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."
You mean ActiveX websites will break? . . . And that's a *bad* thing?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
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.
So, how does(n't) this all affect Firefox, Mozilla, Opera, and other sorts of browsers? At the technological, legal, and market-share levels?
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
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.
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.
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.
The sweet irony of it al
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Users will be forced to click once before punching the monkey.
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.
It looks to me like this change has next to no downsides. This is what's only available as an extention (Flashblock) in Mozilla/Firefox, and then only for Flash. This change will make IE more usable, not less.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
For all those .\ users who say "ActiveX good riddance" - yes, EXCEPT that QuickTime, Flash, and all the other IE plugins are guess way - ActiveX plugins.
So that means every page with any usage of plugins will be broken.
"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.
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.
As of 2003 (when Eolas won judgement against M$), Mozilla hadn't attempted to reach any agreement. Their post on the subject says to simply keep an eye out and be ready to change if we have to change.
Wikipedia currently is still saying "Other browsers such as Opera, Mozilla Firefox and Apple's Safari might have to implement a similar change to avoid infringement, or to license Eolas' patent".
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
While they have the hood open, it'd be nice if apps using SAPI didn't require users to diddle with the default security settings to make it go. (Not that I have any important apps that use it. ;)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
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.
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...
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?
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.
W00t! AdBlock for IE!
(Yes, I know there's plenty of ad-blocking software for IE)
Flash is already irritating, and flash based start pages don't always work right. If anything, having to click to activate flash content will make it less irritating. There's even a firefox plugin devoted to this very task.
Badass Resumes
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
the funny part is is ms just releases a patch that lets web designers use js to click the button for people.. it is quick and elegent and good god a security nightmare.. Still it would be funny
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Because this guy (eolas) didnt sue them and isnt going too. It seems that he had(s) a beef with microsoft, never gave them an option to pay him the billions to drop the suit, and took them to court for an injunction rather than "damages" ....
Apple has a helpful page detailing what to do in order to get your pages to continue working as usual with IE.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
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.
...hell...wait a minute, I have to click on *this*?
It. Is. Just. Bloody. Nonsense. Period.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
The eWeek article doesn't do a very good job of highlighting that.
You would think so, but countless cases of "Just click ok to get it off the screen" say otherwise. If IE starts requiring people to perform an additional step to authorize the crap that they want, and they hear some other browser does not, they may well decide to pack up and head to less mentally demanding pastures.
Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
Before everybody says "good riddance," note that the upcoming IE update will simply mean you have to click first to enable interaction with the embedded object. This means that things like Flash ads and streaming video will still run automatically -- a user would need to click on them to be able to interact with them, i.e. find the tiny little "mute" or "close" button to make them go away. This page previews the update and shows exactly how it will change things.
In other news, Amazon has announced it has applied for a technology that will auto-click in a web browser based on configurable trigger patterns.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
*WHAP! WHAP! WHAP!*
Not so active now. Are ya' sunshine?
*KABLAM!*
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
what was the prior art?
According to Cringley years ago (who was talking about this back in '99) the patent was filed (and a demonstration given to Sun and Netscape separately, based on the opensource Mosaic codebase) *before* Java was actually released as part of Netscape 2.0.
Meaning they really do seem to be first because they predated the first embedded app of Java in Netscape.
"But remember, most lynch mobs aren't this nice." (H.Simpson)
-- Joe
will it be a forced update that you cannot refuse?
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
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
How is this different, again?
For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
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.
No good can come of this.
Not true. It could go a long way towards patent reform, or better yet, complete abolishment. I want to see these kind of things continue to either force a resolution, or else take us back to the stone age. Anything that demonstrates the folly of the concept of intellectual property is a good thing. I say, Bring it on.
What?
I'll byte.
indemnify
v. to guarantee against any loss which another might suffer. Example: two parties settle a dispute over a contract, and one of them may agree to pay any claims which may arise from the contract, holding the other harmless.
You see, if you understood the word, you would realize that the end user is not suffering a loss. They are losing some convenience.
Microsoft is just the first case. All other browsers will be required to change their way of business as well. The precedent has been set. There is nothing 'indemnifying" Firefox or Opera.
The one that cracks me up is "its permissions-based scheme which is dramatically more hackable than Java's sandbox-based scheme" - lol - never really read about computers before I take it? The patent does not only affect activeX it also affects Java, since last time I looked, Java was a plug-in. Both are affected by the ruling. That baseless statement of false facts (about hackable) does not even apply.
"Ajax page could provide the same level of interactivity as ActiveX" - please - do you have any idea what you are talking about? I didn't think so. Ajax can help avoid postbacks to the server. ActiveX controls are code that has full access to the Win32 stack. Show me an Ajax control^h^h^h^h^h^h^hscript that does what the ActiveX performance Monitor control does.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
Microsoft isn't going to magically intercept every HTTP transaction and see if it's somebody requesting an ActiveX control, though. Won't this only affect people who apply the "security" update (actually a "keep MS from getting sued" update) that they're going to roll out? What percent of users apply security updates anyways?
All's true that is mistrusted
You see, if you understood the word, you would realize that the end user is not suffering a loss. They are losing some convenience.
So losing convenience is not a loss? That is, there is no semantic relation between the words 'losing' and 'loss'?
Fucktard.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
According to Cringley years ago (who was talking about this back in '99) the patent was filed (and a demonstration given to Sun and Netscape separately, based on the opensource Mosaic codebase) *before* Java was actually released as part of Netscape 2.0.
9 5/
Meaning they really do seem to be first because they predated the first embedded app of Java in Netscape
Some versions of Mosaic supported embedded components in 1994. There were all kinds of papers on how to best do it, but the "plugins" concept was widespread. See, e.g.:
http://maury.bionetlab.org/webrouser/papers/spie-
rage, rage against the dying of the light
You people amuse me sometimes. What would the response be if this was a patent infringement case against Firefox or Apple? /. geeks would be picketing in the streets.
And for those of you who would like to see all plugins blocked, why don't you just use Netscape 1 or, better yet, Mosaic? No plugins, no popups.
'cause The Rest does not recognise these silly patents in the first place.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
There is an optional update at Windows Update that says something to the effect of "This update changes the way Internet Explorer handles ActiveX ... blah blah blah".
I figure they'll move it from optional to required when the deadline is reached.
I've already installed the update so I can get my sites ready.
ActiveX controls cause a little dialog box to appear that makes you hit either "Ok" or "Yes" in order to use an ActiveX control. Honestly this is fairly rare occurance when browsing most sites.
The big thing that is going to trip people up are flash movies. All flash movies now have a border around them when you mouse over them with a tooltip that says "click to activate and use this control".
The good news is that non-interactive flash movies work regardless of whether or not you activate the controls. Not sure why that is, but that has been my expeience. The bad news is that flash menus (unfortunately some clients want that junk) no longer work until you click on the flash movie to activate the control. This also goes for interactive flash movies that track mouse movement and whatnot.
The workaround is to write the flash movie using javascript.
you can do something simple like document.write() each line of the object tag or use something like UFO (http://osflash.org/ufo) that is XHTML compliant.
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
IT would be much better if large companies could just take whatever technlogy they want, no matter who created it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
While I'm link-whoring, here's some more stuff if you want insight on the guy: Doyle's homepage, another eWeek interview "Browser Victory Shouldn't Alter HTML", and an article from I, Cringely that was one of the first media pieces on the whole issue. More can be found on Google and Wikipedia, of course.
Regardless of Doyle's intentions, I'm against the whole software and business-method patenting regimes. It's been said many times before, but patenting software or business-methods is as ludicrous as patenting story ideas in literature.
These proposed changes have extremely little to do with IE and even less (nothing) to do with .NET. I know you guys are very proud of your internet broswers but how does crap like this get modded up?
So the ads come blaring with no way to turn them off. What else is new on IE and the "dominant" platform? Let's read the article.
Michael Wallent, general manager of the Microsoft Windows Client Platform, confirmed that the changes will be included in a cumulative IE security update that's on tap to ship on April 11 ...
A "security update" that enforces a patent decision by removing functionality. Priceless wording!
So, they can give you more time if they wanted to but don't. Typical.
I'm wondering too how IE will handle clicking on "APPLET, EMBED or OBJECT" Will the control open in a new window? Will it open in the window clicked. Does this leave a movie viewer looking at a button instead of their content if they want to change the volume. How will they know which broken object to press?
On April 12, the internet will suck for many people, but especially all those poor suckers who trusted M$ to serve their content. Next time, use a real standard. Microsoft is reaping what it deserves.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
That's not going to impact too many commercial sites since most only use ActiveX for advertising, much of which is probably being blocked by pop-up blockers and the like anyway. Where it is going to have a much larger impact is on all of those internal web enabled applications companies have deployed internally, often with the entire core legacy codebase simply wrapped up in an ActiveX control. It's going to be a rough few months out there in SMEs with homebrewed apps that use ActiveX controls and a large amount of webpage interaction. I'll bet many of them are not even aware of this issue yet, and their developers are going to have a mad scramble to fix code that they may not even have originally written. Hopefully some of them are going to be bitten so badly they see the light and stop coding things in such a browser specific manner in future, but somehow I doubt it.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
.net isn't active-x now. You'll see localized "CLR" engine stuff running in a sandbox just like the java JVM. MS would LOVE to go there, and blaming someone else for the forced transition is not a problem for them.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
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"
This seems to be where Microsoft gets around the patent by requiring a click to start interactivity. What kills me is that, had the developers of MediaMosaic made a slightly different design decision to enable Embedded-View Editing by default, we wouldn't have this problem. Clearly, MediaMosaic had the concept of in-place interactivity, but one minute design decision blocks the rest of us from taking that next logical step. Shouldn't patents be novel and non-obvious? Seems glaringly obvious to me. The patent examiner states that all points of the patent must be declared in or suggested by prior art. The prior art references include static items that render automatically (without the user first clicking to initiate rendering) and interactive items that require a click. If a static item can start without a click, so can a dynamic item. I disagree with the examiner that the prior art does not suggest the possibility of an automatically interactive dynamic item. Don't you?
A simple design decision enables this patent. Does that not make the patent itself seem untenable? Here stands one more reason why software patents are bad.
Am I the only one who finds it fitting that my browser shows the following where the advertisments should be in TFA?
Browser Error
Your Browser sent a malformed request. You may need to configure your browser to use proxies, or you may need to change the port that your webserver is using.
Video Production Support
What bad would happen then? Hm?
Startup isn't there for patents, they are here to offer us new, exciting products, aren't they? Or I got it completely wrong?
Ohhh, big company will steal your idea, will *compete* with you, will drive you out of market (yeah, dumping is allowed in when you are monopoly), etc.
Patents is THEORETICALLY "could-be-good" idea (not excelent), and even then only on paper. In reality it is nightmare, it doesn't work. It is like communism - it is nice to have everyone everything equally but it simply doesn't fit. How HARD is to understand that?
They are lot of safe guards for new inventors and startups, and believe me, patents are worst part of them. Why then patents resist to be gone? Because there are "vampire" industry who is based on these laws and principles. They will tell everything society need to hear just to keep machine running.
It is clearlly bullshit. Because tell me ANY invention which would be perfectly original and patent would be rightous cause for inventor. Even electric light was developed by three different people in different countries! And even in times of Edison, there was notion that patents are "failing to achieve their goals".
Inventions don't need protection. Heck, even inventors don't. It is commercial applications who would "theoretically" give some guarantees about income. And even in those situations for such companies who usually can't do the shit in business.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
It's spelled "/."
Sheesh
XKCD:Xeric Knowledge Comically Dispen
How can in one instance be:
MS Gives 60-Day Deadline to Web Devs
And the next few lines it is:
Microsoft has gotten a one-time, 60-day extension in which developers and companies can try to re-engineer their Web pages
See the headline is to draw our attention because it is the big, bad MS...but according to the body it is really the gov't was granting MS a chance to modify websites...MS is not giving a deadline to Web Devs, the courts are.... Bad journalism.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
If Microsoft changes the way ActiveX controls work, maybe it can help cut down on the malware problems? Can malware writers adapt quick enough to the new ActiveX method of controls? Wouldn't it be funny if Gator and other malware breaks down and cannot run?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Hey, you found my $3 bill! (Please may I have it back?)
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?
Wow, you pick out the tiniest thing from the entire post and your conclusion is "Fucktard"... Seriously, the reference is that the end user is not suffering a loss of usability, nor a financial loss. They will simply endure a minor inconvenience. Grow up a little and get over yourself, bud. Let the adults talk.
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
Attacks, Crashes, Trojans, Infections, Vulnerabilities, and EXploits.
(Why didn't I think of it earlier?)
Is it ironic that I had to install a Quicktime plug-in to view the patent images in question at USPTO.gov
This guy sounds like a complete shill. They want $521 million PLUS interest for the license. They say their terms are reasonable, and that people shouldn't have to change their code. However, they ask for an insane amount of money for what is essentially: "Programs can call other programs." They say they are talking to others about licensings, but are very vague about it. I imagine Opera was a target, perhaps going free was a way around them paying money to Eolas? I could see where the license for this patent would be more than they used to charge for their browser.
-]Phreak Out[-
Which is really why if Dr. Doyle were on fire I wouldn't bother to pee on him to put it out.
Hey, lets stick it to M$ by fucking the endusers with a joke of a patent!
Great idea!
By this time next year it will be a non-issue which will have cost the web in whole a few billion dollars in retrofitting. Remember that when the IT budget next year is short and the average joe programmer gets laid off to some outsourcing group to save a few bucks.
Well, Doc, you made your statement (and a cool $500m), and you're going to un-employ a bunch of programmers for it.
...what does Eolas gain from this??
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
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.
Although Internet Explorer is the only browser affected by this specific ruling, Mozilla, Opera and Safari are all guilty of infringing on the same patent. At any time Eolas could have a change of heart and decide to target your browser of choice. If Microsoft's lawyers couldn't get the case thrown out, what chance does a free browser have?
If that ever happens, are you still going to say, "Well, my site doesn't work in IE, Opera or Firefox, but it's not my problem. My users are free to use Lynx."
So... I'm using ASPEncrypt (http://www.aspencrypt.com/) to sign an XML with a client's certificate... this product uses a ActiveX, but it doens't have an interface. Anyone knows if there's a way I can test the result when the update is installed?
:: Andrea
Anime Wallpapers
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.
this is freaking retarded, how can you patent plugins on a browser?!!!?!?!
am i missing something?
im going to patent text boxes on webpages, slashdot you have to pay me.. oh nevermind someone else already patented that.. damn it
these patent cases are going to continue ruining and stifling software development until the system is drastically changed
there should be ZERO software patents, just copyrights
its like trying to build a freeway, but every few feet some little jerk stands in the way, so you either have to build around him or pay him to let you continue.. that is one ugly road that takes forever to build and never gets to where you want to go
More accurately, Eolas went to the biggest fish in the pond and asked them to pay up a licensing fee or they would be sued.
SCO used a similar tactic and ultimately lost.
Karma means nothing to me, so suck it...
In related news, web developers worldwide have given notice to Microsoft to fix Internet Explorer to actually conform to the standards it purports to support. Any web browser that is not fixed in 60 days will no longer work with many web sites.
Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
Thats screwed up, they are now overloading the use of security patches because that is the only way people automatically let patches through.
great, that means Billions of dollars companies are going to have to spend on their contractors/employees
they lied.
Hey, lets stick it to M$ by fucking the endusers with a joke of a patent!
By this time next year it will be a non-issue which will have cost the web in whole a few billion dollars in retrofitting.
Well that's too bad. Maybe these companies should have been smart enough to not rely on proprietary MS technologies, and stuck with real standards instead. Anyone screwed by this action had it coming because of their own dumb choices.
Meanwhile, everyone who intelligently avoided ActiveX and coded their website using JavaScript, Java, etc. won't have any problems. Further, everyone using an open-source browser won't have any problems.
Did you even read the article?
This is not an "active x" problem, its a plug-in problem, that includes java. So, anyone who coded their website using any standard is hit with this change.
Further, everyone using an open-source browser won't have any problems.
Lets talk about real business users and not hobbyists. Mozilla is a nice toy and all, and in a few years might be as good as Netscape was.
...we developers as a community, just stop coding to support internet explorer, and make this known to our users.
United we stand, divided we fall.
I personally, tell all of my development clients, and tag my sites stating that I do not code with IE support as my primary focus.
Sorry if that makes me a prick / cost me business, but personally I can accept that cost for not supporting the borg collective.
It has to start somewhere.
Sounds like MS is trying to see just how much weight it has to throw around. Just think. If this works out as it probably will, MS will have just brought the Internet community to its knees. I'm not complaining about the loss of ActiveX. I'm just saying, if it happens, MS will have demonstrated its massive amount of technological bullying power. And, I for one, would prefer people wake up and switch to a real browser, like Firefox, Netscape, or even Opera(Never underestimate the little guys). MS must have a few screws loose to try something like this. I think Bill's money is going to his head. That or he knows just how much power MS has.
"In a world that exists without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
No, it's not a good reason. It's bad one.
I'm against software patent insanity. This is about software patent insanity. Forcing Microsoft to dump this feature because of a crazy patente is STUPID. It shouldn't happen, even if it's Microsoft. How is this going to affect firefox and XUL?
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
IE7 already has what MS is going to apply to earlier versions. It allows the movie to play, however, in order to use any controls inside the movie (pause, play, etc. etc.) you are required to click once first or hold down the shift key (or some other button) while clicking or click it first...
http://chickencamels.poemofquotes.com/
IIRC, something else important is due on April 15th. I can't quite remember but I'm sure it has nothing to do with the IRS.
"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.
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.
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.
People wouldn't read it anyway...
Rethinking email
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.
The whole 'click to activate' thing can be bypassed by using Javascript to embed your plugin/activex content.
It's really easy, and there's a number of solutions for embedding Flash and Quicktime content. (And these methods make it much easier to embed the content and detect the presence of the plugin anyway. Many people are already using it, like youtube.com for example.
Enjoy this while you can!
One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there
The thing that's amusing about this is that since the USPTO didn't toss this patent out for prior art, their own patent electronic-filing system is going to be severely hindered. For registered patent filers, the authentication is done in a java applet. Is the only "saving grace" that it's not some graphical media type thing? I'd also argue that if you click a link to go to a page, that constitutes activating any content that's on it.
"We're in discussions with major players in the Linux world and are working on a plan to resolve the '906 patent issue with the entire Linux community," Eolas Founder Michael Doyle told eWEEK.com, referring in short hand to the patent's full number. "The solution will be supportive of the open-source community."
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1437469,00.as p
I haven't heard anything more on this in the intervening time.
Java applets run through a browser plugin champ. They are affected too.
Thanks for playing.
Luckily, according to various sources here, the Eolas people have no intentions of suing anyone except MS, for whatever reason.
So by making their websites dependent on proprietary MS technology, instead of open standards, these companies have locked themselves in and are getting screwed. If they had used Java instead, they'd have no problems since customers could easily just switch to another browser that isn't affected.
This is not an "active x" problem, its a plug-in problem, that includes java. So, anyone who coded their website using any standard is hit with this change.
Wrong. This lawsuit only affects MS and IE, since Eolas has stated it has intention of bothering anyone else. (I guess MS must have pissed them off; probably for good reason.)
If these stupid companies had used an open standard like Java, their customers could just switch to any other browser.
Lets talk about real business users and not hobbyists. Mozilla is a nice toy and all, and in a few years might be as good as Netscape was.
What are you, some stupid MS fanboy spouting flamebait? Leave the adults alone and come back after you've graduated high school.
Firefox in particular is safe, and even Safari is safe as the patent holders have stated publically that all other users are fine.
It is an abuse of the patent system as well, but it's not going to affect anyone else.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
boohoo.
http://chickencamels.poemofquotes.com/
I agree with you in this case. I wondered the same when I saw that ... Wish I had mod points.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
There's an update on the MS Security Response Center blog:
4 23560.aspx
http://blogs.technet.com/msrc/archive/2006/03/29/
At last someone talking sense! If I could mod you up I would. This whole issue is so easily fixed. To be honest a large number of people had resolved this issue when the whole Eolas thing hit the fan years ago. OPnce again people, this si simply for hardcoded activeX components in your page, use javscript to render it into the page voila... sorted. Online ads won't stop working, any network or ad-tech provider worth it's salt has resolved this ages ago.
I think a lot of people are missing part of the impact of this because they don't personally have interaction with this kind of stuff.
/activex based content on intranets, internal workflow apps, hr apps etc are always slow to roll stuff out like this.
They don't use Seibel, Clarify etc web interfaces for day to day work stuff ( like a call center using seibel ).
Their sites don't use the MS activex control for ajax stuff.
Maybe they aren't developers whose product runs in an tag, who are facing updating and testing all versions to ensure that they keep working. Who aren't facing the inevitable customer anger because you can't inform all of them and when it stops working they are going to blame you ( since you offer better support than MS, and no matter the problem they always call you first).
If you are one of those people, this is going to suck balls.
Large corps with
Software vendors are looking at unscheduled and possibly extensive rework for this stuff. Which will cause other things to slip. Bad Bad Bad.
Like I said, everything is relative. This is a big shit burger some of us are going to have to take a bit of. Not because we deserve it either. There is no getting what you deserve for some people in this. That is just a statement some will make to make themselves feel superior.
a man, a plan, a canal, panama
this is a very good opportunity for websites to clean themselves up by making it simple. sometimes, it sucks when simple items like menus and links are being done in flash and other complex scripting. it becomes cluttered and counter intuitive instead.
:(
as far as security is concerned, i would prefer this is you will know if sites do try to run things in the browser that may be harmful to the computer. some of them may put in hidden ones that we might now know about.
i am just sad though that there is a workaround fix to this. i was hoping the confirmation will be permanent.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
Take at look at the timeline case.
Msft constantly howls about how linux is huge legal minefield. But all available evidence shows that it is very much the other way around.
In spite of what msft/scox would have you believe, nobody has been sued for using Linux.
No, that's not the case. The change affects interaction with the embedded object, but any behaviour the object has that doesn't require user interaction will not be affected. For example, if the ticker had a menu allowing you to select which stock market's prices it displayed, you would have to click once on the component to enable interaction, and you could then actually make your selection with your second click; after that it would just work as expected, for the duration of that visit to the page.
As the initial display of the default set of prices doesn't require user interaction, it wouldn't be affected. Similarly, Flash movies (which is what those vastly irritating ads are) will just play, but if they have interactive controls, you will have to click once on them before you can interact with their controls.
As for why other browsers aren't affected: Eolas hasn't sued them - yet. If they get sued they'll have to do something similar.
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
I just installed it. The update name is "Update for Windows XP (KB912945)", and it requires a reboot.
I believe that message pretty much says it all. Mozilla/Firefox/Konqueror at the very least will not be affected. Safari/Opera could be another matter.
--
"Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
"Open source is evil." - Microsoft
Sure, they say that now. But there is absolutely nothing to stop them changing their minds and doing so in the future. Other browsers relying on the goodwill of Eolas is foolhardy at best.
Good grief folks, the sky isn't falling here. Just read http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/?url=/workshop/a uthor/dhtml/overview/activating_activex.asp and the changes that need to be made are trivial. Simply move the code with the OBJECT tags to an external script, make a few minor changes and reference that script. They show you a few different ways you can do it, and none of it requires a degree in quantum physics.
The real issue is that the patent is stupid, and I had to laugh when I read an interview with Michael Doyle (the founder of Eolas) who kept referring to "we" and "us" -- as far as I know, Eolas has one employee, him. He's looking for a half-billion dollar plus payday for technology that the patent office should have ruled as obvious and there having being prior art. And his message to the world is "I don't give a damn if this screws up websites, Microsoft should just firehose me with buckets of cash and everyone else out there should be encouraging them to do that."
Frankly, I applaud Microsoft for not writing him a check.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein
Perhaps, from what I've read it makes sense. Besides, they've now made a bunch of money from MS, and if hurting MS was their intent, they've done that too. They probably don't stand much to gain by enforcing their patent against any OSS browsers, since they wouldn't make any money from it.
It would be nice if they'd go a little further and give a free license or something similarly official and legal to OSS projects (and maybe Opera too) just to ease anyone's worries along these lines.
As for relying on goodwill, everyone who uses OSS relies on the goodwill of OSS developers. Yes, the developers can't just revoke anyone's right to use their existing versions, but having continued development is pretty important for a lot of things (imagine what would happen to people/companies who build devices using the Linux kernel if suddenly all future versions of it were to become non-Free). Every once in a long while, some asshole does screw things up (like Dawes of XFree86), but this is rare and even then another group came up and continued development where he left off before his stupid license change that made his branch irrelevant.
So while you shouldn't trust anyone too much, you can decide that based on their past actions. Eolas apparently has stated they have no intentions of bothering others, so I'd go with that for now (with some cautiousness maybe). Whereas relying on the goodwill of, for instance, MS would be idiotic since they've continually demonstrated they have none.
It looks bad on my PowerBook too, probably because it doesn't get that subpixel rendering that normal text gets.
The shareholder is always right.
The 'past actions' of Eolas were to get a stealth patent on a remarkably basic and equally vague concept and sit on it for a few years before taking the biggest fish in the pond to court. How is that encouraging?
I wonder why they don't just use normal text.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
If this will reduce mouse on monkey violence than I agree with the change.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Why didn't they use their enormous team of lawyers to squash this? Because giving validation to software patents is in their best interest.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....