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."
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!
You can see the Patent Here.
Essentially, it's a total bullshit patent attempting to own the concept of having an interactive server/client style application embedded in a webpage.
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 ...
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!
Here's an article from 1995 (Yeah, pdf sucks, but it's very telling about what's going on)
It appears no browser will be safe. Safari, Firefox, Opera, KHTML, etc. The 1995 article discusses applets, not ActiveX. This is precedent setting, and could have consequences for all browser plugins.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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?
Easy, easy joke...
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
Thanks... don't know why that short description wasn't included in the blurb.
rooooar
Informative blurbs? you must be new here.
I can't see a notable security benefit in this...
-- Sig down
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
From the 1995 PDF article: "Eolas stands to become a big company quickly by deriving a licensing fee from any outfit that supplies or uses applets". Really. Check out what they say about themselves on their own web site: http://www.eolas.com/. Nothing here indicating a huge, rapidly growing, influential company. It appears they hold a handful of patents and a clever logo, but not much more. If they haven't been able to markedly influence browsers in a 10 year time span, why should this decision mark some significant change in the landscape? What, really has changed here other than Microsoft essentially avoiding another lawsuit by doing something they probably should have done anyway (in order to avoid the security flaws pointed out by other posters).
I'm a Linux user for like 5 years. But this does not prevent me from those junk mails, and hours telling people to correct their web pages so as to I can browse them.
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
Wouldn't browsers like Opera and KHTML be safe due to not being based in America?
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.
This is exactly what I was concerned about when I read the article...will java applets be affected? It sounds like they will be. I remember back a couple of years ago when this became news...all the information pointed to applets as well as active-x components.
Personally, and some of you might think this is stupid, I have often thought that it would be a great idea to create a seperate "browser" of sorts that is just for web based applications. I haven't thought it through as to how everything would work, but I believe it could be made to where it offered some fat-client functionality to web based applications. If it were to be created to where the browser and all of its components, controls, etc... were self contained and didn't rely on the OS stuff...I could possibly see a method to have fat-client functionality, remotely hosted code/data, thin client benefits, as well as being cross-OS compatible.
Now of course I don't think this would work for your everyday website that uses a misc. applet or active-x control for stuff...but generally they can get by without it.
I dunno...any thoughts?
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?
Probably like much longer.
Things like that are one of the MINOR speech failures you can come across. The one I hate the most at the moment - because I have to put up with it regularly - is one lecturer's habit to end everything with a rising inflection? So everything's a question?
No matter how much you hate the weapons, it's still pretty sweet to see their greatest proponent taste its own bitter medicine, though. ;)
Well, you could start by making the browser just another applet that runs alongside other applets in one or multiple VMs.. Reminds me of Sun's hotjava browser somehow...
But really, the Eolas patent should be dismissed as obvious, too bad the legal definition of obvious nowadays has little to do with the intentions of patent law, let alone with what the dictionary meaning of the word is.
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.
I'm not a native speaker as obviously. And if you understood what I mean, that's the all I need for English. If you're get annoyed people making mistakes in your pretty language, start a campaign for changing world domination plan of your country. What I wonder is how many language do you speak perfectly apart from English?
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"?
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
I think he meant, like, Canada, eh...
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
You act like "FOSS" has some sort of central brain or something. The truth is:
(A) Replicating DCOM is actually quite difficult, even if you have all the specs, as the WINE people have learned.
(B) NIH factors have created 9 incompatible copies of COM (XPCOM, KParts, Bonobo, etc) because nobody had any foresight in the matter.
(C) Outside of web browsers, Open Source developers actually don't give a fuck about full standards support.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
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.
Would you feel differently if it was the university was suing instead?
It's crappy, but think of it as the patent holder suing, they just sold their rights to sue to eolas.
Personally, a company that seems to serve no purpose but hold patents shouldn't be allowed to file suit. That's JMO of course.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
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...
If they want to do business in the USA, they can't avoid this issue. They use US mirrors to offer downloads. Also, Opera has deals with Motorola and Adobe, American companies... Though for mobile or embedded browsers, which Opera delivers to these companies, it might be easier to avoid this particular patent.
If you don't like having choices made for you, you should start making your own. - Neal Stephenson
(a) True
(b) Also true, to a certain extent.
(c) Bullshit. OpenDocument, SMTP, DNS (remember the Verisign debacle?), TCP/IP. We care about full standards support where information exchange is at issue. Sometimes it's just better to use steel studs instead of wood, even if the building codes mandate balsa wood.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
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...
When it comes to DNS, there is nothing in RFC 1034 nor RFC 1035 that says that Verisign can't have unregistered .com names point to a website they control. What Verisign did may be slimey, but please RTFS before claiming that Verisign broke the standard.
This is like the people who think that any DNS server that acts differently than BIND somehow breaks the standard.
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.
/me considers the irony of opening that pdf with Adobe's "plugin"....
Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it
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.
could probably get aorund this by appending, in memory, the external applet as an ascii encoded HTML tag of some sort, then it would no longer be an external script
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
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
> Please explain what "frenge" means.
> Thank you.
Please go and see the nearest brain surgeon for a transplant.
My brain managed to read it as "fringe", I am not sure why yours failed to do that. People make mistakes, typos happen. Big deal.
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
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.
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
OMG I hope Lynx is safe.
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.
Friend, it was hard to tell that you are an ESL speaker. I found it funny that someone presenting his proud Linux credentials spoke such sloppy English.
But if you're an ESL speaker, your English is functional. Chapeau!
Note, however, that you've picked up a virus in your English. It's interesting that the stupid "Like" virus has spread so much in English speech that even an ESL speaker has contracted it.
I speak two languages very well, and two others reasonably well.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
Ah, the annoying Interrogative Declaration. I have a colleague who is afflicted with this. It gets on my nerves so I have thought about the problem. I offer the following explanations:
:o)
- she is trying to communicate something but is unsure of herself
- she is unsure that her listener understands what she is trying to communicate
- she is trying to give advice in a polite manner; few people seem to know how to be polite ~in words~ anymore
The Like Virus infects hosts who have not been applied the Clear Thinking patch to their language libraries.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
"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.
Would you feel differently if it was the university was suing instead?
Not at all. I would feel differently if I would see some way in which this advances science and/or usefull inventions. For all I can tell, this kind of patent and the lawsuits that are based on it do the opposite, they hinder invention by causing companies and individuals to waste time and money on needless duplication of obvious things.