Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Bows to Eolas, Revamps IE
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Dec 03, 2005 11:50 AM
from the here-ya-go dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
June Windows Update To Be Biggest in a Year 220 comments
Supersonic1425 writes "The BBC reports that this month's security update from Microsoft will be the one of the biggest this year. Nine of the patches are for Windows — one classed as critical — two are for Office and one for the Exchange e-mail server software." From the article: "At least one of the loopholes being patched is already being actively exploited by malicious hackers. ... Microsoft is not only tackling security problems but also the fallout of a legal case that the software giant lost."
[+]
Your Rights Online: 'Eolas' Browser Plug-in Patent Case Rises Again 107 comments
eldavojohn writes "A legal battle that has been around since 1999 and seemingly ended in 2005 now rears its head again. In a confusing move, the USPTO 'reissued a Microsoft patent last week covering the same concepts outlined in the Eolas patent and with wording mirroring that of the Eolas patent. With both companies holding identical patents, the USPTO will now play King Solomon and decide which parent gets custody of the baby.' Both the Microsoft & Eolas patents are available online."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ...
Parent
Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry (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.
Parent
Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry (Score:5, Insightful)
IIRC - unlike some other companies out there *cough* IBM *cough*, Microsoft isn't really a big software patent litigator.
Parent
then don't spurn microsoft for patents, (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:then don't spurn microsoft for patents, (Score:5, 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.
Parent
Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry (Score:3, Interesting)
IN this case if it hurts MS then it's good, if it makes it harder to hack IE then that's even better.
Re:Or... What's at stake for the industry (Score:3, 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
Re:Or... (Score:3)
Re:Or... (Score:5, Informative)
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 [microsoft.com]. 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.
Parent
Re:Or... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Or... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Standards with moving goalposts (Score:3, Insightful)
(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:Standards with moving goalposts (Score:3, Insightful)
(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.
Re:Or... (Score:3, Informative)
Extra click to interact with objects in pages. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
about time (Score:5, Interesting)
It could be worse, it could be .NET (Score:5, Funny)
I recently saw someone at work trying to install the 7 CDs of Visual Studio
After that, I came to believe maybe ActiveX isn't so bad after all...
Parent
What this means for other browsers (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting move.
Re:What this means for other browsers (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:What this means for other browsers (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What this means for other browsers (Score:4, Insightful)
The GPL premble states this:
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.
Parent
Re:What this means for other browsers (Score:3, 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
Re:What this means for other browsers (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:What this means for other browsers (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:What this means for other browsers (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:What this means for other browsers (Score:3, 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 ne
Re:What this means for other browsers (Score:5, Funny)
Well then, Microsoft should patent their work-around so that others can't use it!
Don't you just love software patents? :-P
Parent
Eolas!? (Score:3, Funny)
Better security (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Better security (Score:3, Interesting)
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, enable
Workaround? (Score:5, Insightful)
What if someone were to write an ActiveX control that goes around and does all the clicking for other controls on the same page?
People are still using IE? (Score:3, Funny)
Does this actually do anything? (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't see a notable security benefit in this...
Re:Does this actually do anything? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Seems to be a poor decision... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably a move to avoid a judgment of willfulness (Score:3, Insightful)
A finding of willfulness can result in enhanced damages (up to triple) plus attorney's fees (which would otherwise not be recoverable).
One way to show willfulness is if a company continues to infringe after a judgment of infringement.
The statute is 35 USC sections 284, 285
In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documen
Thank You Microsoft, W3C (Score:3, Informative)
Fine example of software patents worthlessness (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Uninformative blurb (Score:5, Informative)
Essentially, it's a total bullshit patent attempting to own the concept of having an interactive server/client style application embedded in a webpage.
Parent
Re:Uninformative blurb (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:Uninformative blurb (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Uninformative blurb (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uninformative blurb (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Uninformative blurb (Score:3, Funny)
Re:EOLAS = Patent farm (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent