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."

Comments

Or...

[Eli Gottlieb]

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

Re:Or...

[IntlHarvester]

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.

Re:Or...

[IntlHarvester]

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.

Re:Or...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Extra click to interact with objects in pages.

[LiquidCoooled]

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 :)

Re:Extra click to interact with objects in pages.

[IntlHarvester]

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.

about time

[eneville]

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.

What this means for other browsers

[drgroove]

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.

Re:What this means for other browsers

[PlayfullyClever]

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.

Re:What this means for other browsers

[crazy blade]

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

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

Re:What this means for other browsers

[fermion]

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.

Re:What this means for other browsers

[IntlHarvester]

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.

Re:What this means for other browsers

[ciroknight]

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.

Re:What this means for other browsers

[Savantissimo]

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.

Eolas!?

[vodkamattvt]

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

Re:Uninformative blurb

[n0dalus]

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.

Better security

[lheal]

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.

Re:Better security

[smallpaul]

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.

Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry

[icepick72]

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 ...

Re:Uninformative blurb

[rainman_bc]

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.

Workaround?

[Teppy]

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?

Re:Uninformative blurb

[eargang]

Informative blurbs? you must be new here.

Does this actually do anything?

[ivoras]

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...

Re:Does this actually do anything?

[spideyct]

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.

It could be worse, it could be .NET

[mangu]

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...

Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Seems to be a poor decision...

[torokun]

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

Not just ActiveX

[compupc1]

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.

Re:Uninformative blurb

[LainTouko]

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

Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry

[Dolda2000]

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

then don't spurn microsoft for patents,

[way2trivial]

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.

Re:then don't spurn microsoft for patents,

[h4rm0ny]

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.

Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry

[xiaomonkey]

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.

Re:Standards with moving goalposts

[IntlHarvester]

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.

Re:EOLAS = Patent farm

[Savantissimo]

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.