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."
Aren't there a good number of JavaScript events that are handled through ActiveX on IE, for example onblur() and onclick()? I hope that I'm wrong or else I've got a lot of JS recoding to do, I hate JS.
They are lucky that there are so many vulnerabilities in IE that they need to release a patch every 1-2 months... without that, users could easily choose not to update.
Even then, they will have to be very careful. With some coverage in the general media, a lot of users could decide that it is better to diable windows update than to find their applications being crippled because of pointless quarrels in court.
Lastly, what I dont understand beyond the above question is... why arent Firefox, Opera, Safari etc... also affected?
Because the guy who owns the patent has stated that he is only going to sue microsoft.
Hey, this isn't a "pro-Microsoft" rant, but wouldn't it be just dandy if the courts declared "Heal yourselves!" to the myriad silly and frivolous lawsuitery that is drowning the domestic business environment?
Of course, you'd have LOTS of poor widdle lawyers out of business.
But hey, is that REALLY such a bad thing?
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
Additionally... can't ajax/dhtml count as "automatically playing content"? It would be pretty trivial to create a scrolling stock ticker in ajax/dhtml which automatically starts when the page loads.
:p
How do you stop this? Disable Javascript?
As noted elsewhere, ALL browser plug-in architectures are vulnerable (the reason TBL got involved in the first place). IE was just the first target because 1) they didn't license it (actually thumbed their noses at it), and 2) they have the largest market share.
Mozilla could be hit at any point Eolas feels like it.
Eolas expected Microsoft to finally roll over and eat it and take out an official license. Microsoft called the bluff, only Eolas is still holding the higher hand right now.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
So how exactly is this going to benifit Eolas in the long run? Seems like infringers don't mind coding around the patent. So then what? Hang the patent up on a wall framed?
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
If the reasoning was to exclude object creation from the source code, we still have an OBJECT statement, but it's inside of Javascript now. And court said that it makes the difference? WTF?!!
So, if I write a code that creates JPEG file, but saves it as a text file, with following renaming .TXT to .JPG, have I just avoided JPEG PATENT?
Is it ironic that I had to install a Quicktime plug-in to view the patent images in question at USPTO.gov
How is having javascript that runs clientside to fiddle with the DOM more maintainable than static HTML?
All I'm suggesting is that Microsoft could use this as an excuse to get developers to switch over to newer technologies that could bring in more money. Adobe is doing the same by withholding a Universal patch for Photoshop to get everyone to spend money upgrading to the next release. When you got companies depending on regular upgrades to maintain a revenue stream, they will use any excuse to shake down users for an expensive upgrade.
:P
As to why my crap keeps getting modded up, check out my Slashdot F.A.Q.
Understand that I am not laughing at the position Microsoft has put you in, but I find this incredibly ironic.
Here Microsoft daily flings FUD at the likes of Linux.
- "Linux|Open Source. You just don't know where it's been."
- "Sure, we'll indemnify OUR users."
- Ballmer: "Linux is stealing our IP. We might sue."
And yet, when push comes to shove who is getting screwed this time? Developers using MICROSOFT's products.
"At least that is how it works in civilised countries."
Where I can I find one of those?
Seriously, while I agree strongly with everything you say, I've also found that the world is full of managers who don't want to face reality, and blame their employees instead. "Find a better job" sounds nice, but I find PHBs everywhere I go. Much like gravity, one cannot escape it, only increase one's distance from it.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I just got out of a meeting about this. One of the software packages we install and support at work will be heavily impacted. The web version of the application is composed of three ActiveX controls and tends to spawn a lot of new windows for search results. On April 11th, it will cease to work in anything resembling a useable manner. We now have to update about 700 installation seats spread over 500 miles in the next 13 days. Even worse, the vendor won't have a fix until Monday (with 8 days left) and the fix will only be for the newest version of the software. Our clients will need to "upgrade or die". Some have software that is three versions old and will need a lot of retraining on the new system.