Plugin Patent to Mean Changes in IE? 437
hexene writes "The W3C have issued an initial statement on the recent court case of Eolas v. Microsoft in regards to US Patent 5,838,906. The patent relates to the embedding of objects in hypermedia documents, and Microsoft has indicated they will have to make changes to Internet Explorer as a result of the ruling. There may also be far-reaching effects to both other web browser vendors and page authors. Check out the public mailing list to discuss the various issues." See the previous Eolas story for background.
You would think... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You would think... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You would think... (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent is ridiculous and I hardly see the patent holder writing their own browser or selling their own system. No, they would rather sue some company and make their money that way...
Sheeshhh...
Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant) (Score:4, Insightful)
Embedding of stuff, this is obvious.
I remeber when I had a typewriter, if I wanted a picture, I would glue a photo onto the page.
Computers allowed you to cut and paste the picture. Later sound, or video.
What makes the remoteness a differentiating factor?
This isn't even an issue of software patents, just stupidity.
Putting payment informaiton into a device, and then with a single click selecting the product is obvious.
I do it at Amazon.com, a Pop Machine, and a laundrymat, the computer doesn't really make it any difference.
This is exactly why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, you cant be really sad when it's Microsoft that gets it, but this is just silly. Not to mention extremely expensive for all browser makers, 'cause just wait, these guys arent stopping with MS.... this is also going to effect Opera, Konqueror/Safari and Mozilla.
Re:You would think... (Score:2, Insightful)
You would think that since intellectual property protection is so important to Microsoft, they would be more cautious about insuring that nothing they shipped infringed any patents instead of continuing to get caught in these embarassing lawsuits.
The problem is that issuing patents is largely a money making activity for the state. The result is that people can (and have) patented almost every imaginable (and quite a few unimaginable) things.
When the internet became popular, people rushed to patent everything that had already been patented but just with the words "on the internet" appended.
The results are that there are so many patents, covering so much activity that you have undoubtly "infringed" upon quite a few when you pressed the "submit" button. (and so will I)
Apart from a lot of patents being so vague that they could cover almost everything, It simply is not possible to match everything you do against issued patents.
Re:You would think... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the way the big players want it. Do you seriously think that there is any software you could possibly write that doesn't infringe on one or patents from IBM, Microsoft, Lucent, etc.
That way, if you ever sue them, they will countersue for patent infringement. IBM carefully selected four patents that affect all of SCO's products. When IBM gets a preliminary injunction, then SCO will have all of their revenues cut off. Plus expensive patent suits to defend by either (1) proving they don't infringe, or (2) proving the patent is invalid. In either case, IBM could just come up with a fifth or sixth patent infringement to keep the whole expensive patent infringement suits going while keeping SCO's revenue cut off.
So why didn't IBM file 2000 patent suits instead of only four? So that they don't look like they are gaming the system and fall into disfavor with the judge. (Plus the ability to add the fifth or sixth patent suit later to keep them running sequentially instead of concurrently.)
Pantents are damaging the industy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what? (Score:5, Insightful)
It needs to be more clearly defined *EXACTLY* what is being patented... these vague patents... or more specifically, a patent without an actual implementation, opens us up to all kinds of useless broadreaching patent lawsuits. In the end, this kinda stuff tends to hurt the consumers more then anyone!
IMHO, you should not be able to receive a patent unless you have an exact implementation to demonstrate exactly what it is you are patenting. Patents should be almost as specific and exacting as trademarks are.
Re:You would think... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You would think... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree that this patent seems to be frivolous.
However, in a world of components, I don't think it is a necessary requirement that a company must be making an end user application to be considered a legitimate entity. There is legitimacy in designing components.
In some regard, the people making components are in greater need of IP protection than the company that packages and sells systems since they do not have the immediate brand awareness. They are totally at the mercy of the company with the brand name.
Just because a component is dependent on another work does not mean that it is illegitimate. The fact that the patent system is protecting components is good in this regard; otherwise the companies selling systems would be able to trounce all over the subcontractors that make the components.
Just because we haven't heard of a company doesn't mean they are not a major player making major contributions.
Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Patents will kill the EU's Industry (Score:2, Insightful)
Obviosuly its good to have patents worldwide so that if an American company designs a product or a European company, they can sell the product not only in their continent but also in other countries without worrying about their product being ripped off, thus increasing the potential profit for the company in question.
where patents are bad is when a company makes a patent in order to prevent other companies from using a technology even though the company that owns the patent has no intention of making anything with it. Basically like registering an internet domain in order to stop another company getting it (so they have to buy it off you). Cheeky business and very annoying.
MS Only? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real people to worry should be Quicktime [apple.com] and, Macromedia [macromedia.com].
See: the people who use/rely on this technology.
tsk, tsk (Score:4, Insightful)
Software patents are bad. We are now probably not allowed to embed just about anything anywhere. What about flash, java, pdf documents that open in your browser, mime attachments in your emails, stylesheets, etc?
What if someone patents the command-line interface, GUIs, icons, toolbars, media players, p2p technology, archiving, backups, compression, encryption, the way we interact with pcs, vector animations, etc. ?
Patents hurt society in the long run. One person might become rich, but it harms innovation and productivity.
Besides - mozilla-based browsers, konqueror, safari, etc all use plugins. What about them? Do we have to remove this functionality from these opensource browsers as well?
Where will it stop?
Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what? (Score:3, Insightful)
My point is that it wasn't "a means of getting circular motion from a reciprocating piston" that was already patented, it was specifically the crank. Software patents seem to have lost this distinction.
I've got your prior art right here. (Score:1, Insightful)
It should be obvious, but just to go through it, you'd create stacks that had the whole interweb link things, and links that could launch images, sounds, and other crap.
Re:Eolas spoke (Score:4, Insightful)
Very interesting. But he didn't promise anything: he even claimed to be speaking hypothetically.
This could be interpreted as just trying to inflate the value of his patent. "Not only will I screw vast $$$ out of MSFT, I will then also be in a position to auction technical leadership in the browser market to the highest bidder."
Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Drugs (Score:2, Insightful)
But the best way to stimulate the industry is to drop all patents at all. Altogether.
Clarification: This should apply only to patents on inventions that can be usefully implemented as a program running on a generic PC. People who suggest abolishing the patent system entirely may not realize that doing so would kill the development of new drugs.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Prior art not allowed by judge (Score:5, Insightful)
filed in 1994.
WTF?
So the PTO hands out patents left and right with the assumption that "they'll get knocked down in court if they're not valid claims".
Then the courts come around and exterminate the ability to disprove the validity?
WTF???
And what else pisses me off is I feel heistant to really say anything strongly negative about the US government, becuase The Department of Homeland Security (AKA Big Brother) is watching.
HTTP is a protocol (Score:2, Insightful)
but then you are ranting so wildly you probably don't know the fuck you mean.
The Patented Kiss of Death (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see an honest reaction from the community (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, most of us view Microsoft as an enemy. Fine. I have no love lost for M$.
However, in this situation any competent software engineer can see that they are right. The patent is obviously invalid. Any competent software engineer who was around at that time knows that Microsoft had COM and embedded documents long before this patent. Application of these technologies to browsers was obvious and trivial, and should not be covered by a patent due to being obvious.
The honest position would be to fully support Microsoft in this matter, and not to search for possible positive outcomes out of browsers suddenly dropping plugins.
Any algorithm? (Score:1, Insightful)
How can you patent "any algorithm" that cover everythings? Build a new technology, Opps, that is a new algorithm. Pay up!
This is a ridiculous patent (Score:2, Insightful)
To my mind, a good patent has one of the following two characteristics.
1. It requires much study to even comprehend the patent and a peer review of experts in the field say that it is a SIGNIFICANT advance.
2. The patent opens so much new ground in ideas that even though the ideas are somewhat obvious, the unique combination is so explosively new that there is clearly no prior art that could possibly be referenced to invalidate the patent.
By the way, I do not think that HTML at any point was a patentable idea. There have been many markup languages and even some that were used in an internet setting before HTML came along. HTML was successful not just because it was a clear and easy simplification of SGML, but because there was a good and "free" implementation (the Mosaic browser) of it readily available. Also, if you look at the RFCs for HTTP it is clear that HTTP rested very strongly on the notions already known in other internet protocols (email, ftp, etc.). HTTP and HTML are clearly evolutionay ideas (if you examine the context in which they were created), and it was how they were used that was revolutionary.
Another attack on open source in the making? (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly a plug-in model exists in OS and has a GPL-style license. What's to stop Eolas from pulling a SCO and trying to charge everyone who uses OS-based plug-in technology?
It seems convenient that MS would lose on an important issue that could hurt OS much more than MS.
Re:Drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
After talking to several people working in that industry I've realized that it's true: the drug industry will be developed faster (with a better quality !) if it would not suffer from patents.
Re:Drugs (Score:2, Insightful)
Then how would the drug companies recoup the cost of research and development for the ten drugs that fail for every one drug that the FDA approves?
Re:Microsoft does lose. (Score:3, Insightful)
Doyle has already decided that free and open protocols and software (html via the 'object' tag is free, open, and standard) can -NOT- use his patents royalty free via his lawsuit. currently, the 'object' tag implimentation of his patent -is- cross-platform standard, and -that- is why even the w3c is angry at this decision.
Internet Explorer is just as guilty as Safari, as Mozilla, as Opera, as the rest. anyone who supports plugins is guilty of infrigement. and selective prosecution is -not- available if he wnats to keep his patent. if he does not procede to demand compliance from all browser makers, then he will find his patent uneforceable, and nothing will change.
active X, and plugins in general are not within the scope of this patent. only those 'embedded' in hypermedia. he's not suing MS for creating activeX. they wouldn't have to turn it off in all its applications on their OS - only in hypermedia.
also, he cannot release a patent 'for free' and then dictate who can and cannot use it. if he releases his patented information to anyone who produces code that impliments it under the GPL - then microsoft is free to use that GPL'd code to be compliant. and then what do you have? you have a patented, GPL'd standard to 'embed' objects in hypermedia. which in your best case leaves us precisely where we are right now, but with an unenforceable patent over that 'object' tag.
he will either force MS to abandon html and make something new and proprietary (and take 95% of the desktop market with it) - or nothing will change.
there is no upside to software patents. regardless of which corporations are involved.
The key to this patent is the combination (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You would think... (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of the patent system is to reward innovation, by providing a short-term monopoly. The hope is that this will encourage innovation which would not otherwise occur. But the evidence on software seems to suggest that the innovation is likely to be repeated quickly by others who do not know about the original patent, and so the economic benefit of the innovation may not justify the economic loss caused by creating an artificial monopoly. Indeed, if the patent system makes software development more risky, then it may reduce innovation as well as making the use of new products more expensive.
Patent the Implementation (Score:4, Insightful)
You can patent a drug that treats asthma, but you can't patent treating asthma.
So, it follows, that you can't patent embedding objects in a hypertext document, you can patent a method of embedding objects in hypertext documents.
Re:You would think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically, Microsoft exists because IBM (fearing antitrust lawsuits) contracted with MS, Intel and others so that different companies would own different parts of the IT puzzle. It was this dynamic landscape with multiple companies involved in the development that created the PC revolution.
Microsoft shows very clearly that strong antitrust laws are a necessary component of a intellectual property system. Basically, when one company has grown so powerful that no IP exists outside of that company, then the IP system fails.
Microsoft was made by IBM. Bill Gates turned his attention from reverse engineeting BASIC to reverse engineering Intergallactic Digital Research's DOS because IBM was looking for partners that would create a dynamic business scape in light of anti trust threats.
If the legal community really wanted to create a working system of IP, then they should start by breaking up Microsoft and the cartels and megalyths that control the music industry.
Microsoft Will CLEARLY Benefit From This (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the challenges facing Microsoft (and other software companies) is getting their customers to install upgrades.
With a proper spin on this, it shouldn't be hard to get everyone to throw out IE 5.5, etc. and finally upgrade to 7.0. This will probably begin by convincing websites to modify their content to support a NEW plugin standard supported by IE 7.0 in order to avoid lawsuits related to this patent.
So in a nutshell, MS gets to "require" customers into upgrading without appearing to be the demanding bully. The only question I have is what else are they going to put into IE 7? Will this be like bills in our govt where they add stuff (pork) that won't get passed on their own?
Maybe they'll bundle their new antivirus product and make it a huge publicity win. i.e. "Unlike Linux (re: SCO), we respect other people's IP so we changed our flagship product. Plus, we've added antivirus code to make this the most secure browser technoloy on the planet! And the anti-virus code incorporates DRM so your employees don't accidently make your company liable for their copyright violations!"
I hope MS destroys the "cool" WWW (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft does lose. (Score:4, Insightful)
The parent article is not insightful. There is no legal obligation for a patent-holder to prosecute all infringers equally. Yes, a patent holder can, too, dictate who can and who cannot use the patent, and can be as unfair as he wants to be, because the patent is his property. Your claim that selective prosecution is not available if someone wants to keep a patent is total crap; perhaps you are confused since there is a similar provision in trademark law.