Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Bows to Eolas, Revamps IE

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the here-ya-go dept.

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."

64 of 237 comments (clear)

  1. Or... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They could perhaps just remove ActiveX entirely, insecure as it has proven to be.

    1. Re:Or... by BishopSRQ · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >>> They could perhaps just remove ActiveX entirely, insecure as it has proven to be. Yes, it's called .NET. This conversation makes me forget which year it is...it's 2001, right?

    2. Re:Or... by jZnat · · Score: 2

      I think a better approach would be to setting ActiveX to only be usable on a local Intranet and *.windowsupdate.microsoft.com. Maybe even force the usage of SSL to allow ActiveX to be used outside of the Intranet for a false sense of security.

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    3. Re:Or... by IntlHarvester · · Score: 5, Informative

      I knew someone would turn this into a flamefest about ActiveX.

      Allow me to make a technical point on slashdot -- ActiveX is nothing more than an interface standard. It's neither "secure" or "insecure" by itself. As it is used in IE it's no less secure than any other browser plugin mechanism, including those found in Firefox or Safari.

      The technology you dislike is not ActiveX -- it's called Internet Component Download. And while it still exists, it's pretty limited in XPSP2, and there's been some rumblings that it will be removed alltogether in Vista.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    4. Re:Or... by GIL_Dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OK, who the heck mod'ed the parent insightful? Sure, let's break everything! That'll work! While it might be a nice idea; the type of thing you throw around in a brain-storm session where "nothing is stupid", there is no way it is even close to possible to remove it now.

      The best that could be done is to change the behavior a bit each rev (Vista starts this by the way) to make it very hard to install ActiveX and eventually very hard to run it. Maybe in the OS after Blackcomb they can finally get rid of it.

    5. Re:Or... by spectral · · Score: 2, Informative

      The entire world? No. The entire windows operating system? pretty much. MFC extensively uses ActiveX/COM controls, whether you realize it or not. VB? ActiveX/COM drives half of the VB interfaces you see (unless it's vb.net, in which case it might only be 1/4th.) Have you ever embedded something in an office document? That's an ActiveX/COM control right there. (Their solution to this Eolas patent essentially causes it to treat ActiveX like a COM control behaves in Office: click to activate [though, without the offscreen/wmf render that Office uses, since this visual interface is still updateable, just not interactable].. this annoyance plagues me daily at work)

      Windows uses COM/OLE/ActiveX (and separating one from the other gets somewhat difficult at times) EXTENSIVELY. It's just like KDE and KParts. Yes, just remove the entire KParts foundation architecture, and see how well KDE works.

    6. Re:Or... by IntlHarvester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I knew someone would bite on that. ActiveX/COM actually was standardized by The Open Group (the UNIX people).

      Besides, it's documented, there's multiple implementations, there's no patents that people are aware of -- just because Your Favorite Platform doesn't use it doesn't make it any less of an open standard.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    7. Re:Or... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the technology I dislike is Active X itself.

      Why? It wasn't because I used Windows and was burned by the inherent insecurity of exposing the Window API to the internet.

      No, it was because I have experienced too many websites which have used Active X controls to implement a simple menu which could have been handled with simple HTML and javascript, and would have worked with my browser. Windows only technology doesn't belong in a web page. If it has to be Windows only, then just make it a regular Windows application with network connectivity.

  2. Extra click to interact with objects in pages. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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 :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Extra click to interact with objects in pages. by IntlHarvester · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, it's not like Flashblock. The article indicates that flash movies will play as they normally do. Only that if you want to click the "Stop" button, you will actually have to click it twice - once to activate the control and a second time to click the button. Dumbdumbdumbdumbdumb.

      Furthermore, the webdev can bypass this stupidity using some simple javascript to write out the tags.

      Note also that Firefox and other browsers will need to implement a similar change.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  3. about time by eneville · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?
  4. What this means for other browsers by drgroove · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:What this means for other browsers by PlayfullyClever · · Score: 4, Informative

      Will eolas go for other browsers?

      Probably Not! (Here's why).
      The general trick if you are going for maximum profit is to first sue a small company, and get a successful precident. It costs you less to fight the action against a smaller company, and improves your chances of getting the really big money later by giving you some already recorded findings that the court will generally accept and not let your opponent delay over. Taking on Opera (for example), first, and Microsoft second or later makes more sense if it's all about the cash.

      For a publicly traded company, this is even more plausable. Winning a small decision that seems to forshadow a bigger win can really drive up the price of stock without costing much at all to implement.

      The chief reason people are concerned that this lawsuit might be the first of a series is probably SCO's lawsuits. After all, SCO avoided going after smaller fry first and went for IBM. However: 1. That doesn't seem to be working too well, and other companies are at least as likely on observing it to avoid the strategy as imitate it. 2. There's no indicators that Eolas has been secretly coached in this strategy, backed by (say) the veiled resources of the powerful Lynx Megacorporation in an attempt to regain browser dominance for Eolas's hidden puppeteer.

      --
      Check out my website: Playfully Clever
    2. Re:What this means for other browsers by crazy+blade · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well then, Microsoft should patent their work-around so that others can't use it!


      Don't you just love software patents? :-P


      --
      To err is human, but to forgive is beyond the scope of the Operating System...
    3. Re:What this means for other browsers by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It seems to be the general consensus that Eolas wil not go after other browsers. This is not the issue.

      The problem is they can. The problem is that I have not seen anything that proves beyond reasonable doubt that they will not. What would be such proof? Offering any GPL product the royalty free use of the patent. Offering the royalty free use of the patent to any browser that is available for non-windows platforms and updated regularly. The lawyers can hash out the language, but until there is more than an empty promis, suing MS is just a publicity stunt to win the support of the ignorant masses.

      If Eolas intends to provide the patent to other browsers, they should do so in formal written manner. Until they do so, I can only assume that they are starting with MS for the big win, and then will pick everyone else off one by one.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    4. Re:What this means for other browsers by IntlHarvester · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Offering any GPL product the royalty free use of the patent. Offering the royalty free use of the patent to any browser that is available for non-windows platforms and updated regularly

      The GPL premble states this:

      We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

      Where, presumably, "everyone" includes Microsoft. Granting some GPL-specific, Firefox-specific, or non-Windows-specific patent grant surely violates this intent.

      Because of the GPL, Firefox will need to work-around the patent, even if Eolas is not specifically going after them.
      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    5. Re:What this means for other browsers by ciroknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I agree with you on the main point (Eolas doesn't have the nuts to go after other browsers), it's for a totally different reason.

      Take the second biggest browser competitor to Internet Explorer; Mozilla's Firefox. Firefox's developers are not (for the most part) incorporated, or in a lot of cases, even compensated for working on Firefox. So, when you go to sue, you can't sue Mozilla Firefox; you have to sue about a thousand individuals who released patches, or specifically pick off the ones that didn't modify the plugin code in any way. You're still looking at a law team just to find these invididuals, then you have to send them out, see what company they work for, and start legal proceedings with them.

      Now, what's one of the largest Firefox supporters right now? Google. Does Eolas really want to unleash Google on them? Do no evil doesn't cover corporate takeovers for patent reasonings, I fear. While some people at Eolas would praise the giant buying them, I'm sure the laid off individuals would be quite pissed about it.

      But, I only unleash one scenario, which just shows you how unlikely things would be that Eolas would dare. I could see them going after Apple, as they are a single corporate entity which is easier to attack, but if Apple plays the webcore defense, their up the same creek that they would be with Firefox; finding each individual, and suing them personally, or through the company that sponsored the development.

      Eolas just stuck Microsoft with the bill because it was so easy; Microsoft can't afford to go to war anymore, and these are bad times for the big M. The euro hounds want them, the Justice department grumbles here and there, Google's ganging up on them, Apple's out dazzling them, open source companies are shooting up and grabbing capital all over, and on top of all of this, they decide to enter an entire new market which hates new hardware competitors (the gaming business).

      Yes, it was opportunistic. But that's how you often have to be in the software world, and yes, that's how Microsoft rose to the top in the first place.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    6. Re:What this means for other browsers by tricorn · · Score: 2, Informative

      It would be licensed for everyone's free use - when used in a GPL program. All Microsoft would have to do would be to GPL Explorer.

      I agree, however, that this patent should never have been granted. The fact that Microsoft can work around it in this ridiculous manner shows how stupid the patent actually is. If what Microsoft is doing ISN'T patented, it should be "obvious" that requiring "activating" a control (and ONLY for the purpose of it being interactive), or that loading a control by referencing an "external script", is an unnecessary step, and any sane person would simply look at that and say "hey, let's cut out that step".

      Now, that's assuming that Microsoft's lawyers looked at the patent, and the court ruling, very VERY closely to figure out exactly what they had to disable in order to not fall under the patent. I almost think that the description of how they're working around the patent is a perfect indication of how broken the patent system currently is, and should be presented to Congress so they can fix it (along with the Blackberry patent and the harm that is doing). Patents are supposed to ENCOURAGE innovation, not stifle it (regardless of what you or I may think of ActiveX).

    7. Re:What this means for other browsers by IntlHarvester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know where you got the silly idea that distributed development can make mozilla.org or Apple magically immune from patent litigation. They are still distributing the software.

      No, wait, I do know where you got the idea -- it's the "Not Me!" defense plagiarized from Family Circle.

      > Does Eolas really want to unleash Google on them?

      You're aware they just successfully beat Microsoft, right?

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    8. Re:What this means for other browsers by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, Eolas will not probably go against another browser. That is not news, they alread claimed to go against Microsoft because M$ stoled their idea, M$ listened to the presentation and refused to license the patent. Then, M$ implemented the same idea.

      But this is not important. What you seem to be ignoring is that they are setling. The patent didn't went through the full process of being accepted on a court. If Eolas goes agaisnt someone else with this patent, they'll be on the same situation that if he never sued M$.

      Not to say that the best outcome would be the patent not surviving, but it wasn't accepted either, what is not bad.

      --
      Rethinking email
    9. Re:What this means for other browsers by Savantissimo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It wasn't easy - it's been in the courts for many years. Microsoft was offered a good deal early on but decided that they could get away with just using the patent without paying at all. They counted on their legal machine being able to crush tiny Eolas regardless of the merits of the case. Eolas is just one guy, Mike Doyle. He invented this technology legitimately, albeit about a month or two before other people. Nevertheless, if you read the patent carefully the details aren't really obvious. The patent and the legal issues around it are more complex than reports have indicated, and the alleged prior art differs in significant ways from the patent. Also, this isn't the only or most important thing Mike was the first to do - in the '80s he was the first person to create a networked hypertext system with the links stored in the content pages themselves rather than in a seperate central database. This was a much more fundamental technological and conceptual advance than the derivative implentation of hypertext by Tim Berners-Lee, HTML. So I look at this as a rare case of a lone innovator actually getting a shot at the big bucks that corporations take as their due. Software patents are the problem, not Eolas, and as long as the system is as it is, the best than one can hope is that actual inventors will see some royalties.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    10. Re:What this means for other browsers by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, when you go to sue, you can't sue Mozilla Firefox

      You sue the Mozilla Foundation. From the about page:

      "the Mozilla Foundation exists to provide organizational, legal, and financial support for the Mozilla open-source software project. The Foundation has been incorporated as a California not-for-profit corporation to ensure that the Mozilla project continues to exist beyond the participation of individual volunteers, to enable contributions of intellectual property and funds and to provide a vehicle for limiting legal exposure while participating in open-source software projects."

      The Mozilla Foundation is incorporated, and exists in part to handle this exact eventuality. If you want to go after Firefox, that's who you sue.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
  5. Eolas!? by vodkamattvt · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who's the plucky sidekick now, Hercules!?!? Eolas takes care of business!

  6. Re:Uninformative blurb by n0dalus · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  7. Power to the user? by elwin_windleaf · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Unforunately, I don't have a lot of ActiveX programming experience. But from a strictly web-browsing point of view, this sounds like it might give the user a lot more control over what happens during their visits to web sites.

    It sounds like this might break a few IE-based applications out there as well...

  8. Better security by lheal · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The paper will explain how the IE changes will be implemented and to warn developers that users won't be able to directly interact with Microsoft ActiveX controls loaded by the APPLET, EMBED or OBJECT elements without first activating the user interface with an extra mouse click.

    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.
    1. Re:Better security by webzone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you actually read the white paper, it is very very easy to bypass the "click to activate" protection using Javascript. Anyway, if you had read it, you'd also know that controls will continue to run and respond to script commands. The click is required to enable the user to interact with the control.

    2. Re:Better security by smallpaul · · Score: 4, Informative

      You're totally misunderstanding the proposal. It isn't that the ActiveX will cease automatically running. It is that after they are running, the user will need to "activate them" with a mouse click before working with them. If you want to stop a movie playing, you'd have to click once to activate it and again to stop it.

    3. Re:Better security by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You know what would be even better for Microsoft in this case? Implement X11 "focus-follows-mouse" within the browser client area. Then you avoid the extra click, but you're not using whatever mouse-click-passing problem Eolas is complaining about. Same result to end users, different coding, no patent problem.

      And yes, focus-follows-mouse is acceptable. First, it originated in X, whose developers would never patent it (and no one else can), and second, Windows has been supporting it since Win95 or so, enabled either by a registry change or by a TweakUI checkbox.

      Hmm...If that doesn't work, what about giving all embedded objects the focus, and using the Eolas method to transfer focus to the browser (e.g., when you click on a link)? Since the browser isn't a plugin, they can't complain...

  9. Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry by icepick72 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    just remove ActiveX entirely

    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 ...

  10. Re:Uninformative blurb by rainman_bc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. Workaround? by Teppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  12. People are still using IE? by Progman3K · · Score: 2, Funny

    Easy, easy joke...

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  13. Re:Uninformative blurb by eargang · · Score: 3, Funny

    Informative blurbs? you must be new here.

  14. Does this actually do anything? by ivoras · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Does this actually do anything? From the MS article: the ActiveX controls will STILL load and execute their code, it's only that their interface will be disabled until user clicks on it. The means almost all access to system calls, registry etc. will still work for AX controls.

    I can't see a notable security benefit in this...

    --
    -- Sig down
    1. Re:Does this actually do anything? by spideyct · · Score: 4, Informative

      What makes you think security benefit was one of the goals? Its about changing the current implementation so that it no longer violates a patent.

  15. It could be worse, it could be .NET by mangu · · Score: 4, Funny
    I hope ActiveX is removed, rather than improved. It would reduce people's dependancy on the browser


    I recently saw someone at work trying to install the 7 CDs of Visual Studio .NET


    After that, I came to believe maybe ActiveX isn't so bad after all...

  16. Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry by h4rm0ny · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.
  17. Seems to be a poor decision... by torokun · · Score: 4, Insightful


    MS must be holding a really bad grudge at this point to go through all this trouble rather than licensing the patent.

  18. Not just ActiveX by compupc1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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
  19. The Patent Office getting sued too? by Lolaine · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.
  20. Re:Uninformative blurb by LainTouko · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wouldn't browsers like Opera and KHTML be safe due to not being based in America?

  21. Microsft protecting their own patents by ACNiel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  22. XHTML 2? by rollercoaster375 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. Thank You Microsoft, W3C by theodp · · Score: 2, Informative

    Microsoft and the W3C's decision to shut out the public on the Eolas patent reexam looks worse than ever, eh?

  25. Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry by Dolda2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No matter how much you hate the weapons, it's still pretty sweet to see their greatest proponent taste its own bitter medicine, though. ;)

  26. EOLAS = Patent farm by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Insightful
    These guys don't have any actual products but rather some vague patents that should never have been granted given prior art.

    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.
    1. Re:EOLAS = Patent farm by Savantissimo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are totally off base. see my earlier post: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170066&cid =14174958

      The patent is very, very specific and Mike Doyle actually built the software covered by the patent before filing the patent. His employer, a university, holds the patent for his invention. He then founded Eolas and licensed the patent back from his employer. Also, this is not the only big thing Mike Doyle invented, just the only one he tried to get paid for. Your idea of ending patents for inventors who don't have the ability to manufacture their inventions themselves is something the big companies would push hard for if there were any chance of it happening.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  27. Fine example of software patents worthlessness by OwlWhacker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  28. then don't spurn microsoft for patents, by way2trivial · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:then don't spurn microsoft for patents, by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Interesting


      if I patent software and publically license it as beerware ad infinitium, do you chastise me for patenting?

      I'd say your heart was in the right place, but I don't believe that allowing the patenting of software or mathematical algorithms is in the best interests of mankind, a nation, or even in the long-run, to the benefit of individuals. Do not confuse copyright - this is how I did it - with patents - only I am allowed to achieve something. At least that is what they mean when we're talking about software. So I'm afraid, yes - I would disapprove of even your generous use of the patent system, because by joining the system, you strengthen it, whatever you intentions. Fighting over territory doesn't return it to the commons.

      I believe there would be a way out for you, in that you could simply publicly disclose your ideas. No need to join the patent system, but you've still enriched humanity.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  29. Get out of that cave on mars by Aqws · · Score: 2, Informative

    This isn't much of a problem to people that don't use IE.
    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_ patent_nullified/

    1. Re:Get out of that cave on mars by colin_s_guthrie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So if The Reg is correct, why is MS changing IE? If the patent is nullified, then it's nullified for everyone - MS included..... Perhaps it was unnullified?

  30. Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry by xiaomonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  31. Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry by killjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  32. Re:Standards with moving goalposts by IntlHarvester · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  33. Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful


    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.
  34. Re:Uninformative blurb by Rits · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
  35. Re:Standards with moving goalposts by PitaBred · · Score: 2, Insightful

    (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.
  36. Re:Uninformative blurb by stuuf · · Score: 2, Insightful

    /me considers the irony of opening that pdf with Adobe's "plugin"....

    --

    Everyone is born right-handed; only the greatest overcome it

  37. Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Insightful


    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.
  38. Re:Uninformative blurb by Crusty+Cracker · · Score: 2, Funny

    OMG I hope Lynx is safe.

  39. Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry by h4rm0ny · · Score: 2, Interesting


    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.