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?"
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.
Can we now hold them accountable for any problems, viruses, spyware, annoyances that use this?
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
I believe this is related to XAML which is designed to take the nightmare out of windows UI coding.
Why do we have to have commentary in every news post?
Because this is an open forum, a discussion, not a journalistic media outlet where every "story" has to be vetted for signs of opinion.
Don't like the submitter's slant? Then you are perfectly free to rebut it with your own comment. But why would you expect someone to post a story without counterpoint, incidental links, or personal opinion, if every other visitor is afforded these options.
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
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
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.
HTAs get access to the local file system, as well as the ability to run compiled code that mere web pages don't have (even on the lowest security settings). They're basically normal Win32 applications that use HTML for the UI instead of normal widgets. It's not that different in concept from writing XUL applications using the Chrome engine (as opposed to viewing web pages using mozilla).
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
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.
Considering this:
the patent was filed May 20, 1999
it means this:
HTML Applications (HTAs) appeared with Internet Explorer 4.0, which was introduced in 1997, I believe. Long before the Mozilla project started.
must be referring to something other than the patent. If they distributed and sold their patented invention in the US two years before filing an application the patent would not be valid. So either the patent is on something else or the USPTO screwed up.