Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Bows to Eolas, Revamps IE
Tenacious Dee writes "The patent quarrel between Microsoft and Eolas takes a strange turn with an announcement from Redmond that the Internet Explorer browser will be modified to change the way ActiveX controls are handled. A Microsoft white paper details the behavior change."
I have no idea who Eolas is or what their patent dispute is with Microsoft. Some more info would have been great.
rooooar
They could perhaps just remove ActiveX entirely, insecure as it has proven to be.
This solution sounds like flashblock.
:)
I personally hope it is like that, because then content won't be doing dodgy stuff without consent.
Thank you Eolas
liqbase
ActiveX has been a huge problem with IE (you should know this already). I hope ActiveX is removed, rather than improved. It would reduce people's dependancy on the browser, perhaps then authors will consider cross platforms, or rather, the forced to do things that are cross platform.
Why UNIX?
Microsoft is doing this for a strategic reason - other browser vendors cannot hope to pay the patent licensing fees that Eolas will charge them. Additionally, it will be difficult for other browser vendors to change their software as quickly - remember, MS had a prototype version of an "Eolas compliant" browser at least last year.
Interesting move.
Who's the plucky sidekick now, Hercules!?!? Eolas takes care of business!
ActiveX should be just renamed as "FLUSH" --f***ing little useless security hole.
...but I don't have any strong opinions about it...
I might know what I'm talkin' about, but then again, this is Slashdot...
It sounds like this might break a few IE-based applications out there as well...
That's what should happen anyway, stupid patent or no stupid patent. You shouldn't be able to go to a web page and have it run whatever it wants to on your computer. This won't protect against tricking the human, but it does raise the bar slightly for classic phishing popups, viruses and spyware.
I'd say Microsoft wised up a little, except that there are probably other ways to get IE to run ActiveX without user intervention.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I think that's a great idea too. However I'm under impression there's a larger issue at stake which may affect more than just the IE ActiveX technology. Eolas stands to "adversely" affect other technologies with a court ruling in its favour. I'm not commenting on who is right or wrong. I don't have enough info. Maybe somebody else could comment futher on what else might be a stake besides Microsoft's ActiveX technology ...
I always though Eolas was gay. As dangerous as ActiveX is, that Microsoft has to change IE to match Eolas's fashion proves it.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
New versions of IE will require major changes in the way ActiveX is handled by websites. But then those websites' ActiveX components will be inexcessible by older versions of IE. So to upgrade their web browser, users of Windows 95/98/ME will be forced to buy XP...
Cha-ching!
It almost said "Microsoft blows Eolas"
If I understand Microsoft's writeup correctly, ActiveX controls will still load without user intervention, but will require an additional click to begin accepting user input the first time.
What if someone were to write an ActiveX control that goes around and does all the clicking for other controls on the same page?
Did Microsoft just get 0wned?
Easy, easy joke...
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I can't see a notable security benefit in this...
-- Sig down
I really hate MS in that sense. They are just stubborn money holders. I hate them not because they produce buggy software, and dictate every single user to use their software, but their ruining the internet where nobody can do anything about it. I still get spams and worms due to their vulnerable software, and I still encounter buggy web pages due to their incompatible browser's wrong impression on web developers. I wish everyone is more aware of this situation and change the way things go.
I recently saw someone at work trying to install the 7 CDs of Visual Studio
After that, I came to believe maybe ActiveX isn't so bad after all...
Is my enemy's enemy my friend? I don't think so. If I chastise Microsoft for patenting software (which I do), then I can hardly endorse it in anyone else. When what you dislike is the weapons themselves, then it hardly matters who is using them on who.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
But then I read this, it makes perfect sense that Microsoft would 'lose' a patent dispute.
New versions of IE will require major changes in the way ActiveX is handled by websites. But then those websites' ActiveX components will be inexcessible by older versions of IE. So to upgrade their web browser, users of Windows 95/98/ME will be forced to buy XP...
Cha-ching!
(see recent Autodesk comments for previous alleged incident of Porcine Aviation)
Tag lost or not installed.
MS must be holding a really bad grudge at this point to go through all this trouble rather than licensing the patent.
Why are so many people acting like this is somehow some great strike against ActiveX? Aside from the fact that ActiveX controls will still run (you just have to click an extra time to interact with their UI), keep in mind that this applies to ANYTHING loaded with APPLET, EMBED, or OBJECT tags. That includes Java applets for sure (which are protected by the sandbox). It very well might also include Flash, SVG, etc. As I understand it, this covers basically any high-interactivity component of any web page, on any platform, with any browser if affected. This is just Microsoft's solution to the problem. Other browsers will need to come up with solutions as well.
-James
All Geeks Hail the Riders of Redmond!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Has anybody noticed that for seeing the patent's application images you have to use a plugin? Will be the patent office get sued too? Curious ...
------- The last Sig. got fired.
Die, ActiveX, die!
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
The whole reason why MS bowed to this incredibly bad patent, was in their own interest.
It is obvious to everyone that Eolas doesn't have a legitamate patent. But MS couldn't afford to beat them in court. If MS won, then it would illegitamize most of MS's patent portfolio of similarly bad patents.
Just a thought.
How does IE plan to support XHTML 2.0 if the is going to require a click to be viewed?
For those less-informed about XHTML 2, will be replacing
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Microsoft and the W3C's decision to shut out the public on the Eolas patent reexam looks worse than ever, eh?
Hmm, so you can activate them using the accessability interface, that is probably what people will do (perhaps using the IE greasemonkey equivilent to automate this).
Anyway three cheers to the patent system...
No matter how much you hate the weapons, it's still pretty sweet to see their greatest proponent taste its own bitter medicine, though. ;)
They are parasites feeding off the innovation of other companies. Folks, this does not just affect ActiveX but every other plug-in technology and applets.
There really should be an RICO-like law to prevent people from forming companies whose sole revenue source is through patents. They should be required to be actively producing something in the area they have patents in. This is nothing more than corporate racketeering.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Their plan avoids patent infringement, yet at the same time rebrand the workaround as a security measure.
And one to rule them all, and in the darkness, bind them.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Now that Microsoft can't freely use the patented method, it isn't going to pay Eolas to use its patented method, it's going to work around it.
What does Eolas gain from its patent? Nothing.
What does the end user gain from this? Nothing, except hassle (OK, clicking a dialog box isn't much of a bother, but there isn't going to be the seemless integration of components that people have been used to).
Software patents are pathetic, especially pointless ones such as this.
If everybody agrees to create work-arounds - regardless of how much hassle it gives end-users - hopefully everybody will begin to loathe software patents, and will all join up to put an end to this pathetic excuse for the stifling of software progress and ease-of-use.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
And here I was, going through TFA to find a paragraph about IE getting tabs...
So if I am getting this right, Firefox et al won't require me to activate the UI controls even after i've installed a version of IE that does? Hopefully MS provides a way of returning said controls back to their old behavior instead of this new one.
Not to mention that in Europe, Microsoft no longer has control of programming whatever they please, they have to get the EU's governmental approval.
Blame the user, not the software.
spurn them for their individual USE of patents/enforcement/licensing terms.
if I patent software and publically license it as beerware ad infinitium, do you chastise me for patenting?
We have to live within the system we have for now.. so- patent does not mean MUST be evil.. it can work two ways.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
This isn't much of a problem to people that don't use IE._ patent_nullified/
It seems that this patent won't be a threat to other browsers. Here's why: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/05/eolas_web
There really should be an RICO-like law to prevent people from forming companies whose sole revenue source is through patents. They should be required to be actively producing something in the area they have patents in.
How would you define "actively producing"? For instance, ARM Ltd. designs CPU cores. These cores are patented and copyrighted. However, unlike Intel, ARM Ltd. doesn't itself own any fabrication plants; it instead licenses synthesizable ARM CPU cores to clients such as Nintendo for incorporation into larger designs. Would you deplore such a practice, or would you consider licensing know-how (in this case, the VHDL description of an ARM CPU core) alongside patents to count as "actively producing"?
Please explain what "frenge" means.
Thank you.
Taste of their own medicine? huh?
IIRC - unlike some other companies out there *cough* IBM *cough*, Microsoft isn't really a big software patent litigator.
I think most plug ins probalby violate the patent but Eolas has promised ont sue other browsers. Probalby because they can't get any money from opera or firefox.
What I really want to know is does this mean MS doesn't have to pay Eolas? Do they owe anything for years of infringement?
evil is as evil does
That's a strange post. Sometimes vile weapons are used against vile people. I think an intelligent person can see shades of grey and see the good that comes out of use of patents sometimes.
IN this case if it hurts MS then it's good, if it makes it harder to hack IE then that's even better.
evil is as evil does
My guess is that FOSS doesn't want to implement ActiveX/COM according to any (alleged) standard of The Open Group simply because of the catchup problem.
It may be standardized, but because it's a Microsoft-originated interface, it will always be at the mercy of exhancements and extensions coming out of Redmond.
And moving goalposts are a recipe for tears for those trying to stay in sync, always.
They probably would.
Why else explaining what they needed to change and how they did it ?
Eolas is a single person company. If Bill Gates could donate those billions of dollars that Eolas want to rob from Microsoft, tens of thousands of children in Africa could be saved from death! When it is a decision between the Eolas guy and an army of kids, the Eolas guy is a rounding error.
He is also an enemy of the Internetkind and those who support him are stupid. I think Gov. Arnold should shut down the state university that backs the Eolas facet guy and plough the campus and spread salt over it and Microsoft should relocate to Canada to punish the America which supports patent-conmen, like the Eolas facet guy.
I hope MS and Bill Gates will fight against such criminals. I think they should not be cowards. Japanese companies would never allow such loss of face thing, they would rather call the jakuza. After all, Eolas is a single person company, adjust headcount -1 and the problem is solved. Namu amida bucu! Banzai!
That's a strange post. Sometimes vile weapons are used against vile people. I think an intelligent person can see shades of grey and see the good that comes out of use of patents sometimes.
IN this case if it hurts MS then it's good, if it makes it harder to hack IE then that's even better.
Well if you can accept that I'm intelligent and that I simultaneously hold a different point of view to you, then I'll happily explain my position.
I think software patents are wrong. Leaving aside the unresolved issue of whether it is ethical to patent mathematical algorithms, the immediate effect of allowing software patents is to close the market and stifle innovation. Just to clarify the difference between copyright and patents, copyright allows you to protect how you did something. Patents allow you to say no-one else can try. Nor can anyone else do something that follows on or builds on the patented idea. Nor does the idea necessarily even need to have been acted upon by the patent holder. Patents turn creativity into a territory that you need to pay for. That's a brief summation of why I do not like patents in software. I've kept it brief because I really only want to illustrate that my opposition to these is not based on which company holds them, but from first principles. They are wrong.
You say that anything that hurts Microsoft is good, but my dislike of Microsoft is not an a priori value, that doesn't need to be defended. I dislike Microsoft because of their business practices (including software patents). If I see another company take up those same business practices, then it doesn't matter to me if they turn those practices on each other. The net effect is more patents, and more reinforcement and embedding of the patent system. Time will pass and the settlements and companies involved will become irrelevent history, but the system which I object to has been made stronger and more patents claimed.
To put it another way, the deer doesn't take satisfaction in seeing that there are now two lions fighting over who gets to eat it. And the deer, in this metaphor, by the way. represents mankinds creativity.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
the fact that the california taxpayers paid for the research, development and probably even to cost to apply for the patent. Then UC and this one guy go off and get patents. THIS FUCKING PATENT SHOULD BE OWNED BY THE CALIFONIA TAXPAYERS not one school and one fucking dude.... Can't you see the bigger picture here. It happens all the time, gov funded research with tax dollars, then they get to apply for a patent for the outcome of the research that we as taxpayers paid for. Now, if I'm not mistaken, THAT MEANS WERE'RE ALL GETTING SCREWED!!!!
Eolas: $0.00
Judge: And how much are sales of products using your technology now?
Eolas: $0.00
Judge: Guilty! Defendant, please work around the issues, and pay the plantif actual damages. Next case!
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I don't quite see how the GPL affects Firefox.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
Hmm, will all the craptive-X viruses now need to be modified to simulate an extra click?
Oh well, what the hell...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, you are correct. The law which forced Microsoft to do this is completely stupid. But Microsoft is a strong supporter of the law, because it might save their business model. They agree to it because they plan to use the exact same law to cripple their opponents.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
You suggest that any code that directly links with GPL code must be GPL'ed itself, but code that talks to a separate GPL process does not.
But what about weak-linking a GPL DLL? In that case the host app doesn't directly link with the DLL, but loads the DLL dynamically, explicitly queries for the proc address of each function, and calls the functions through the function pointers?
Or, how about a COM interface? Clearly, a non-GPL'ed app can talk to a GPL'ed app through a COM interface. Why not do the same thing with a COM DLL? A non-GPL'ed app should be able to CoCreateInstance and talk to an in-proc COM object that lives in a GPL'ed DLL just like it can with a COM object that lives in a separate process, shouldn't it? The host app doesn't link directly to the DLL and the communication with the DLL's COM object is no different than what is used to talk to a COM object of a separate process (as far as the host app is concerned; the COM interface in question is used in both cases, and COM provides the "messaging mechanism" in both cases).
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Firefox can offer them 10% of their gross browser price to pay Eolas. Maybe offer 15% if they won't budge.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
If IE lost ActiveX, it'd lose AJAX!!! Rather than reimplement HTTPRequest in a WC3 standard way, I'm sure they'd argue that 'til their heads are blue (red in Balmer's case) anyway.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
how come no one is condemning eolas behavior ? imagine if it was microsoft doing the huffing and puffing here ... don't mean to be a microsoft apologist, but geez people.
I don't think you realize something.
This patent does not hurt Microsoft. They can work around the patent and it won't cost them a dime beyond the development costs. Instead, this patent hurts users. It's not Microsoft that has to click an extra time to interact with an embedded object. It's the users.
And not just IE users.
The lawsuit may have been directed at Microsoft but every modern browser also infringes on the patent (including Firefox, Safari, and Opera). If Eolas desired (unlikely but possible), they could go after these other browser makers with similar lawsuits. And given that Microsoft, with its huge legal defense coffers, couldn't get the lawsuit dropped, do you really think the Mozilla Foundation could successfully defend against the lawsuit?
Why is it necessary to imbed media in browser windows anyway? Why can't webmasters just provide a link to the ram/smil file (or whatever) and let the media player handle it?
So, what's a reasonable royalty for a free-giveaway product, like IE?
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
That wasn't my real point, though. I hate software patents as much as the next guy (and yes, the next guy really hates their guts). I was just trying to point out that it's not as if there wasn't anything to take delight in. Even if the cause of this was bad and its consequences are worse, it's still delightful to see Microsoft being at the other end of a patent lawsuit, after all the pro-s/w-patent propaganda they've been spreading.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
But that in turn hurts Microsoft. If their products become less streamlined than they were, they are less attractive for users.
Why is that a good thing? Are you suggesting that Open Source software cannot compete? That it depends on Microsoft being hamstrung by litigation?
The better Microsoft's products are, the better for their users and the better for Open Source that must raise its game. Unless you want Microsoft's users to suffer (and that's a large number of people some of which are bound to be innocent), or unless you want Open Source software to suffer a lack of competition, then let Microsoft do their best. The more they improve their products, the more the standard of software rises for all of us.
So long as we can fight off the patent system, that is.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Now that Eolas has won, I'd love to see them to go to M$ and say, keep your money, we're going to license under GPL.
Aside from that though, I would also argue, that it would be good if Microsoft lost a lot of marketshare regardlessly of whether it is from open source competition or from litigation, or from anywhere else for that matter. This is because if Microsoft loses marketshare, they lose much of their power to strongarm users into their proprietary standards and file formats, which benefits all users, since it will make it easier to exchange information in general.
"Basically we'll be completely rewriting Internet Explorer from the ground up using the existing Mozilla Firefox source code. Then we will add in support for our new version of ActiveX. What this latest version of ActiveX does is cripple security, allowing a hacker to remotely execute code that will hijack your browser."
"I think software patents are wrong."
Me too.
"You say that anything that hurts Microsoft is good, but my dislike of Microsoft is not an a priori value, that doesn't need to be defended. "
Although there are lots of very valid reasons to dislike Ms my point has nothing to do with liking or disliking them. It has to do with the economy at large.
Monopolies are bad for capitalism and monopolies are bad for consumers. Ms is a monoploy and therefore is bad for both capitalism and consumers. Any act or weapon which harms Ms is good for capitalism and good for consumers. Furthermore Ms is a plague on both the IT industry and the open source movement so anything that harms Ms is good for both open source and the IT industry as a whole.
So despite the fact that both of us do not approve of patents they exist. If they are to exist I will cheer their use against a blight like Ms anytime it is used against them. It's very important for the IT industry, open source, consumers and capitalism that Ms be brought down to the level of other competitors. As a monopoly they are destructive force which is a blight on society.
evil is as evil does
You make a good point. Breaking up the market place into a larger number of providers would seem to bring benefits to us (everyone). That's not happened here, though. As far as I am aware Eolas does not produce a web browser, so we simply get a impaired version of what's already out there and nothing in return.
I have no wish to take away from your satisfaction in seeing Microsoft get beaten at their own game, though. Enjoy.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
When you click on a video clip or pdf file, IE automatically opens the file in either a player of pdf reader. Firefox, on the other hand, provides a couple of options: 1) open file either by the default device or one of your choosing, or 2) Save to disk. By doing this there isn't an automatic feature present but one that requires you to activate a device prior to viewing. To save in IE you have to right click the file to bring up the option to save to disk.
Yet. They only recently started getting into the position where they could.
The big high-tech corps are already doing it (Patent "Reform" of 2005)
They have managed to coin and disseminate so-called "patent troll" non-sense,
Heck, they even managed to brainwash an average clueless slashbot to be on their side...
In reality, IBM is the biggest patent troll of all.
Kill IBM first, and only then you can start talking about some tiny and harmless (for open-source and small business) outfits like Eolas...
"Monopolies are bad for capitalism and monopolies are bad for consumers."
Unfortunately, patents are in themselves monopolies, so...
Microsofts monopolistic practices damage the economy, but so do patents monopolistic nature, so either way the economy is damaged. It's a fight over who gets to screw us all, we all get to pay for it, as the resources spent on the fight are permanently lost to the wealth of the economy, and we all get to pay again for the above-market monopoly pricing, no matter who wins in this case.
And that, my friend, really, _really_ sucks.