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
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.
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.
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.
Its biggest use?
Really fancy about pages.
I am the bastard of base minus 12! Turing was the ejaculate of my complete machine!
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Or maybe it just *feels* like ten years..
:)
Well, I've been at my current job 8 years, exclusively VB. Before that, it was a bit over a year doing mostly VB (along with a proprietary DOS-based language), and for a bit under a year before that I was hacking around in between C on the VAX. So maybe +/-10 years would have been more accurate?
But then, this is Slashdot, not a job interview. On an application, of course, I'd put 15 years VB experience and 5 years using Windows 2000. Since that's what they'd require.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
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.
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.
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"
In fairness, Microsoft has never, and has never shown any indication that it will, used its patent portfolio to squish competition. This may be because they have far more reliable methods at thier disposal, but they certainly do have the patent resources to make life really, really difficult for Mozilla and Linux developers (to say nothing of Samba), all of which they detest with a passion.
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.
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.
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>.
kinda sounds like this
RTFA, or even better, RTFP. The only way you'll get an HTA to do anything is with JavaScript (or VBScript, if you're sad enough). It has unrestricted access to the machine, just like any other application, but the UI is done in HTML, with JavaScript and (probably) COM components. It's got nothing to do with web browsers.
In fact, the reason the patent was awarded was because it's a novel application of technologies which the short-sighted think are only to do with web browsers.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
Foo: Well, I've been at my current job 8 years, exclusively VB.
Bar: How can you look at yourself in the mirror without vomiting?
Taping my paycheck stub above the soap dish helps enormously.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
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...
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.
It sounds too much like Microsoft now has a patent on viruses.
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'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
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.
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...
So where are we storing all this prior art, indexed by patent number, with leagally supportable dates?
The next big Open Source challenge will come from patents. We should start now, but where?
We need some friendly corporation with deep pockets to sponsor hosting a web-based database where open source types can submit papers / code / writeups / etc. to serve a "defensive prior art" for ridiculous patents.
The quality of the papers wouldn't necessarily have to be very high, and duplicates would be fine, I think. The big thing it needs is a very effective search engine, and a way to verify the submission dates for submitted works.
Then anytime a new questionable tech patent is issued, the community can search the "defensive prior art database" for anything useful, and then notify the patent office.
It would also be nice if the tech community could establish some kind of dialogue with the USPTO where we could feel confident that we could actually get these questionable patents reviewed and (possibly) thrown out.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
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.
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.
Too bad you couldn't wait any longer. I am still waiting for Windows to come out of beta. (Sorry, I couldn't resist!)
You are lucky though, my first Windows OS is Windows 98 (First Lousy Edition.) I got so pissed off with Windows I eventually switched to Linux. It's not anywhere near a perfect OS, but it gets the job done without pissing me off.
Oh great, I just pissed off the Windows zealots by saying Windows in unstable and pissed off the Linux zealots by saying Linux isn't perfect and not calling it GNU/Linux. And what about the OS/2 zealots? I didn't even mention OS/2! I am so screwed, and not in the fun way!
Losing faith in humanity one person at a time.
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!
No, the GPL does not protect against patents. Prior art does, but copyrights (which is what the GPL is) are trumped by patents.
The cake is a pie
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.
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" ;)
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)
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.