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)
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.)
Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is not what a cross licensing agreement says.
The typical big company cross licensing arrangement goes like this. Okay, we've settled our dispute. Let's not bring patents into the war. (Like nuclear weapons.) So we will cross license eash other with each other's patents. I now have rights to all of your patents, and you have rights to all of my patents. This forecloses the possibility that you will ever sue me over any of your patents. But you still might sue me because I give you defective copies of Windows because I don't like the way you cozy up to Linux.
Re:Actually, companies like IBM and Microsoft... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You would think... (Score:3, Funny)
True, but... Red Hat and IBM has asked for court to shut SCO's loud mouth until trial in April 2005. The combined effect is that the FUD will stop. SCO can't spread fud, and it is inevitable that SCO will loose in court, which they now can't back out of -- without a settlement being reached. So Microsoft can pay as much as they want, but if SCO can't spread FUD, then what is the point.
KFG
You
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...
Re:You would think... (Score:5, Insightful)
You are both right (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:You are both right (Score:4, Funny)
I for one commit to paying upwards of 25% of the purchase price of the Mozilla Web Browser to this upstanding Intellectual Property organization.
Re:You would think... (Score:2)
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.
Re:You would think... (Score:4, Interesting)
Twenty years ago, a single company would design netlists, put them together in a chip design, and build the chip.
Ten years ago, one company would design the netlists and put them together as a chip, and another company would build the chip (in many cases, the chip building company was IBM [ibm.com], which is why they have their fingers in a lot of processors).
Now, different companies design the netlists, design chips, and build the chips. For example, say you want a high-speed wireless modem. You would buy some netlists from a company that specializes in communication algorithms, put them together on a chip, and ship it off to a manufacturer to build the chip.
This is a good thing, since it allows companies to specialize, and it speeds the introduction of good technologies to the market -- and it wouldn't happen without strong IP protection.
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.
Re:You would think... (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't a company - it is a person and about 4 lawyers. Some dude wrote this patent 9 years ago, and now he is worth $500 million (at least).
The patent is ridiculous and I hardly see the patent holder writing their own browser or selling their own system.
That is pretty much exactly what he wants to do. OF course, he will start with $520 million of Microsoft's money...and work on making an OS through the browser. No one else will be allowed to use bi-directional data flow through a browser until 2015!
Microsoft will, of course, do their best with a work-around.
There are probably 100 patents filed for every patent that evolves into an implementation. Maybe 1000. The US PTO is morally bankrupt, and the future of innovation through small inventors is essentially dead. But this case is at least kinda interesting in a soap-opera kinda way.
Re:Closer look at the patent (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not that unique, and the applet tag falls into this category as well. Essentially that moves falls into this category...
Re:Closer look at the patent (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's completely obvious. Given a statement of the problem, any normal software engineer at the time would've decided to switch applications based on content type.
Commercial products that handed off to a different helper program based on a content-type string date from 1988 or earlier. (Although back then, the "content-type" string was often just the final 3 characters of a filename. But it's the same idea)
Re:You would think... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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 e
Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Patents (Score:5, Interesting)
Well there would be one advantage, no more plugins means no more flash.
*contented sigh* No more navigation bars, adverts with sound, splash screens
(Note the W3C meeting was hosted by Macromedia, who probably have more to lose than anyone else)
Re:Drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
After talking to several people working in that industry I've realized that it's true: the drug i
That stinks. (Score:5, Interesting)
If thats what they're talking about, that stinks.
Re:That stinks. (Score:3, Interesting)
should get into moz sometime.
Re:That stinks. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:That stinks. (Score:4, Funny)
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!
Re:That stinks. (Score:3, Informative)
But that also makes things like this [viruslist.com] possible. IIRC, the virus comes to you as a zipped MIME/html file. You unzip the file and double-click it and it extracts the virus binary from a base64 encoded section of the document.
This was the SOB that forced me to add ZIP and HTML files to the RenAttach [pc-tools.net] bad list on our mail server.
"plug-ins" = ...specifically what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The implementation can be local or distributed across a network, and is automatically invoked based upon type information in the document or associated with the object's data.
It seems on initial glance that if this patent holds up, it could be argued to apply to the entire model of MIME types by which browsers invoke different behavior based on type.
It also seems to directly apply to the notion of having Word launch when clicking on a ".doc" file.
Couldn't one consider a browser and a word processor to both be "plug-ins" to the operating system? What specifically differentiates a "plug-in" from any other type of application functionality?
Surely there is massive prior art on this going back at least to the early 80's. This patent is obscene.
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:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not really. Patents were created to provide any inventor with a means of protecting his idea for a limited period of time in exchange for sharing all his secrets with the world. The Constitution doesn't really care whether you're a "small inventor", whatever that means.
FYI, this is not a radical new idea. From 1790 until 1880, every single patent had to be accompanied by a working model, and it certainly didn't seem to hamper technological progress. Models would present practical problems with some physical inventions using modern technologies, but I see no reason why those seeking software patents shouldn't be required to create and demonstrate a specific, working implementation.
Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what? (Score:4, Interesting)
There is also So if you had a mime encoded document with all parts encoded within the document weather they neaded a plugin or not it would not be covered
This is a really bad thing. Basicaly it looks like you shouln't be able to even put a java widget in a web page.
Now that they have been payed off my M$ I wonder if one of there team of [mony grabbing pigf$$king evil] lawyers will decide to go after web site authors??
All IMHO IANAL ETC
Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:"plug-ins" = ...specifically what? (Score:3, Informative)
My uninformed opinion (from reading only the abstract) is that the MIME type model is not at risk, because
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.
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.
Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant) (Score:5, Informative)
"Hypermedia" is what we used to call the often proprietary amalgamation of hypertext and multimedia back before Tim Berners-Lee came along and sorted it all out for us. I don't know about how far back prior art on this goes, but I was quite happily embedding dynamic clocks, calenders and such like in a multi-user hypertext authoring system at Liverpool University in the early 90's. Embedded images, sound and even video was *already* old-hat at this point.
It was an in-house developed tool called MUCH (Many Users Creating Hypertext) written in the Andrew toolkit (think a forerunner of GTk/Qt) and running on HP-UX, if you were wondering.
Re:Hypermedia, embedding obvious - (mini-rant) (Score:3, Funny)
Congratulations on taking it to the next level by calling dumb people dumb. I am highly entertained.
This might be a good thing (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not hostile to new technology and all that, but these technologies are so frequently abused so anything that will lessen it will be a good thing.
SVG (Score:3, Interesting)
Getting rid of Flash plug ins might give SVG a fighting chance to displace it. (Can someone please provide a link to svg?)
This might be a motivation for Microsoft geeks to get excited about building a good SVG implementation into IE. I think other browsers (Mozilla?) already are working on this?
Media players and Java Applets (Score:5, Interesting)
It is good to have a way to run open-ended software in the user's browser, in a sandbox. For example, the VNC viewer is a java applet. But this particular application of applets was not necessarily what was envisioned when applets were first added to web browsers. I'm thinking of useful applications of java applets, not the latest flashing, blinking, twitching, scrolling seizure inducing eye candy.
Similarly, I don't want to see media players go away. (But I would like to see the demise of proprietary controlled formats.)
One solution is to link the applet capability and the media player capability directly into the browser. Then you probably don't violate this patent.
With an open enough Java implementation, Mozilla for instance, could just include the ability to run java applets.
With an open enough real-player implementation, Mozilla could probably also directly link that code right into the browser.
In fact, Mozilla, or more generally, Open Source browsers could become the "rich" cousins, while proprietary browsers become the feature poor cousins. This would be very ironic.
Browsers already set us back to the 70's (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be great to have HTML just that, no DHTML, no javascript.
I'd love to go back to programming applications again but every idea anyone has seems to end up "can we do that in a web browser" and we end up with cookies and an inability to rely on anything being in the other frame.
The result of this mess is the
The Web must die and we must be ready to rebuild it.
abuse of patent systems... (Score:3, Interesting)
And that was not the intentions with the patent system.
In the future everyone and everything is illegal..
ActiveX? (Score:4, Interesting)
Currently, for any object tag to work in IE, you have to enable ActiveX scripting.
And will that fix the display-everything-in-every-object-tag bug too? I guess I'm asking for too much here.
Reminds me of the Netscape4-era when you couldn't use CSS unless javascript was active.
golf clap (Score:3, Interesting)
All I can say is "it's about friggin time." Plugins are great when they work, but nothing on the internet sucks worse than when they don't. They've also been used as a tool by microsoft to break competing browsers (and OS's) as often as possible, and I'd love to see that simply go away. The only downside that I can think of is that some dynamic and/or media content will have to open in a separate window now. Boo hoo.
On another note, how will this affect the Microsoft desktop, since they insist that I.E. is an integral part of that which cannot be removed? Are Active-X (and other com-type) components going to be considered "browser plug-ins" when they're run on what Microsoft insists is an integral browser/desktop?
Re:golf clap (Score:2)
They gave us a pretty damn good browser. It was the rest of the world that flocked to supporting it.
Juries (Score:2)
Re:Juries (Score:2)
They could be thinking about their dislike for Microsoft.
"My daugher's computer with Windows ME is less than two years old, and I had to take it to the shop and pay a huge amount to get Windows fixed. And a bunch of my files were lost."
They could also be thinking of negative experiences they might have had related to NOT having the right plug in for some favorite web site.
Just a theory. You a
Changes (Score:2)
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.
Patent scope (Score:5, Interesting)
If the patent covers "mechanisms for embedding objects within distributed hypermedia documents, where at least some of the object's data is located external to the document, and there is a control path to the object's implementation to support user interaction with the object" then does OLE also infringe?
Is there really no prior art?
Re:Patent scope (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, so, the html files will have to get bigger, but it will also solve the problem of all these "steaming only" media files that are flowing around.
Re:Patent scope (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Patent scope (Score:5, Interesting)
I can give you an instance of prior art from 1991, three years before this patent was even filed. See my post above [slashdot.org] for more.
Re:Patent scope (Score:4, Informative)
It's a long time since I used it, and in a LISP environment, of course, there's really nos such concept as a plugin, but there was analogous functionality in NoteCards [virginia.edu].
I would have thought a NoteCards node type was highly analogous to a mime type, and the 'LISP command' was highly analogous to a plugin.
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.
Java Apps? Get me up to speed.... (Score:2)
Re:Java Apps? Get me up to speed.... (Score:2)
Pantents are damaging the industy (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents will kill the EU's Industry (Score:2)
Do they really want to subject their software industry to the US's HUGE software patent portfolio?
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 Euro
Re:Pantents are damaging the industy (Score:2)
The patent holding companies are not going to care if they are making money. The government has to step in, not the companies themselves.
Re:Pantents are damaging the industy (Score:3, Interesting)
On the contrary, I think things like this can lead to something new and innovative instead of just sticking with "what works" as we have for years.
When you just keep building on old stuff and keeping around what always "has been" and "always worked in the past", I tend to see this stiffel innovation. Being forced back to drawing board to come up with something NEW as a work around can be a good thing, especially for a company like Microsoft that has the $$$ to invest into R&D of something new and r
Hahaha (Score:2)
Now, I know that Microsoft will never be punished in the US, but isn't undermining a competing product, Linux, through unsub
Do I sense amicality... (Score:2)
Microsoft presented several options that it has under consideration, and benefited from constructive discussion of these options. In addition, the meeting participants strongly supported clear communication on this matter [...]
This document was written by Steven R Bratt of the W3C... so no rimshots on how he's a sell out - please...
I think this just might be the beginning of a broader trend (I hope at least)... a trend where Moft starts getting its ass bitten more and more often, and i
Why don't we use the Slashdot Effect? (Score:4, Interesting)
While I think that most of the current patents, especially the business practices ones, are against the original spirit of the Patent/Copyright/Trademark laws, as far as I know most of these patents fail the requirements for patents. I seem to recall the following things being required for a patent:
While a lot of these patents are useful, I think they pretty much all fail either the Novelness or Unobviousness requirements. I work for a company that patents hinge designs, for crying out loud! I recall the days that a waterbed patent was denied because waterbeds were described in a Heinlein novel. Aren't the patent checkers aware of not just prior art, but novel and unobvious? (It's like the laser cat toy patent of a previous Slashdot article (please help with link) - sure it might be useful, but any doofus 3 year old knows that if you shine a light on a wall a cat will chase it.)
Rather than just yap about this, why don't we form some kind of task force to fight this nonsense?
I'd be happy to join.
IP patents v.s. Demonstrated Product (Score:3, Interesting)
This seems to be another example [slashdot.org] in an alarming trend of individuals or companies who had the forsight to patent an "idea" in technology for which they take no steps to develop, sit on it until they see that idea manifested and realized in someone elses work, and then sue them to make their money.
It seems to me that a better way to quantify these patents would be to require some set of initial source code, architecture or methods of arriving at a techinical solution for the idea being patented rather than allowing the patenting of an idea whose makeup & implementation are left floating in a technological ether.
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.
the eolas tax . . . (Score:2)
however, if they deny usage rights to m$, a glorious victory of the type that m$ can understand has been won. truly a case of Schumpertarian creative destruction if i have ever seen one.
I'm impressed... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also, they surely must share the same opinions as the majority here do on these sort of broad software patents... if companies like MS keep get
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.
Too bad Microsoft isn't changing anything, right? (Score:2)
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?
what I would love to see (Score:3, Interesting)
if it the former, then anyone can write software tat does the same thing the same way, but the copyright lasts for a long time.
if it is the latter, it stifles inovation due to patent suits, but the ability to protect the code expires after 15 years.
the former I think is more favorable.
The Patent (Score:3, Informative)
Personally I think software patents are evil, as I'm sure many here do. Computer Science means learning from the work of others and advancing the field. Someone save us from the USPTO.
BTW, Does anyone know if Eolas got their $521 Million?
Eolas spoke (Score:5, Informative)
But what if they won't settle for money? This brings us to Mike Doyle, who runs tiny Eolas Technology Inc., which controls a patent that covers embedding plug-ins, applets, scriptlets, or ActiveX Controls into Web pages -- the use of any algorithm that implements dynamic, bi-directional communications between an app embedded in a Web page and external applications. That more or less defines how the World Wide Web is used today. As I have written before, Eolas is suing Microsoft for patent infringement, and has been generally wiping the floor with Redmond. Of course, so did the DoJ, and look how THAT turned out. The suit comes to trial in the spring and should be very interesting, not just because of the principles involved, but also because Mike Doyle and Eolas insist they are looking for more than just money.
"It would sure be nice for someone to actually consider all of this from our point of view, rather than MS's," wrote Doyle in a recent message to me. "It amazes me that everyone just assumes that MS will be able to merely write a check and make the whole thing go away. What if someone went through the following, purely theoretical, of course
"Is there any practical settlement amount that is worth more to Eolas than a victory at trial? Considering the facts in the case and the magnitude of the stakes here, a highly likely outcome is that it will actually go to trial, and, once it does, that a jury will award us both damages and an injunction. Injunction is the key word here. That is what patent rights provide: the power to exclude. What if we were to just say no? Or, what if some other big player were to acquire or merge with us? What if only one best-of-breed browser could run embedded plug-ins, applets, ActiveX controls, or anything like them, and it wasn't IE? How competitive would the other browsers be without those capabilities? How would that change the current dynamics in the Industry?"
"One possible scenario is that Eolas would have the power necessary to re-establish the browser-as-application-platform as a viable competitor to Windows. That would be an interesting outcome, wouldn't it? How much would that be worth? The Web-OS concept, where the browser is the interface to all interactive apps on the client side, was always a killer idea. It still is. It lost momentum not because it wasn't economically or technically feasible, but because MS made it unlikely for anybody but them to make money on the Web-client side. Therefore, nobody could justify the necessary investment to take a really-serious shot at it. It doesn't have to be that way, does it? Just think of how we could use this patent to re-invigorate and expand the competitive landscape in this recently-moribund industry. What if we could do what the DOJ couldn't, and in the process make Eolas and everybody else, possibly excluding MS, richer? Wouldn't Eolas stand to profit more in such a scenario than any kind of pre-trial settlement could provide? Wouldn't everybody else?"
"The last couple of years in IT seem to have convinced people that the current status quo will continue indefinitely. They seem to have forgotten what seemed so obvious as little as three years ago, that change is the only invariance. That axiom has always proven out in the past, and I'm certain it will continue to do so in the future."
So will Mike Doyle give in to the Microsoft checkbook or will he opt, instead, to change the world of IT as we know it, knocking Microsoft down to size along the way? And notice how he referred to mergers and investors and being acquired? What if an IBM or an AOL or some party behind door number three was to do exactly that?
As I said, it should be a VERY interesting trial.
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:Eolas spoke (Score:5, Interesting)
He could license the ability to run plugins to browser developers. guess where that most likely leaves the small market boxes? Linux, Unix, and Mac. behind and under-attended to. the developer couldn't release the code under the GPL, so the community wouldn't be able to fill the void.
Alternatively, if this guy is on a little quest to knock down MS, and withhold the tech from them, or any developer with plans to release their browser to them, i think he is insane.
Microsoft does not lose.
would MS -really- lose if it isn't -their- browser on the desktop, but, for example, Netscape's? did the emergence of the web before MS had dominance lead do a decline in MS desktop sales? history tells us that they'd perservere, and find some way around it, to provide the same functionality with their own proprietary code.
what happens when mr doyle flips his switch and 95% of the browser market (IE) can no longer watch flash videos in a web page, chat through a web page, watch a movie clip on ifilms, or use simple scriptlets or custom applets (potentially not even take advantage of mime typing or any function which invokes a dll)?
why, microsoft would simply -stop- using hypermedia. it's not like they've been shy about breaking from standards in the past.
They'd create a proprietary tangential protocol, that allows them to create a proprietary application that continues to offer full media control. if there is no hypermedia, there is no patent infringement.
no longer will a page be an open collection of tags. rather it would be, potentially and probably, a DRM'd stream of data from provider to consumer, invoked and displayed according to user request, but never using hypermedia, or an industry standard.
every URL becomes a 'msnet' network stream request - probably with simple XML still, but not in the 'hypermedia' sense. simply put - there is no longer an open standard.
we are left at MS whim on whether they want to provide access to their new network on competing operating systems. (mac would be almost guaranteed, linux/unix and abandonware OSs would be in limbo).
businesses -must- deal with the realities of MS corporate market share, and the web would fade into the mainstream background like IRC and Usenet, as underutilized text-only forums from a simpler time.
you can accuse MS of many things, but losing, or rolling over to someone else's proprietary 'standard' that threatens their dominance (*cough*java*cough*) has -never- been one of them.
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
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.
software patents are bad... mmmmmk (Score:3, Funny)
how can you patent embedding when you don't embed? (Score:3, Interesting)
there's no 'embedding' going on in the document whatsoever, it's a request to the browser to load an object from a specified location and launch it with specified parameters.
beyond all that, 'an object' is about the most broad concept one could possibly patent. not to mention the ambiguous nature of 'embed' with regards to a markup language.
if i have a that specifies an url to a swf target inside a frame on my hypermedia document, is that 'embedding'? it could look to a user every bit the same as if i'd used
is it the functional 'embedding' of object data they have patented? (which as we can see -isnt- happening) or is it the visual presentation of an 'object' amongst hypermedia elements? because that would rule out java apps, -all- audio/visual components, swf, and any custom com/activex plugins.
does this mean that i could have patented 'embedding an image' in hypermedia documents?
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
What does this do to XHTML 2? (Score:3, Interesting)
This would superficially seem to put that strategy in jeopardy.
Or would it? Images, at least, have a very limited interactivity with the browser (if you don't specify width and height, the browser calculates it and renders accordingly). There is, absent an image map, no interactivity.
This is a serious question--does anyone know what this may mean, in light of the W3C's statement?
The Patented Kiss of Death (Score:3, Insightful)
The answer is simple (Score:3, Interesting)
Make a new kind of thing that does what a web browser does, but isn't a web browser. MS could certainly push a new kind of content delivery engine, and create a "new web". Since the patent is for plugins into web browsers, they would no longer infringe.
Or, they could stuff all of C# into a web browser in such a way as the browser becomes a downloadable program selector.
I'm surprised MS lost this case.
More info on the patent (Score:4, Informative)
one of the answers is interesting.
Q. What is the patented technology that was at issue in the case?
A. The patented technology is a key component of the interactivity available on the Internet today. It allows web page developers to embed interactive programs in Web pages. A browser, equipped with the University of California's patented technology, is able to deliver that interactivity to the user. For example, the technology is used often with stock information, video players, games, virtual real estate tours and other interactive content on the Web. The patent allows the Web to be a platform for fully interactive embedded applications.
Sounds like this has broader implications for the Internet at large which the web community may regret. It is not patenting hyperlinks, but I think it gets close.
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.
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.
The key to this patent is the combination (Score:3, Insightful)
We just passed the eighth anniversary! (Score:4, Informative)
What should we care? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why should the rest of the world care? The patent is only in the US. I could happily use the manners described in Europe of Asia since the patent doesn't apply there...
Furthermore, I wonder why W3C is concerned, since it only affects, what, 10% of the world (no idea) or so? Sure, they have an office in the USA, but also one in Europe and one in Japan. Close the office in the US. And dang, too bad for Eolas.
Eolas = knowledge (Score:3, Informative)
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:Do you think this is just a setup? (Score:2)
Re:worth reading, again (Score:2)
Re:Result of Lawsuit: Hypocrisy (Score:4, Funny)