Slashdot Mirror
MS Gives 60-Day Deadline to Web Devs
capt turnpike writes "Since losing the patent case filed by Eolas, Microsoft has to change radically the way IE works with a lot of content, especially video and other ActiveX controls. eWEEK is reporting that Microsoft has gotten a one-time, 60-day extension in which developers and companies can try to re-engineer their Web pages and ads to work with the new regime. If devs don't make that deadline, users could face pages asking them to activate much of the content, plus ads."
There are other technologies that can plug the hole. For some applications, an Ajax page could provide the same level of interactivity as ActiveX. For stuff like Flash, they can have a plugin architecture more line Firefox's.
Bottom line is Microsoft will use this to "encourage" websites to move away from ActiveX and toward their next annoying proprietary technology.
Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
From the article, it seems that unless the websites are redesigned, users would have to basically click an "OK" button before ActiveX content would load. This includes any ActiveX controls, including ads. Obviously, websites that use ActiveX to display ads would want to remove the need for a user to "authorize" the display of the ad.
Each page a user visits will require them to click a button to activate the underlying ActiveX control. Wow. BFD. And that is just for those websites that haven't updated their content by June. Chaotic? Far from it.
Maybe I'm just out of it today, but what does this mean?
.NET for a hefty upgrade fee.
It means that users should find a better browser to use and developers should use a different technology for their web applications. Of course, the Microsoft solution would be to switch to IE7 and Visual Studio
Just goes to show Microsoft shouldn't copy other people's designs and make their own to prevent this kind of problem.
Tim Berners-Lee wrote the USPTO calling for this patent to be overturned due to prior art. A broad embedded content patent in 1998? Pu-lease. It's as bogus as a $3 bill.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Frankly after reading the article I havent got a clue where they came up with the ads part.
However, the gist I got from it is any embeded auto playing content ( heres their example list: Adobe's Reader and Flash, Apple's QuickTime Player, Microsoft's Windows Media Player, RealNetworks' RealPlayer and Sun's JVM ) will require activation before playing.
So for example, if you go to a page that has a stock ticker applet in it, instead of it automatically scrolling the current stock market stats, you will have to click it to start. However, if this is true, it would pretty much make Flash useless, as flash based GUIs would become irritating, flash based start pages wouldnt work right, etc...
Lastly, what I dont understand beyond the above question is... why arent Firefox, Opera, Safari etc... also affected?
No matter what you think of Microsoft, in the end, this is bad for the end user and the web in general. Insert misc active X jokes in your replys all you want, you would be suprised how much of the daily web actually depends on this stuff.
If ActiveX is screwed to the point that some heavy engineering is needed to get the websites back into normal operation, some developers might start moving towards open standards that the non-IE browsers support pretty well.
"Six months from now, there will be no difference to the Internet experience whatsoever," Wallent said, insisting that customers and developers have been very receptive to making the necessary content modifications.
:(
He's right you know, and it is really too bad...so sad.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Software patents AT ALL is a problem. I don't care if it was the first person who patented something like this suing, it's just not good for the end user. Suppose MS patented browser extensions, and then sued Firefox or Opera devs... And they probably will start doing stuff like this in light of this decision. I'm no MS fan, but I was on their side for this case. No good can come of this.
I thought one of microsoft's main anti-linux FUD points was that if you use M$ technologies that you'll be protected against patent troubles like this...
wtf happened?
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
It would include, as part of this re-engineering effort, a dialog that would appear, explaining to the user, why this is happening- pointing out the destructive nature of software patents. The effect is, that since someone else "owns" the ability to do things a certain way, you are required to do it differently, or fork out some cash. If enough people are made aware of just how sofware patents really do have an effect on what they can and cannot do, perhaps this could be the beginning of some grassroots support for much-needed change.
Where I'm seeing the biggest potential problem is here: Say a company hired somebody a few years ago to make them a brochure style website, and it had a flash intro, banner, etc. The company is used to seeing their website a certain way. When all of the sudden the website starts making them click 'OK' every time they go to their homepage they're going to get pissed off. They also aren't going to know why it's happening, or care, or switch browsers, or bitch about Eolas being a bullshit company, they are just going to call the person who made the site and have them fix it. I think there are going to be a lot of cases like this. Sure big companies are going to see this coming and change their code, and yes nerds will just use FireFox... but many small non-tech-savvy people with websites are going to be hit by this.
nothing
I guess for this \.user, I mean not only "ActiveX good riddance", but also "Internet Explorer good riddance". If their browser can't display standards-compliant code, most likely due to their shady business practices, then who cares?
They are saying, change the roads because we found out our car needs to be changed. That is unacceptable. My sites will not change, and if someone wants to view them, and it doesn't work in IE, they are free to use Firefox, Opera, Safari, etc. The fewer sites that require IE, the better, and maybe this will be the final straw that pushes at least one more developer away from the instability that is IE.
IE is not a bad browser, it just renders bad code, and takes a little longer on publishing security patches than other browser manufacturers. Because they have decided to go against Web Standards, I have no sympathy. If they were using Web Standards, I'd consider them, ActiveX, and other things IE displays as being something worth designing for.
Overall, I just don't use some of the more fine-tuned features of CSS/XHTML so it looks good in both fx and IE. But why should I care about IE users getting screwed, when they are getting screwed either way? I'm tired of hacking code so it "works" in IE.
As long as my sites are functional, meaning users get the same information, and as much the same experience as possible, I'm happy. I can 99.9% of the time achieve this with standards-compliance CSS. The other 0.1% of the time I just ignore IE. I know the bulk of users are IE users, but why should they change if we keep building an IE web?
"Now the trouble about trying to make yourself stupider than you really are is that you very often succeed." -C.S. Lewis
Wait, we can get rid of ActiveX, Flash and quicktime all in one shot?
So, umm, what's the downside again?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Generally, with what I have seen going on I would say they don't in general. On the other hand, patents do encourage people to come up clever alternatives to avoid having to pay money to the patent, that they might have otherwise infinged. Kind of ironic that creativity is not in the patents, but in the avoidence of patents.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Some people are saying it's going to change everything (flash, movies, some JS, etc) while others say that no one will notice the difference.
What's the difference, and what do developers have to do for there to be no difference?
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Unfortunately, this is a very bad thing for me.
.Net Developer who just joined a new company where I am in charge of updating and upgrading an existing environmental tracking program. However, all the charting options (over 300) were written with Steema's Tee Chart ActiveX control. Now, I could use their .Net version that they have released to fix an ypotential problems, but I have a demo scheduled for April 15th which I can already forsee is going to be a potential disaster.
I'm a
As this is an internal application, the use of ActiveX isn't too obnoxious, but since I have to deal with the existing code in the short-term, the "good riddance" atitude can only come from those who don't actually maintain old code.
Hagrin.com
ah yes, money. there is nothing to be gained from filing suit against mozilla. of course that's why my school district gets sued, but the teachers themselves rarely do.
this highlights a real problem with our IP laws and patents. while patents are good for things, for ideas they are horrible.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Just curious, but where/when did he say this? Wouldn't mind seeing a source for this claim as it would give some interesting insight into this fellow.
Are you literate? This isn't killing IE, this is a suit based on IP about plugins. Any browser that has plugins would be vulnerable to future suits, including your precious firefox and opera and konqueror and seamonkey or whatever else. It has nothing to do with standards compliance or the quality of that steaming piece of shit browser. And how are their "shady business practices" in any way related? This isn't about monopolies, or media/browser integration, it's a patent case against a specific browser. It's comments like yours that make slashdot so painful to read.
MacroHard - Boning you in a big way! (TM)
Wait, we can get rid of ActiveX, Flash and quicktime all in one shot? 64bit Linux does the trick for me.
Don't get so personal about your work. If the timescales can't be met because of external factors, tell your management. If you need more people on board because of external factors, tell your management. If goalposts need to be moved because of blah blah, blah blah. This is not your problem!
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
If any other browser had money that was targetable Eolas would have to go after them.
Maybe your senior devs and management might want to take a look at GPL code now. This and many other reasons make it attractive, no vendor lock in (don't you think bill gates and MS are rich enough now?), helps to avoid future patent disputes, etc. It's as good as time as any,and you have 60 days, besides the one demo. Avoid future FUBARs like this, or at least minimise the chances. MS has a clear track record of shady deals and monopolistic abusive tendencies. It is their *business model*. Why be associated with people like that? And something to throw at senior management-where is the fat check from MS to pay for all the stuff you have to change because they were thieves and lost in court and people got sucked into using their stolen code? Aren't they the straight suits dream business? Where's this idemnification action?
The old saying fits, "sleep with the dogs, wake up with fleas"
I'm no programming or computer genius, but please correct me if I'm wrong....
doesn't MS Update use Active X?
Wouldn't this make every update after the first one very obvious to the user and very frustrating?
Just a thought
This is not your problem!
That's funny, because the world I live in (the real world) it is my problem.That's like saying the Network Administrator shouldn't have to do anything because IBM no longer supports his token ring network.
No it's not like that at all. It's like saying it's not the Network Administrator's responsibility to resource the work required in light of support being dropped for Token Ring. It is his responsibility to provide advice to management and to provide technical resource in any projects which are initiated off the back of the event. It his not his place to protect the business from the effects of an external influence beyond his contractual duties. In IT we are not gods and cannot work magic, only long hours, and if we're not getting paid for them, why should we? And if we are, why are we complaining? And if we feel the balance between work hours and non-work hours is wrong, why did we accept our contract of employment which allows such abuse of employees? And if it isn't in the contract, we don't have to.
At least that is how it works in civilised countries.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Thanks. Of course young people with a clue but little experience feel they have to work above and beyond the call of duty to make an impression to management and get ahead. But that's the apprenticeship and not the real job. When you're good enough that your skills and knowledge make you competitive in the marketplace, then you're in the position of providing a contractual service. For the first few years in IT the balance is heavily in favour of the employee who gets to learn lots of stuff while being paid. Apprentices (an unofficial title, of course) are in no position to complain about getting opportunities to learn for money. The rewards come later, when you know what you're doing.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
There goes the case for preferring Windows over other OSes
;)
because of the superior IP idemnification offered by Microsoft.
I have heard/read before that Microsoft provides "protection"
for its users. I have heard/read before that this "protection"
is strong. IMHO claims about "protection" are empty without
including protection of the investment of your customers in
your proprietary technology - and websites using ActiveX
extensively are just such investment, and a huge one for some
companies, e.g. a few banks I know of.
So, what's the value of IP idemnification after the first major
test? Dubious, at best. What's the qualification of the claims
for "superiority of Windows because of better IP idemnificaction"?
FUD?
Ah, those pesky patents
Microsoft routinely and regularly pulls the rug out from under developers and end-users alike. What amazes me is that people continue to choose Microsoft, no matter how many times they get burned.
Say the parent undertakes a massive switch to the
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
it's not my coding problem! I really don't care who owns what patent with activeX! Thanks for telling me/informing me, but I honestly do not care at this point. I am more concerned over the further ramifications of software patents in general. I prefer a no patents, GPL world, if that was possible. The article is an example, it wouldn't be an article if the patents didn't exist. *That* is the problem, not the minutiae of this or that case. Real companies big and small are getting nailed now, and the deluge has hardly begin, it is only going to get worse here on out, because more and more ridiculous patents are being issued. It's an artificially created problem, brought about by short market cycle greedsters, IMO, I'll add.
I am pessimistic anything good will happen until the system gets so complex that it collapses, which I think it will sometime. With thousands of software patents going in yearly...it'll collapse, bound to, because it was nuts to begin with.. After collapse, when even the dood in the street notices how far it is gone because it is affecting his life, then maybe we might see some positive changes for the better. It might take another decade, but collapse it will, when it becomes almost impossible to write one line of code without infringing on someones "IP" and when coders need a full time lawyer sitting right next to them as they type. That's the direction it is heading now, and I see nothing that will stop that extrapolated outlook on the horizon now.
"IP" is in a MAJOR push in the WTO,including software patents and patents on such things as the necessities of life, food, etc, and by far the WTO calls the shots on international business now, it's not this government or that government, it's the large corporations that run the WTO in the background insisting on this sort of thing. Some nations will hold out and not adopt software patents for awhile, but faced with trade sanctions from the major players..they'll cave.