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
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!
Its biggest use?
Really fancy about pages.
Can we now hold them accountable for any problems, viruses, spyware, annoyances that use this?
30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
Score:5, Troll
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 believe this is related to XAML which is designed to take the nightmare out of windows UI coding.
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.
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.
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
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.
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>.
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.
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).
'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.
Remember that, when they applied for the patent, Sun was trying to break their monopoly on OSes by creating, with Java and Javascript, a platform-independent secure sandbox within the web browser for running web-distributed mini-apps. Letting users build Windows-only apps that could escape the sandbox and use OS-dependent features (but only on Windows platforms) would seem like a plus.
Of course the patent would block others from doing the same on OTHER proprietary OSes. So web site designers could build portable content, Windows-only content, but not Other-OS-only content. This would help prevent another OS from displacing them as the monopolist and then using their own tricks on them to keep them out of the catbird seat.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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 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.