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?"

Comments

It doesn't bother me!

[RobertB-DC]

"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.

Re:It doesn't bother me!

[telecaster]

Seems to me, I might have "prior art" on this. The company that I wrote it for filed a patent in 2000 -- which was not accepted or pursued (they went out of business). The patent was filed and I should really try and dig up the documentation.

Basically, I used JavaScript/HTML and a little XML, I packaged it up in a resource DLL and delivered it via an IE application (a simple COM/ATL container). This allowed a web designer to "create" an interface in HTML using Dreamweaver, glue it together using JavaScipt and have it be completely contained within a payload of a resource DLL.

Well..

[NotAnotherReboot]

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.

Good to see

[randall_burns]

what Microsoft is gettin for their money

Your confusion

[FreeLinux]

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.

Prior art thread....

[ChangeOnInstall]

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?

Doesn't Turing have prior art?!

[bshuttleworth]

OK - Maybe I'm just a cynical b----rd, but at least half the patent refers to storing the HTML and then reading it back. I didn't realise they were hiring MUPPETS at the USPTO.

The patent basically covers: (from the claims)

1. Read the file, check it is HTML. If so, then turn in into a bunch of rendering instructions. Otherwise, don't. (seriously - that's 1(a)-(iv))
   
2. Claim 2 is claim 1 - nothing to see here.
   
3. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions for performing the method recited in claim 2.
   
4. See above, only for claim 1.
   
5. Identical to claim 1, more or less. Only this time its an "apparatus", not a "method". Whoopdy-freaking-do.
   
6. Claims 7-9: Continue based on what this computer or another computer says. Sometimes write data to a storage medium.
   

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.

"Chrome" isn't the technology

[mnemonic_]

From http://www.mozilla.org/xpfe/ConfigChromeSpec.html
"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/re ference/methods/showmodaldialog.asp
"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.

MS: "We don't lock you into Internet Explorer!"

[scdeimos]

From the article:

"One example of an HTML application at work in Windows is the "Add or Remove Programs" feature in the control panel."

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).

It does bother me!

[Tony-A]

It sounds too much like Microsoft now has a patent on viruses.

Re:Windows applications...

[jaygreybc]

I believe I have prior art. I have been working on the software described in the CNET article for about 2 and a half years. It's got an HTML equivalent of the start menu, task bar, system tray, title bar, close program button, add/remove programs, etc. If you'd like to see it please e-mail me at jsante@XXXiusb.edu minus the Xs. As of now it works over the internet, but when bundled properly (and I was planning on doing this), it can be used to do exactly what MS described. Incidentally, if anyone would like to help me out developing it, I am just now aquiring help. - Justin.