 10-20 grand.
no people will not switch browsers. if a browser does not come with MS and is not located in the prefered position MOST users, that is the majority of the comsumers, will not use it. Thus IE will remain a standard and websites will comply or die. Sure a few may write special versions for multiple browsers but whose going to be writing the plugins? Unless theres a market to sell plugins the flash producers of the world are going to shrink in number.
Perhaps you think I overestimate consumer laziness. Well BMG just copyprotected all of their CDs. Anyone cany defeat the copy protection by, get this, holding down the shift key when inserting the disk. BMG acknowledges this wont stop some people but believes it will thwart the majority. They have reason to believe in consumer laziness.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
In the IT industry, 20 years *is* forever. Think about the technology from 1983, would you use that over the current technology? This one of the many reasons why patents for software do not work. Copyright is enough to protect software. 20 years for a software patent basically gives the patent holder a lifetime monopoly on the usable lifetime of the patented software.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
And pay up Mozilla Foundation, and pay up KDE e.V, pay up Apple, and pay up Opera Software. This ruling is dangerous and has ramifications reaching far outside of Microsoft's boundaries. Internet Explorer is certainly not the only browser to make use of plugins.
I, for one, (haha! not going to say it!) despise Flash and similar plugins, but this is one of many patent lawsuits that could dramatically alter the landscape of the software development community as a whole.
The hypocricy was quite apparent. Here you had the man behind the most absurd of recent patents--one click shopping--claiming to be behind patent reform.
I don't see a problem with that. The rules right now allow silly patents. If you want to be in business, you have to file silly patents, otherwise, you can't compete.
At the same time, many companies realize that filing silly patents is a big drain on their time and resources and will never give them any revenue. So, they would like to stop doing it. But they only can stop doing it if everybody else does, and that's why they participate in efforts to reform the patent system.
That shouldn't stop you or me or anybody else from holding Bezos's feet to the fire (e.g., by buying at places other than Amazon) over filing silly patents: that is just additional pressure to get them (i.e., the people with money and power) to work towards changing the system.
Microsoft used patents to kill ASF support in VirtualDub. See here.
Yes, I know it won't come to that.
I hope to god it doesn't.
Seriously.
I know we all bash M$, and we all use the dollarsign instead of an 'S', and all that stuff. But, in all seriousness: If microsoft is prevented from shipping windows, that means that dell, HP, ibm, micron, et. al. are prevented from selling comptuers with windows.
If no one can sell comptuers with windows, the tech sector in specific, and the american economy in general, is fucked. Plain and simple. Dell operates on making about half a billion a day, m ost of it from computers with windows, and most of it would not be sold if it came sans os (get off of your linux high horse for a sec and remember john q public). IBM is close to the same. When I worked at Best Buy, the comptuer department would regularly sell $30,000 worth of computer towers PER DAY, in one store. Multiply by 450 stores and you're talking 13.5 million in lost revs by one retail chain, PER DAY. And it was significantly higher starting black friday (we sold over 350k in the computer department 2 black fridays ago).
I know it's cool to make fun of and bash microsoft, and all of that, and I understand your need to do that.
But, please recognize. If no one can sell microsoft windows, then no one can sell computers with windows, and since most of the consumer sector doesn't want a computer with no OS, almost no computers will be sold, and the american economy will come to a screeching halt. We'll immediately be plunged back into the recession we're slowly starting to climb out of.
~Will
sig?
Apparently nobody pays attention or does any research.
First off Eolas has filed the same patent three times (been rejected) and has been narrowing it down.
Basically the patent states:
Any inlining function that renders on the client that gets information from another server. However javascript is not affected, but activex and other plugins are, but the question is the img tag linking to another webpage affected? I know a few places will not allow their sites to have img tags to point to a different server.
This is a stupid patent and should be thrown out. And in fact if we wanted to get into the nitty/gritty details Microsoft could sit there and attack StarOffice/OpenOffice with some of their patents and copyright information and get them out of business.