Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wins HTML App Patent
crataegus writes "'Microsoft on Tuesday won a patent for launching a certain kind of HTML application within Windows. The patent, "Method and apparatus for writing a Windows application in HTML" (Hypertext Markup Language), describes Microsoft's way of opening up HTML applications in a window free of navigation and other interface elements, known as "chrome," and browser security restrictions.' Why does this sound vaguely familiar?"
"HTML Applications (HTAs) are full-fledged applications," the page reads. "These applications are trusted and display only the menus, icons, toolbars, and title information that the Web developer creates. In short, HTAs pack all the power of Microsoft Internet Explorer--its object model, performance, rendering power, protocol support, and channel-download technology--without enforcing the strict security model and user interface of the browser."
So it's yet another way for Microsoft to let people call themselves "programmers", without actually having to write code. Big deal.
I've spent 10+ years writing VB code, and I'm sure everyone will agree that there's a difference -- even in "high level" languages -- between throwing together something that will compile vs. designing a tool that does what your client needs done. Especially when "what your client needs" != "what your client requests".
As for the security issues... when they say "these applications are trusted", the question is "by whom?" I see another way for skr1pt k1dd1es to invade systems, since all you need to do is convince one non-tech-savvy corporate VP to "trust" that message that says "I Love You, click here!". It's not like J0(ann)3 HaXX0r will be deterred by EULAs and patents.
It's VBScript all over again. What good is a programming tool when security best practices suggest you turn it off?
In fact, Microsoft's patent is great news. Hopefully, nobody will be tempted to license the "technology" (read: virus portal) for any other OS.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Why does this sound vaguely familiar?
Well, if you follow the links in the words vaguely familiar that you posted, that might shed some light. Why do we have to have commentary in every news post?
Every fscking porn popup ever, c.1995 onwards.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Before anyone says anything about when they actually filed it being important, the patent was filed May 20, 1999 while that Mozilla page on Chrome says it was last modified April 7, 1999.
Obviously Microsoft does not have the intellectual capacity to come up with their own ideas, ergo, they have to revert to 'stealing' open-source ones. They've done this kind of copying before, especially with Mac. I just hope that Mozilla can still use Chrome.
Oh "we" do, huh? First line of the source from your website:
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
Method and apparatus for writing a Windows application in HTML.
So, everyone using Mac and Linux are free to use chrome?
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
in a window free of navigation and other interface elements, known as "chrome," and browser security restrictions .
So now we have microsoft with patenting a new way of creating macicious popups with windows. Knowing Microsoft, stuff like Gator and Eyeblaster ad's will soon show up in this space and, without my usual restrictions, everyone who uses Internet Explorer will soon have spyware again. While it'll be quite profitable (for me too, I do computer repair and tune ups), This could easily become a HUGE annoyance for systems administrators around the world. Time to switch everything to Mozilla and Opera.
When life gives you crap, Make Crapade.
Sluggy Freelance.
Yawn.
Let me guess, since this is specific to launching "windows apps" the parts of the world that isn't "windows" doesn't really care.
Oh wait, isn't this going to put a notoriously nasty HTML-esque interface in front of even *more* apps? The limitations of HTML were one of the many reasons that boatlaods of "web apps" haven't come out of nowhere like (almost) everyone wanted.
Indeed. Move along.
As long as the patent has "Windows" in it, I'm unfazed. That whole platform is a (slooowly) sinking ship. They're just repeatedly carving their name on the hull.
from the article:
i deas_online/ideas_online_whose.asp
"In short, HTAs pack all the power of Microsoft Internet Explorer"
That's right- because as we all know, Microsoft invented HTML and Internet Explorer is the only web browser in existence.
more info here:
http://www.ideasatthepowerhouse.com.au/05_
Esoteric reference.
"In short, HTAs pack all the power of Microsoft Internet Explorer--its object model, performance, rendering power, protocol support, and channel-download technology--without enforcing the strict security model and user interface of the browser."
Yeah, right..
RaGe
We're all just noise on the wires..
Spoken like someone who doesn't really know what XHTML is.
XHTML(TM) 1.0 The Extensible HyperText Markup Language (Second Edition)
This is why Bell held the patent for the telephone.
What is wrong with companies these days? All they do is patent everything under the sun and reap the royalties. *cough*SCO*cough*
Although I guess we should expect this from the demonic MS corporation. I think they should next patent viruses to get a piece of the action there. Then after that they could buy a virus protection company and be made for life. (can you say infinite income stream?)
In short, HTAs pack all the power of Microsoft Internet Explorer--its object model, performance, rendering power, protocol support, and channel-download technology--without enforcing the strict security model and user interface of the browser.
Anyone want to offer a explaination of that means and why any of it deserves a patent? From hear it looks like a standard web browser with "channel-download" with even lower security than IE. What, besides the buzzword jargon, is non obvious?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Its biggest use?
Really fancy about pages.
Replied like somone who doesn't get the joke.
Can we now hold them accountable for any problems, viruses, spyware, annoyances that use this?
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
HTML applications in a window free of navigation and other interface elements, known as "chrome," and browser security restrictions.' Why does this sound vaguely familiar?"
Yeah, it sounds very familiar. Thanks to Opera I no longer see this sort of bullshit, but it sounds like those wonderful popups that you can't do anything with. You can't go back, you can't close them, you can't resize them, nothing. Add that to the automatic execution of ActiveX (free of browser security restrictions, remember) and you make me one more step closer to a dartboard with Bill's face on it.
I couldn't give a shit if someone patents this, although it would be nice if they did it just to prevent anyone from actually using it in the field. I do however think anyone who thinks taking CONTROL of a computer away from USERS should be tied up and shot. This would be like creating a road that, when you drove on it, disabled the brakes in your car. No friggin thanks.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
Vaguely familiar? They didn't patent the word 'chrome' or anything, nimwit, so why the link to a Mozilla page defining chrome with the vague implication that it's been done? The page you refer to has nothing to do with this patent other than the word "chrome".
Let's face it, everything's been done - companies get patents like this so they won't be sued by some pissant company with a patent portfolio (read: recent issue they had with some such company and web plugins). Also note, it specifies "Windows".
what Microsoft is gettin for their money
Why does this sound vaguely familiar?"
The Mozilla page that you cited does not prove precedence in this case. The patent was filed for in May of 1999 and whom ever developed this (Microsoft or Mozilla) obviously did it before then. The Mozilla page has a Last modified date of April 1999 (as well as a last modified date of March 2000, WTF?). The close proximity of these dates would require greater proof of who exactly was first with this.
In the CNet article it says that Microsoft has no intention of enforcing the patent. I find that interesting since I seem to recall them saying the same thing about FAT up until their recent "licensing" scheme for FAT.
Over ten years of Visual Basic?
Wow, did you invent it or something?
Is your name Alan Cooper?
I was going to type a reply but M$ would probably patent 'ASCII data entry by means of an alpha-numeric input device' before I could hit Post. Darn.
"This is crazy, you realise we could all go to jail for this?" - my manager, somewhere I used to work.
I haven't read the Microsoft patent, but it is not just "configurable chrome" like the Mozilla link in the post. Essentially, Microsoft applications like the "Add/Remove Programs" control panel applet are normal Windows applications that use HTML for their interface rather than normal Win32 widgets.
The patent (I presume) is on this method, where a browser control is pointed at a DLL rather than a web server speaking HTTP. This is completely different than skinning, as it is a way of running a dynamic, HTML-based application locally without a web server.
Reply to this post if you wrote a web application that used this technique on or before May 20, 1998 (one year before the patent application date).
(I did, and I'm pretty sure I still have a few of 'em laying around here somewhere).
And this brings up one more question: Why the F*** did Netscape and MSIE include this capability but for providing developers the ability to do exactly what is described in this patent?
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Is mozilla going to have to be overhauled or pay exorbitant patent fees to MS?
Did they patent running this application in windows? Vibrant Logic
[html]
[form]
[input type crash]
[/form]
[/html]
Replace the square brackets with carets.
I would suggest this is just an opening gambit of some sort. Where the end play is directed... well take your pick. But, given the Eolas issue, given the recent brou-ha-ha with Sun, given M$ history and preference for co-opting standards, I don't think dismissing this as irelevant as being the most prudent move.
Ultimately, if M$ looks like it is going to lay some cards on the table, look under the table for what is really going on.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
MSN Explorer-XUL with ..gasp.. Bayesian spam filters (use mssb-setup.ini)?
Are they afraid that they'll wind up not embracing standards or at least its vocabulary... Can you hear them argue in 2006 "well we had these same webapplications through out chrome.NET interface which was largely compliant with Java script".. or something along those lines.
I sense that they are getting a teeny lil bit scared that they might get too detached from OSS tech and so they try to at least grab buzzwords from over the fence, always leaving a full jump-into-the-pool or hostile takeover of a certain tech field (or attempt) possible, even logical.
I've never seen MS talk about "chrome" before, and Firebird == Mozilla + more XUL and it's geared mostly towards Windows it seems (which might explain why as nice as it may be, it runs quite badly on my freeBSD box). Moz/FB is getting increasingly popular with Windows users if what I hear and read is true.
Just some thoughts.
I believe this is related to XAML which is designed to take the nightmare out of windows UI coding.
Microsoft on Tuesday won a patent for launching a certain kind of bastard application within Windows.
The patent, "Method and apparatus for writing a Windows application in bastardry" (a frequently-employed Microsoft method), describes Microsoft's way of opening up malicious applications in a window free of uninstall software and other interface elements, known as "options," and operating system security restrictions.
One example of a bastard application at work in Windows is the "MIDI" feature in DirectX.
On a page about bastard applications on its Developer Network site, Microsoft described the technique as a way to harness a virus's power while bypassing its network and interface-related restrictions.
we are all screwed when that is issued [end sarcasm]
This is a crappy idea. It got kicked to hell on the Full-Disclosure list about 2 Months ago...
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
The patent basically covers: (from the claims)
The BULK of the patent is the idea that HTML can contain Javascript that does stuff. Doesn't everyone and their kitten have prior art on this?
As if it isn't obvious enough, Claims 1-6 are covered by HTML 2.0. Claims 7-9 are covered (and this is a trivial example, others will surely find better ones) by HTML 4.0 and cousins. And the only reason I don't have earlier references is that they're so bleeding obvious!
Sigh. Muppets from space.
Moderated: +1 Paranoid
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
I am not sure if those virus in OE could be classified as HTML. But if yes, will those virus writers be sued as "patent infringment"?
There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
Mozilla XUL and chrome are potential prior art. Mozilla runs on Windows, and so does XUL, therefore Microsoft can technically sue for patent infringement authors of XUL applications should the patent be held to be valid.
IANAL.
Sure, so long as you use a text based browser that can't call another x-window for a trusted jvscript popup advert without any deactivating buttons and less "security" than IE, you don't owe anything to SCO^H^H^HMicfosoft.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Sure, given that XUL already existed when this was filed, you could make the claim that using HTML instead was "obvious", but it isn't, strictly speaking, the same.
Perhaps the Mozilla people should patent XUL. For defensive purposes, if nothing else. But the conspiracy theorists should look elsewhere for Microsoft threats to open-source browsers.
The cake is a pie
I want to patent "a method for limiting the decay of society by kicking the crap out of idiots at the patent office"
From http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/ConfigChromeSpec.html
e ference/methods/showmodaldialog.asp
"The chrome is that part of the application window that lies outside of a window's content area. Toolbars, menu bars, progress bars, and window title bars are all examples of elements that are typically part of the chrome."
From http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/r
"Specifies whether the dialog window displays the border window chrome. This feature is only available when a dialog box is opened from a trusted application. The default is no."
The cnet story seems to be passing off the word "chrome" as some sort of new technology name, when it seems that both Mozilla and Microsoft developers refer to it as a generic term for describing application window adornments.
What's the significance of this? Well, this "chrome" itself isn't a part of Microsoft's patent. It's existed in almost every window in almost every application made by any developer. Microsoft's HTML application technology removes the window chrome, but the "meat" of the patent is the ability to use HTML and Internet Explorer to create an application.
The only thing this has in common with Mozilla is that it also deals with window chrome.
Microsoft isn't copying Mozilla by using the same software term.
Umm...what is an html application? html is a -formatting language-. Either this is a really hard patent to infringe on, or they now have a patent on having html stuff displayed without any browser features (it's still a browser, since something has to display it). When I put opera into full screen, things like back and forward go away. Is this what they mean?
But than again, it sounds like they are talking a bunch of junk to let it have purty menus and other widgets, which mean it isn't really just HTML, since HTML doesn't have that stuff. So...why call it HTML? It's obviously not.
IMHO, the issue isn't that this is a bonehead patent it is that all patents are inherently burdensome to society, and this patent sillyness is just a symptom of a poor belief system taken to it's logical conclusion.
Yeah, I've heard it all before
XUL is the eXtensible UI Layout language. It's an XML dialect that describes the layout of widgets on the screen (sort of like what Glade does, or WinForms). These widgets are hooked up with JavaScript to implement the "interactive" component of the interface, and the widgets and display elements themselves are a mix of compiled functionality from the NSPR (which may defer to real OS widgets), but the majority is actually XHTML.
.jar files ala Java, and the URLs are accessed internally by the "chrome" protocol.
The whole thing gets packaged up in
It's quite cool. And the technology is old, so I don't see Microsoft's ability to defend its position as strong.
(I believe this is MOSTLY accurate. Someone please correct me who is more familiar with Moz)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Can you patent an idea and then release it into the public domain or put it under a Creative Commons license (or something like it)? It seems like this might head off some of the prior art arguements, and even if some other entity breaks the patent because of other prior art, it still is better than it moving into a single group's hands. I know it is more work, but I am tied of getting screwed-over because someone comes up with something "innovative*".
Just wondering....
* Innovative (MS, SCO, et. al definition) - scouring the world for ideas for which they can claim ownership.
Apparently, spell-check is 'obselete'
google for microsoft html patent and you'll see:
News:
Microsoft Wins HTML App Patent - Slashdot - 30 minutes ago
Microsoft wins HTML application patent - CNET News.com - 40 minutes ago
And that earlier CNET story has more info.
everything in moderation
The USPTO is granting invalid patents left right and center on obvious techniques and on techniques that in some cases are actually part of standards. Clearly they are not in a position to be able to determine prior art much less the requirment that in order for something to be patentable it must be non-obvious to practitioners of the art.
A couple years ago the Australian PTO granted a patent for a wheel. (I believe I saw this in the ignoble awards) The applicant had actually drawn a cart illustrating the role of the wheel. Clearly the USPTO is not alone in its level of incompetance.
Under law as I understand it, these beauracrates have a responsibility to follow the legislation. Clearly due to their collective incompetance and possibly several other factors they are not doing this.
So is there any way to challenge them and if not can a lobby be put together so that before a patent is granted there is a peer review of its validity? Why should software developers for instance face invalid patent after invalid patent which creates unnecessary litigation at terrible costs when a simple peer review process done in conjunction with the patent office could avert the problem. Please note that the court system is already overloaded and that it is a serious drain on the taxpayers of the nation. As such it would seem that a peer review process might be in the best interests of everyone.
Perhaps the patent office would even go along with such a process because it might save them considerable embarrasment as well as offloading some of the workload of their examiners. Is there anything in the law that prohibits something like this?
Please note that at least IMHO I see invalid patents as the greatest threat there is for the opensource community. We need to address this as soon as possible in an effective manner.
brain?...no...From the article:"...Microsoft has no current plans to enforce the patent."
Uh huh...GIF...jpeg...FAT... I know...they're not all MS patents, but...
We are at that awkward stage in our history where it's too late to vote them out, but it's too early to just shoot the bastards. - ?
What?
I don't know. If you knew anything about Windows HTAs, you'd know that they have no discernible similarity to the Mozilla technologies you reference. That technology allows (for example) skinning. The point about HTAs is that they get rid of the browser chrome, at the same time as being nothing to do with the use of web browser-originated technology for browsing.
The point about HTAs is that they consist of (X)HTML, JavaScript and COM (ActiveX) objects. When installed on your system, they run as applications in the Windows environment, meaning no sandboxing: file system access, etc.
As somebody is going to sneer "Why would I let a web site do that", let me point out that this isn't anything to do with websites. If you download and install an HTA, you have to follow the same procedures as for any other software you download. Anybody distributing an HTA would probably have to package it using an installer of some kind. You can't just have one appear when you go to a site; any HTA that does anything useful needs a bunch of COM components installed in addition.
And for those who ask "What's the point of it": one good use is for creating test harnesses for COM components. You can code up a UI with a quick bit of HTML, stick some JavaScript in there and run your test cases against the component. It's even easier than using VB to create such utility apps. It's also useful for rapid prototyping of ideas; it only takes a few minutes to explore a concept (if you're any good at JavaScript programming). But I can't imagine many people actually shipping HTAs.
Why grant them a patent? I assume it's because they were the first to think of taking the technology out of the web browser, rearranging it in this novel way, and thereby providing a facility that wasn't there before.
I wouldn't worry about it affecting your lives in any great way; it's specifically a Microsoft technology.
But I still wonder why somebody would take the words 'a window free of navigation and other interface elements, known as "chrome,"' and think it was similar to a technology for adding chrome.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
The key to LutA are tools that can be downloaded as a normal web page, then run as an local application. Once the application is launched, it will continue to run in it's own window until the process is manually killed. It is assumed that other processes may be periodically be created, or the system otherwise modified, so that a restart will be required to stop all processes, and a system reinstall necessary to remove all autoruns.
A famous spammer out of Florida, who we interviewed in his trailer home, and who wished to remain anonymous, had this to say. "We have been real disappointed in MS lately. They have been modifying Outlook to make it harder for us to get viruses through. The have telling users not to open unknown emails. They have even said they will block pop ups. For a hard working guy like me, with three ex-wives, 7 children, a mistress, not mention that I am putting two titty dances through college, I just can't make enough money.
"I was losing faith. But this new stuff, this will be great. It will be in Windows. That damn open source commie crap won't be able to block it. I can work with Gator and Kazaa so that I can run banner ads, gateways, porn web servers, whatever, on the mark's machines. I might just be able to start moving these small breast disease remedires again."
It is not know if MS itself will use these tools for marketing purposes. It is thought that sales to spam organizations and other organized crime outfits were on the decline, and such a tool was necessary to convince them not to support user migration to other platforms.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
kinda sounds like this
Alternatively, Mozilla can submit XUL to W3C and *that* would protect all of us from the Redmond's evil.
By the way, if Mozilla is GPL, isn't it already protected from being hit by any patents?
Less is more !
If you look at the document history link down at the bottom of the page, you'll see what the change in 2000 was. They just added a couple of anchor tags (which I don't really understand the point of).
The April 1999 change was the last change of the content
End of line..
HTA's are about being able to use HTML to create a desktop application, and treating the result as a desktop application (ie, different security arrangement and display). I can imagine how this would be useful for simple apps, especially to programmers accustomed to HTML/Script. HTA's are treated as executable code, and are not (barring an exploit) able to be popped up via web page. They are not connected to the web particularly other than that they share an underlying language, HTML. Regardless of browser, I don't imagine anyone sees them very often.
I think the whole idea went out of favor at MS a long time ago - I haven't seen an HTA article there for a while. They apparently weren't too memorable, the comments I've read thusfar betray no understanding of what they are/were.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
Why does Microsoft need to patent this?
think of Microsoft and trailer hitches..
They both have something in common..
From the article:
Yes, which requires IE, which is one of my bugbears with this approach.
If you do somehow remove IE's claws from your system, it means you'll no longer be able to use the UI to uninstall Apps, games and powertoys from your system. Of course, anyone fluent in the Registry could trawl the Uninstall keys to remove stuff manually (or write a replacement app to do it).
I think it's fair to say nobody would want to infringe on this patent anyway.
Seems like IBM had a working version of this technology when they released SASH in Oct. '99. Given IBM's patenting practices, I wonder who got to this patent first?
It sounds too much like Microsoft now has a patent on viruses.
ren index.html index.hta
.hta, then it has all the benefits of not having the IE security model to deal with. And the window won't *look* like IE, but in fact is.
So in other words, if an HTML file is named with an extension of
Remember the case where Microsoft is getting sued by that company who claims to hold the patent on browser plugins?
If Microsoft wouldn't patent this, what are the chances that someone else would and sue them for patent infringement? It's quite possible that this is just a defensive patent to prevent stuff like that.
What the hell am I thinking?! This is Slashdot. We don't give MS the benefit of the doubt. Ever.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Thanks for contributing to our exciting internet society!
I'm just guessing here, but I would imagine that with the poor interface and interaction that "html" provides as compaired to, say, the flexibility of a "real application" UI, MS is going to have to provide a boatload of proprietary tags and hooks to make this actually usefull (at least MORE usefull than an actual web browser). Does this mean that more content will be delivered as a Microsoft web app (ie. online shopping) and will therefore make it impossible for me to access with my RH or OSX box?
"terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
I guess this means people won't write Windows applications any more. Cry me a fucking river.
My other car is first.
Open Source has done well in legal challenges so far by the quality of our research. The research is what makes litigation so expensive, and lawyers are cripled without it.
The next big Open Source challenge will come from patents. We should start now, but where?
...Microsoft Windows right??
Because they surely couldn't mean Windows as in a generic term because that would be great evidence to use against them for the Lindows.com case.
I know because I tried to develop one and well, they are not what they are cracked up to be. They don't work well at all. They are a really cruddy way to get around some of the limitations of being local to a hard drive but really don't do much.
It would be a good API it they actually worked on a HTA application. As it stands, you're better off writing your application in JScript.Net rather then try and use the crap that is HTA.
It's like being in a web browser, but you must be local and you have only the most rudimentary access to the local system. You can kind of write to the hard drive. But not really. Yes, it's worse then writing VB. But you still have many of the 'security' problems that regular web applications have. It's hard to spawn new HTA windows since unless you are very careful you end up spawning new internet explorer windows, and even then you can't easily pass data from a parent window to a sub window.
Fortunatly the application I had to write wasn't actually more then a proof of concept and we could not prove that the hta concept would work. If told to do one now, I'd say forget it and write it in C++/C# with a webcontrol.
Rename your .htm to .hta and run it localy on a windows system. Do a task list and you will see a mshta.exe is the task.
Now kill it, and your page dies too
in win2k and newer try this"
open control Panel and run Add/Remove Programs
You are looking at hta in action.
kill mshta.exe again, Add/Remove Programs dies as well.
I find HTA handy when I dont want to load visual studio for a quick app that I would rather run as a web page, but I can't because I need more system level access. A quick VBScript or JScript with a html frontend in notepad works wonders.
FYI: Little help is actualy written for HTA, but realize it is a mix of Script and HTML working together named *.hta
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
The USPO needs an "Ask Slashdot" process for all tech patents.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
from the article:
Microsoft this month said it will liberalize its intellectual property licensing policy, letting other companies more easily use its patented technologies.
from my paranoid mind:
Microsoft announced that liberalization will continue at least until lock-in is achieved.
this isn't vbscript or anything else of that ilk. anyone here mentions tcl and the crowd lows in support of innovation; this is just a way to open up OS functions to dhtml. not earth shattering, but I can think of at least four startups I've consulted with who's entire business came from this feature ...
frankly the angst about you being a "real" programmer because you use VB is laughable. I can drive an API in any language and its still just bit plumbing; I can build out systems in whatever fits best, yes even, sometimes, VB.
I'm surprised nobody's mentioned kiosk mode yet. It was implemented way back in the day of Netscape 4, at least, and Microsoft copied the feature. Or maybe it was vice-versa, it's hazy. It sounds a lot like this feature, though--basically a way to ditch all the window dressing.
Anyway, the basic idea was to be able to run a Web browser on a machine (kiosk) without letting anybody muck around with the settings and such. Generally used with touchscreen input and the like.
Considering that it's a technique that's been in use for years and years, it doesn't really sound like something you could patent. The Mozilla stuff just sounds like a generalization for Mozilla of the technique already used in existing browsers.
The way that reads, it sounds like a webpage that writes and executes a windows app on a users pc. Microsoft has patented browser exploits? It's hard to dispute this one, they certainly have all the prior art on their side...
How does this relate in any way to Microsoft Chrome, of which I remember hearing quite a bit about a very long time ago?
I remember it was supposed to be the VRML killer, and the Flash killer, and that nobody was quite certain what it was. Has it mutated into this? Or is this just a simple namespace collision?
char sig[120] = "\0"
Uncheck "Enable JavaScript"
If you don't want to go that far, Mozilla can prevent scripts from hiding the status bar.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Mozilla has been issued a patent for its method of reading e-mail without automatically launching malware.
At least he's got a DTD, which puts him ahead of most sites out there. :)
A method for writing an HTML application IN WINDOWS! What's next, global domination? This is a non-story.
Everybody always says No, HTML is not a programming language!!! Well what now?
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
This appears more like a move to make "the browser" an more indisputably intregal part of the OS. Planning for the future when Bush & Co. are not in power and the DOJ goes back to enforcing laws agains monopolies.
The potato it is uninformed.
I think the original poster of this story is making a misleading statement - he must have misunderstood the patent. He states that the patent is about launching browser windows without "chrome" around it.
.hta extension file is quite minuscule. Plus this is a stupid software patent anyway - in my mind it ranks pretty close to the Amazon 1-click shopping patent. Anything that people say "duh" to shouldn't be called an invention. If it's shocking, new, who would have thought kind of thing, then yeah, maybe. Typical embrace and extend behaviour.
His link defines chrome like this:
What is Chrome? - The chrome is that part of the application window that lies outside of a window's content area. Toolbars, menu bars, progress bars, and window title bars are all examples of elements that are typically part of the chrome.
Now read the abstract of the patent below, and tell me, the way you understand it, does it have anything to do with chrome?
United States Patent 6,662,341
Cooper , et al. December 9, 2003
Method and apparatus for writing a windows application in HTML
Abstract
A method, apparatus, and computer-readable medium for authoring and executing HTML application files is disclosed. An HTML application file is basically a standard HTML file that runs in its own window outside of the browser, and is thus not bound by the security restrictions of the browser. The author of an HTML application file can take advantage of the relaxed security. The author of the HTML application file designates the file as an HTML application file by doing one or more of the following: defining the MIME type as an HTML application MIME type; or using an HTML application file extension for the file. When a browser, such as the Internet Explorer, encounters one of the above, it processes the file as an HTML application file rather than a standard HTML file by creating a main window independent of the browser, and rendering the HTML in the main window.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Most existing Windows application development environments require knowledge of specialized computer languages such as C++, or Visual Basic. Learning a specialized computer language is often difficult for non-technical individuals. However, many non-technical individuals can use HTML (HyperText Markup Language) and scripting languages, such as VBScript and JScript. HTML and scripting languages are run inside of a Web browser, and thus, inherit the browser's user interface and security mechanisms. Because non-technical individuals have knowledge of HTML and scripting languages, it would be advantageous to leverage such existing knowledge to implement a Window's application. Such applications should be free to define their own user interface elements and to run as trusted code on the system, i.e., outside of the security model imposed by the Web browser. The present invention is directed to achieving this result.
END EXCERPT
In fact, why don't you go to www.uspto.gov, and search for patent # 6,662,341, and educate yourself a bit about patents. Read the abstract, then the "field of invention" and introduction parts - they are the most important for start, even though the claims are the only things that matter in court. Because of that claims are written in very hard to read lawyer lingo, and only read them after you read the rest, to double check that the claims are actually saying what you understood from the rest of the text.
Basically this patent is about programming, as opposed to C or VB, you end up programming in the C-like javascript. I don't feel this deserves a patent at all - the amount of effort needed to relax securities for a special
Method and apparatus for writing a Windows application in HTML.
So, everyone using Mac and Linux are free to use chrome?
Read the claims. Not the headline, not the abstract, not the description, THE CLAIMS! The claims and nothing else decide what the patent covers, so it's really the only thing you should read. The rest of the patent is probably designed to be worthless to competitors (while still having the patent granted) whereas the claims are drawn up to be the broadest possible.
I apologize for being a bit harsh about this, but it's quite important. It's also worth remembering that if your implementation changes one single thing in the claims you're not infringing on the patent. In fact you could probably patent the adjusted idea yourself (obvious or not).
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
I hadn't programmed seriously for about 10 years...my C was very rusty. I picked up a VB book and went through it and wrote a few apps b/c work wanted apps in VB. What the hell, I said.
The good thing about VB is, I really hated it with a passion after about 20 minutes and put it down as soon as I could. Then I really got pissed at Microsoft for making such a weak product and got rid of Windows too. I'm now quite happily using open source products. See, VB is good.
I'm laughing my goddamned ass off here.
In the CNet article it says that Microsoft has no intention of enforcing the patent. I find that interesting since I seem to recall them saying the same thing about FAT up until their recent "licensing" scheme for FAT.
they. are. fighting.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
GLUE GLUEEEEE GLUUUUUUEEE, ScheisseGern! GLUUUEEE GLUE GLLLUUUUUEEEEEE!!!!
Click here if you do not want to wait any longer
(or if your browser does not automatically forward you)
Microsoft has just recently acquired a dozen of the most prominent online porn websites, as well as a company that develops miniature cameras for spying on bosses and sneaking looks at the cleavage of attractive women.
Well, well. Can you say Microsoft wants to have its cake and eat it too? A few weeks ago, it was the W3C no less that was coming to the rescue of Microsoft, yet today they apply for a patent that sounds just as ridiculous. It's time for this whole software patent mess to stop.
there's no place like ~
"In short, HTAs pack all the power of Microsoft Internet Explorer"
.... "protocol support" ...
:)
Woooo-hoooooooooo! At last I can harness da powa of da Intanat Explowa! w00t! (how I will harness all that powa to my customized Trabant though, I still don't know)
Muahahahahaha!
"the strict security model [...] of the browser."
Muahahahahahhahahahahahahah!
Ah, those good guys at Microsoft, they're always around when you need a good laugh
Hello! I'm a disaster waiting to happen!
Hypertext has been used commercially for building local applications at least since Hypercard in the 1980's. The Web really evolved out of such local applications by adding network retrieval and addressability of hypertext.
That is, the use of hypertext and scripts for building local applications preceded the web and was the historical foundation for it. It's ironic (and stupid) that Microsoft is going back in 1999 to try to patent the precursor to the web from the 1980's. Anybody who works as a developer or inventor in hypertext systems should have at least a passing familiarity with the history of the field. I think it demonstrates that the people at Microsoft who wrote this patent don't even know the basics of their profession.
Note, incidentally, that you have been able to use HTML and JavaScript for building "trusted" applications on your local machine for many years, depending on your browser, so this is nothing new even as far as HTML specifically is concerned. Hypertext with embedded widgets and scripting has also been widely used for building local applications with the Tcl/Tk toolkit.
Still doesn't validate though.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Hopes are growing that UN will indeed take over from ICANN. To see why this is so good, just remember what veris.gn did few months ago... ICANN was slow to react and the reaction was silly. With UN, the service will be *regulated* and governed better.
I got modded down too. I guess the mods are still pissed about me sodomizing their mothers.
P.S.: wang.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wow, what a meaningless post. You've effectively euphamized yourself into obscurity. Maybe you should take up marketting?
;). Basically, any time you're writing an application that has more logic for display than it has for control, you'd be best served by writing it in HTA.
;).
See, this is a patent on building a regular everyday desktop application that USES html as its interface and a form of scripting as its control. Why do that? Because HTML is a VERY effective and customizable information layout system. You can just stick bits and pieces any old place, and it looks good. Plus a lot of people know HTML...people who know know how to build a windows app
This doesn't give them the right to hunt people down. It just gives them a tiny little good idea in their pocket. Don't like it? Then make your HTML scripted desktop apps out of XML instead
Hey freaks: now you're ju
"Wallent said that Microsoft has no current plans to enforce the patent." Obtaining a patent, since they aren't free or easy, seems to imply an intention to enforce a patent. When one does not want to enforce a patent, they dont get one.
Looks good for your age..
Doncha All Appreciate MS's Creativity
Don't use flash. No point. The only reason for using flash is a mini-movie (i.e. something with a plot, not just an animated .gif with sound).
Two ways, use a javascript function to spit out the invalid flash code. it will validate, but it's technically 'cheating.'
or, go by the technique specified in this A List Apart article: Embedding Flash While Supporting Standards
Takes more work, but the flash will be compliant.
Third option, screw the validator. Who cares about the 'gold star' it gives you? as long as the rest of the page validates and your page runs fine.
If ever Microsoft made a good PR move, that sounds like it'd be their best one.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
This post is too old right now for anyone to ever see this, but...
I wrote some of these apps a few years ago. They are , basically, part of the windows scripting host technology and allow you to break HTA's out of the browser and have them running on the system. This is the same basic technology that gave us the first round of "view and screw" html outlook email worms that would hose your machine if you only opened the email, since script host attachments would run automatically for you. It was a Feature.
This tech is basically dead. MS doesn't seem to be using it for much and not expanding it. This is much ado about nothing. Most of the functionality of it is disabled due to security patches at this point, because it was a Bad Idea.
This isn't the opening salvo in some kind of evil empire plan here, this is a leftover from an evil plan that never worked. They processed the patent and it is just now being granted, and it isn't going to be used because it backfired and wasn't workable.
7. What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.
Use <object>. There's always a way to cheat to make it work for Mozilla, and usually it is something like..
<object ...IE properties...> ...Mozilla properties...>
<!--[if !IE]> -->
<object
</object>
<!-- <![endif]-->
</object>
That's valid even by XHTML 1.1, should work on both browsers (I use it all the time for Java applets), and doesn't use any Javascript.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
I found it fairly amusing that the patent mentioned XHTML, when IE 6.0 chucks a spaz when it encounters the content type application/xhtml+xml.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
If anyone is in trouble it's probably Rhymbox. They target the same operating system, use the same web browser to render their HTML-based application, and are a competitor for MSN. Uh-oh.
Karma: It's all a bunch of tree-huggin' hippy crap!
How, how was this modded down? It's the funniest damn thing I've seen around here in a long time.
not html..
Virtual Beginners All purpose Symbolic Instruction Code. A simplified version of BASIC (Beginners All purpose Symbolic Instruction Code... not Bill's Attempt to Seize Industry Control). A system developed at Dartmouth College in 1964 under the directory of J. Kemeny and T. Kurtz. It was implemented for the G.E.225. It was meant to be a very simple language to learn and also one that would be easy to translate. Furthermore, the designers wished it to be a stepping-stone for students to learn one of the more powerful languages such as FORTRAN or ALGOL. ...Yeah Baby!
line noise will autoformat and compile under VB.
You misspelled perl.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
--Aristotle
I just submitted my patent application for the character '>'. i'm gonna have all the money, g. word
today is spelling optional day.
Here's an article that gives more information including source code for some small sample applications (C# and the XML based UI stuff).
Worth reading if you want to get a quick feel for what this stuff will look like in practice.
Ever since Gates realized that the web was moving so fast he would become irrelivant, along with many of us, he took over the entry point---the browser.
The sole purpose of IE was to kill the internet so he could build it in his image.
Since he got control in 1997 the web has 'died' and the brower was declaired 'dead' years ago. The progress made from 1993-1997 is nothing but amazing, and that same rapid pace stopped and has not moved much since 1997. Its mostly his fault, and the US government.
I along with thousands of people saw this for a decade and also knew why we do not have it NOW already. Bill Gates. Now he owns this idea, which is not his to own, we finally will see it come to light in monopoly fashion.
I will not welcome our new overlords. ever!
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
They could start suing for taking snapshots of your desktop for copyright infringements.
asdf
Chrome-free windows, with the addition of a fake IE toolbar/address bar as a GIF, can be used to spoof online banking login pages *really* convincingly. I'm surprised MS wanted to patent something that's so open to abuse for "phishing" fraud.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
...with this tool, for example. Or risk to get 0wned. Some restrictions may apply, but htastop can be enabled/disabled on the fly.
It's very instructive to read a /. story about something I actually know. Is the pack always this boneheaded? I know, I know "you must be new here" ;)
Before anyone says anything about when they actually filed it being important, the patent was filed May 20, 1999 while that Mozilla page on Chrome says it was last modified April 7, 1999.
The bar date under Section 102(b) for printed publications would be one year earlier, May 20, 1998? Got reference?
Firstly, I should point out that I'm a big fan of open-source, use Mozilla every day and believe that the OS community produces some great projects that any other organisation would struggle with. Having said that, I think there's always value in playing devil's advocate for the purposes of discussion.
/. readers tend to, as a vicious attack on the community and ideals, but simply as the kind of business practise that goes on every day in other industries.
/. readers were offered a huge amount of money to abandon the OS movement, many would happily take the money. Maybe not all, maybe not half, but enough to keep companies like Microsoft on an even keel.
When it comes down to it, you could view this not, as
Microsoft may well be taking a well-thought-out risk here. This could, if someone takes the matter up in court, go two ways:
1) Microsoft pay a relatively small amount in legal costs and lose the patent.
2) Microsoft get to keep their patent and go on to make large licensing deals.
We often make the mistake of thinking of these as acts of evil - they're not. At a very basic level, Microsoft are not in the software business any more that banks are in the financial assistance business. They're both, as is every other for-profit company in the world, in the money making business.
It's a lovely idea that people would turn down huge amounts of money to stand by their (arguably rather niche) moral views. But I'm willing to bet that if
sig:- (wit >= sarcasm)
...a "Method for Preventing Web Links Opening New Windows which Lack Essential Controls". How about you?
(Yeah, I know, time to roll up my sleeves and start hacking Firebird....)
you want to look for prior art for the 500,000 new applictions filed each year?
how well do you understand the patent examination process? who has educated you on antecedent basis for a claim? how do you know if it is ovbious to combine varying references to create a 35 U.S.C. 103a rejection? How do you know how to determine the metes and bounds of a claim?
the claim language is the only thing that counts in a patent, and it takes some training to understand what exatly the claims mean, before one can search for prior art.
getting a patent or filing a patent, can at least provide some tangible property/proof of a concept, that can enable a startup or small firm to get investors, thus building their business. Its the business standpoint that most people here on slashdot don't consider.
People may complain about abuse, but isn't it better that via the patent system, people disclose their inventions instead of hiding behind trade secrets, thus allowing others to improve upon the inital invention? I would expect that people here would be happy about that since, thanks to the DCMA, reverse engineering is now of questionable legality?
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
Ditch the Flash banner. He's just using it for a supercharged "blink" effect.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
This is however part of the way to place a Flash movie in your page for some browsers (Mozilla).
Why are you using Flash? What, are you STUPID? Why bother putting a doctype for the sake of standards if you're just gonna turn around and use Flash? WHY???
Like what I said? You might like my music
I checked http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney/index.asp and
http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/index.asp
I was fully expecting to find donations from IBM employees/officers. I was utterly surprised to find none.
Microsoft this month said it will liberalize its intellectual property licensing policy, letting other companies more easily use its patented technologies.
*More* easily? What the heck does that mean?!?! Does this mean that they are going to remove some of their EULAs?
And what are "other companies"? Any compny who pays the fee? Happy Day! Now I can get some insight into the crap that I write.
If at first you don't succeed, redefine 'success'
But, you make precisely my point. HTML is great for layout type stuff, but not so good for application logic, which you also correctly identify. The question is why this patent, and why now? I'm not debating the usefulness of the paradigm, I'm questioning the timing. Consdier M$ has had this for quite some time anyways, but prior to recently, there apparently was no need to patent said methodology, Why now? The wonders of HTML may have determined the paradigm, but the wonders of HTML have nothing to do with the timing of this patent.
Given, since I modserated myself +1 Paranoid or -1 Paranoid if you like, I'm playing more at grand conspiracy theory than honest speculation. But, I think the underlying question is still valid, why this patent? why now?
I am suggesting merely that all may not be as it appears to be, on the surface this seems like a meaningless patent, and a pointless exercise... But I submit that you don't get dominant market share and the revenue stream M$ has by engaging in meaningless patents and pointless exercises. Sure it smacks of evil empire talk, but, M$ is involved in several patent battles, and does have a history of usurping standards, so due prudence militates aginst simply glossing over this item as fluff. Since many posters already clearly indicated that they were trivilaizng the announcement, I figured we'll open the floor to some good old fashioned paranoia, because even paranoids have enemies.
My post was a call to open eyes, that all may not be as it appears. Your post seems to indicate that you are treating the announcement as fluff. I would hope you are right, but hope doesn't make it so. All I'm saying is don't believe everything you read.
"Talk minus action equals nothing" - Joey Shithead, D.O.A.
"Talk minus action equals
Right, that's it sunshine, straight on to my Foe list. Oh, you posted as AC. Oh, I get it! Turnip.
"This is crazy, you realise we could all go to jail for this?" - my manager, somewhere I used to work.