Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Internet Explorer The Internet Government The Courts News

Company Files Motion to Stop IE Distribution 580

Posted by simoniker from the twenty-seconds-to-comply dept.
RobHornick writes "According to CNET News, Eolas Technologies, a company that's already won a patent infringement judgement against Microsoft regarding Internet Explorer, has filed a motion to stop Microsoft from distributing its IE software until they remove Eolas' patented technology for running plug-ins, or pay up for a license."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Company Files Motion to Stop IE Distribution More

Company Files Motion to Stop IE Distribution

Comments Filter:

  • Famous last words: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:18PM (#7167954)
    Pay up, Microsoft.

    • Re:Famous last words: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AntiOrganic ( 650691 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:47PM (#7168517) Homepage
      And pay up Mozilla Foundation, and pay up KDE e.V, pay up Apple, and pay up Opera Software. This ruling is dangerous and has ramifications reaching far outside of Microsoft's boundaries. Internet Explorer is certainly not the only browser to make use of plugins.

      I, for one, (haha! not going to say it!) despise Flash and similar plugins, but this is one of many patent lawsuits that could dramatically alter the landscape of the software development community as a whole.
      • They just don't like it when a company decides to make their own 'standards'. Eolas have no problems with open source and W3C compliant commercial browsers.

        Is this unfair, well I suppose it could be seen that way, but MS have been trying to drive browser standards in their own direction.

        • Re:Eolas doesn't mind other software (Score:4, Interesting)

          by SoCalChris ( 573049 ) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @01:27AM (#7169571) Journal
          Eolas have no problems with open source and W3C compliant commercial browsers.

          For now... What happens when a few years down the road, the guy running Eolas decides he wants a new jet or yacht? Maybe he just wants to see how much he can get his net worth up to. Who knows what he's planning or thinking.

          He's already shown his stance on IP patents, I have no doubts that suing other browser companies is not that far off, regardless of what he says.

    • Re:Famous last words: (Score:4, Informative)

      by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:54PM (#7168569) Homepage Journal

      Pay up, Microsoft.

      Don't worry, Microsoft will punish Eolas for uttering those words, just as they punished NVidia for those same words.

      Schwab

    • Start Reading... (Score:5, Informative)

      by pballsim ( 119438 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @11:51PM (#7169244) Homepage
      Apparently nobody pays attention or does any research.

      First off Eolas has filed the same patent three times (been rejected) and has been narrowing it down.

      Basically the patent states:

      Any inlining function that renders on the client that gets information from another server. However javascript is not affected, but activex and other plugins are, but the question is the img tag linking to another webpage affected? I know a few places will not allow their sites to have img tags to point to a different server.

      This is a stupid patent and should be thrown out. And in fact if we wanted to get into the nitty/gritty details Microsoft could sit there and attack StarOffice/OpenOffice with some of their patents and copyright information and get them out of business.

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by the_flatlander ( 694162 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:18PM (#7167956)
    Thank goodness closed source software is free of IP issues, eh?

    • Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)

      by zurab ( 188064 ) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @03:27AM (#7169917)
      Imagine if Eolas was "pulling a SCO", they would have been sending out $699 invoices to all IE users; would have been fun to see that play out. Actually, they are hinting to that, the article saying:

      Eolas would still permit Microsoft to distribute IE as is, as long as it's being used in conjunction with an application provider or a corporate intranet that has an Eolas plug-in license.

      Maybe they can send cease and desist letters to MS' corporate clients now.

      On a more serious note, MS was not able to present their prior art case in front of the judge to invalidate the patent. They have appealed and hopefully will get that opportunity. They are also on the right track with Viola browser as prior art. If you read Viola's author's recount [berkeley.edu]:

      In April 1992, I made a released of the viola browser. By December 1992, I had embedded objects working in the Viola browser. We at O'Reilly and Associates gave demos to various people here and there. The best documented demo was in May of 1993 -- We gave a demo and code to SUN Microsystems, of the viola browser showing an interactive three dimensional plotting object (mathmatical equation or 3D models) embedded inside a web page. I started releasing this code around fall of 1993 and early 1994. Eolas filed the patent in November 1994.

      Now, as you probably know, Michael Doyle (Eolas's CEO and sole formal employee as I understand it), wrote to the net about his technology and eventually intent to patent this. So of course people (including me) wrote back informing him of prior arts. I'm not a lawyer but as I understand it one is supposed to disclose to the PTO any relevant prior art for the PTO examiner to assess. Doyle and I exchange letters, and I told him about this embedded capability in Viola, gave him a paper on viola, which contains pointers leading to more information including even the viola browser source code. Doyle ends up mentioning the browsers Cello and Mosaic, but interestingly not Viola! Now, Viola came before both Cello and Mosaic, and non of those two other browsers had any kind of embedded interactive capability at the core of the discussions.

      And he also talks about how he was not allowed to demonstrate his technology (created before Eolas patent was filed) to the jury:

      I was not allowed to demonstrate Viola to the jury. It was explained to me that the judge had decided that my demonstration, of the Viola browser from May 1993 showing interactive objects embedded in a web page, would have been too "prejudicial" against Eolas. I was also not allowed to tell the jury that Doyle knew about Viola. This I suppose is understandable but still puzzles me a little and leads to unfortunate effects, as I imagine the Jury ought to know these things.

      As you can see, once MS gets a chance to demonstrate these facts, like they should be able to, Eolas can go back to sucking on their thumbs again.

  • That silly (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Hi_2k ( 567317 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:19PM (#7167966) Journal
    Much as I cannot stand IE, this is just insane. Plug-ins were a nessecary step forward, and should not have been granted a patent. AND, they havent tried to enforce this for the years that IE has had plugins before. Isnt there a loss of patent if unused or unenforced?

    • Re:That silly (Score:5, Informative)

      by Erwos ( 553607 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:23PM (#7167998)
      No, that's a trademark that goes away if it goes unused. Patents, like diamonds, are forever... and often valuable.

      -Erwos

    • Re:That silly (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bigjocker ( 113512 ) * on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:47PM (#7168151) Homepage
      Well, sometimes these kind of stuff has to happen to the big corporations to realize how screwed is the system. They usually are in the other side of the fence.

      On the other side this can be used by Microsoft to finally close up the browser to anybody else. Most likely what used to be plugins (Flash, Shockwave, Quicktime, Java) will be incorporated in the browser, so Microsoft will have the final word (and license fee) for including any content provider in their code base.

      • Re:That silly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Elwood P Dowd ( 16933 ) <judgmentalist@gmail.com> on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:18PM (#7168331) Journal
        Microsoft, however, has never been on the other side of the fence. They have only ever used patents in a defensive manner. (Or as FUD: "Gosh, the Linux kernel sure is a lot of code. Gosh, we sure do have a lot of patents on operating systems. Just sayin'.")

        Bill Gates has said in interviews even before their recent legal trouble that software patents were crippling the industry and that if things had been like this back when they were starting up, MS wouldn't have had a prayer.

    • Re:That silly (Score:3, Interesting)

      by subsolar2 ( 147428 )
      Isnt there a loss of patent if unused or unenforced?
      Ummm that's trademarks .... about the only way it helps in patents is reducing the damages. If it can be shown that the patent was intentionally un-enforced for a significant period of time to increased the possible income from "damages" then it is taken into account I believe.

  • Oh no!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by sharph ( 171971 )
    I don't know which side to be with, the evil Eolas, or the equally evil Microsoft... HELP!! :)
    • The evil Microsoft. I am inclined to believe the prior art claims regarding Viola in this regard.

      We all know much of the USPTO is a terrible scam anyhow. Perhaps this will fire some needed lightning of the gods to folks that need it.
    • Well, using Mozilla to read /. on my iBook, I think I finally understand the term schadenfreude. :)

      Still, I feel like I have to side with Microsoft on this one. They may be evil, but software patents are even worse. This might be a loss for MS but the recent SCO debacle has shown that it is a double edged sword. Remember that MS can afford more IP lawyers than the open source community...

    • "I don't know which side to be with, the evil Eolas, or the equally evil Microsoft... HELP!! :)"

      Seeing as how there's nothing preventing this action from being taken against Mozilla or Opera, I'd side with MS on this one.

  • Seriously, guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by InterruptDescriptorT ( 531083 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:20PM (#7167971) Homepage
    I know that the vast majority of /. readers believe that the Net would be a better place with Internet Explorer. Hell, I'm one of them, having had to deal with the cleanup after having my users hit with its exploits.

    But please realize that this patent bullshit has gone a little too far. Microsoft has already promised to patch IE to remove the offending patent work--isn't that enough? What we are all witnessing is the tyranny of the patent system as we know it. Just because it negatively affects Microsoft for once doesn't mean that it's good in any way.

    Let's do what we can to get this mess straightened out once and for all for the good of the economy and innovation. Let's not rejoice in this unfair punishment.

    • Re:Seriously, guys... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by oolon ( 43347 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:27PM (#7168023)
      Thats the way the cookie crumbles, if you don't wanna pay for a licence and your product enfringes a patent you have to stop its distribution NOW, not when you have a patent work arround.

      MS plays the patent game all the time its kind of nice to see it reversed.

      James

      PS, That does not mean I think this kind of crap is patentable, just if the game is played this way .. tuff....

    • Re:Seriously, guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by brianosaurus ( 48471 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:29PM (#7168030) Homepage
      Wouldn't it be neat if Microsoft took the opportunity to point out that the PTO is giving out absurd patents and start some massive reform of hte system?

      Somehow I doubt it.

    • Re:Seriously, guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tres ( 151637 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:39PM (#7168090) Homepage
      I agree with you 100%.

      And I am glad that Eolas is doing this to Microsoft and the most widely used browser, Internet Exploder.

      The more people know how screwed up software patents are, the better chance there will be that something will actually be done to stop the stupidity.

      • Unfortunately... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by etymxris ( 121288 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:58PM (#7168217)
        You know how every politician complains about "corruption of the system" while claiming to be above it all? Well, companies are similarly two-faced about abuses of patents. Jeff Bezos helped form a committee some time ago to combat the abuses of patents. The hypocricy was quite apparent. Here you had the man behind the most absurd of recent patents--one click shopping--claiming to be behind patent reform.

        Even if Microsoft loses billions of dollars on this case, they will not want patents to go away. They may want "reform" of the system, where reform is custom tailors to uphold Microsoft's patents, but invalidate everyone elses. Never will Microsoft say, "You know, maybe we shouldn't have a patent on typing notification over IM." To truly want reform, they will have to call for an end to all patent abuses, especially their own.

        Microsoft will forever be too proud to let this happen. This is the same company that still denies being a monopoly, let alone abusing their monopoly position, even after both have been settled in the court of law!

        • Re:Unfortunately... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by penguin7of9 ( 697383 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:49PM (#7168533)
          The hypocricy was quite apparent. Here you had the man behind the most absurd of recent patents--one click shopping--claiming to be behind patent reform.

          I don't see a problem with that. The rules right now allow silly patents. If you want to be in business, you have to file silly patents, otherwise, you can't compete.

          At the same time, many companies realize that filing silly patents is a big drain on their time and resources and will never give them any revenue. So, they would like to stop doing it. But they only can stop doing it if everybody else does, and that's why they participate in efforts to reform the patent system.

          That shouldn't stop you or me or anybody else from holding Bezos's feet to the fire (e.g., by buying at places other than Amazon) over filing silly patents: that is just additional pressure to get them (i.e., the people with money and power) to work towards changing the system.

    • Re:Seriously, guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by suss ( 158993 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:43PM (#7168117)
      Microsoft has already promised to patch IE to remove the offending patent work--isn't that enough?

      Yes, and everyone knows Microsoft has a spotless record on keeping promises.

    • Re:Seriously, guys... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DA-MAN ( 17442 )
      > Microsoft has already promised to patch IE to remove the offending patent work--isn't that enough?

      Are you kidding me? Microsoft is a company that is known to both raid companies through the BSA that *MAY* be out of compliance with the # of licenses installed. I'm sure if a company that was found to be out of compliance said, Ok I promise to remove Windows and migrate to Linux, they'd have a field day in courts over licensing issues. Fuck that man, in regards to this they need to pay up or stop distrib

    • Re:Seriously, guys... (Score:5, Informative)

      by fermion ( 181285 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:04PM (#7168250) Homepage Journal
      I agree with you. This patent thing is getting out of hand. I disagree that a world without IE would be good. However, if a patent is granted, then the courts should go with the laws. This isn't a issue of constitutional rights, or state rights, or human rights, or anticompetitive behavior.

      I haven't read much about this case, but i have seen two key facts. One is that MS was given the opportunity to license the technology ten years ago and they did not. The second is that the case of prior art presented by MS was a process that was developed contemporaneously with the process under question. It is not clear that one predates the other, and the other process was not patented. There are many examples of simultaneous developments throughout history, and the person who get the credit is often random. Therefore the judge reasonable ruled that no prior art could be specified.

      The other two adjoining issues is that MS firmly believes in IP and in particular patents. It would be hypocritical to allow them to hold onto those beliefs only when it is convenient for them. That is what we call inappropriate consequences and is like a bully complaining that a kid who he has been beating up every day for the past year is now aiming a gun at his head. The second is that the browser/plug in model is part of the OS, a situation unique to MS.

      I certainly hope that this mess will make the PHB realize that patenting these things is bad. I think at this point they see it as a game. Who can rack up the most frivolous patents, similar to who can screw the most secretaries, or have the youngest spouse. But it has serious consequences. Under the current rules, Eolas Technologies may have the power to stop the distribution of Windows, and god knows what else. That is scary.

      • Re:Seriously, guys... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by .com b4 .storm ( 581701 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:25PM (#7168390)

        I certainly hope that this mess will make the PHB realize that patenting these things is bad

        The PHBs will realize it all right, if they don't already. But unfortunately, the result will not be what you want (an end to stupid software patents). It will be even more stupid software patents. The PHBs will see this, and think to themselves, "Oh god, if Microsoft could get screwed by one of these, we could too. We better patent everything we can think of!"

    • analogy (Score:3, Insightful)

      by SuperBanana ( 662181 )
      Microsoft has already promised to patch IE to remove the offending patent work--isn't that enough?

      Isn't it enough for the bank robber to put the money back?

      A: No, he still stole something. He needs to pay for the crime by doing the time. In this case, MS has been found guilty of infringing, and now Eolas is saying "ok, now stop distributing entirely or start paying royalties". Sounds 100%, completely, totally fair to me.

    • Reaping what you sow (Score:5, Insightful)

      by coyote-san ( 38515 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @10:45PM (#7168886)
      IIRC, Microsoft has repeatedly tried to screw over this company through extra-legal means. It's one thing to ask for mercy after a fair fight, it's another thing to ask for mercy after trying to make the case "go away" by driving the plaintiff into bankruptcy (and snatching up the patents at the fire sale), etc.

      As I recall, there was speculation that the plantiff was so pissed off that they might refuse to grant MS a license *at any cost.* Think about the anger required to turn your back on a billion dollars or so, to hurt the other guy as badly as he tried to hurt you.

      In that context, of course the plantiff will demand that MS live with the consequences of the ruling *today*. Not in their "next release" (which may be years off), not even "tomorrow." Today. If that means that MS has to contact Dell and Compaq and HP and the rest and tell them that they have to cease all sales of Windows boxes because "MSIE is now fully integrated into the operating system," so be it. Microsoft made this bed by its own bad acts.

      N.B., I'm not saying that I agree with this retaliatory attitude. But at the same time the problem with brutally suppressing your critics is that you force the one who finally beats you to be even meaner and nastier than you. Gates and Ballmer and the rest had to know this.

  • If MS has to pay for licensing... (Score:4)

    by stonebeat.org ( 562495 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:20PM (#7167973) Homepage
    the money is going to come out of the user/customer's pocket...

  • Between a rock and a hard place (Score:4, Funny)

    by mhlandrydotnet ( 677863 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:20PM (#7167975)
    Yay! We hate Micro$oft!

    Booo! We hate software patents!

    Master wouldn't betray us, would he? What are we to think?

  • Gee and all this time... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I thought distribution of IE should be stopped for security reasons.

  • Halting IE shipments... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:20PM (#7167979)
    Since IE is so integrated into Windows, would that mean stopping shipment/sales of Windows as well?

  • So does this mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Read Icculus ( 606527 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:22PM (#7167987)
    That they have to stop selling Windows to people/corps? After all IE is part of their OS, so anyone selling PCs with Windows on it is distributing software that was illegally infringing Eolas' patent. The crooks.
    • If they got a court enjuction and MS could not distribute its product without the technology then yes it would have to stop supplying it or face fines......

      James

    • Re:So does this mean... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tom ( 822 )
      That they have to stop selling Windows to people/corps?

      Yepp. IMHO that's the ironic part of it. The Eolas guy sure has a sense of humour. See, now their argument from the antitrust case that IE is part of the OS comes back to bite them. Now if Ashcroft were an attorney general instead of a religious fanatic, he'd be watching this very closely - because if MS starts selling windows without IE, a buckload of shit could come down on them for contempt of court, lying under oath, etc. pp.

      Not that it'd happen

  • From Das Article (Score:5, Informative)

    by Evil Adrian ( 253301 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:23PM (#7167995) Homepage
    The Redmond, Wash., software giant asked for the new trial, citing several factors, including the unusual proportions of the jury's judgment and the court's refusal to allow discussion of some prior art or similar technology that Microsoft believes predated the Eolas patent and should therefore invalidate it.

    Microsoft mentioned one piece of prior art in particular, the Viola browser, invented by Perry Pei-Yuan Wei, an artist, software engineer and then a student at the University of California at Berkeley. That browser dates back to 1991 and its plug-in capabilities to 1992, nearly two years before Eolas filed for its patent.

    Once again, prior art popping up. So, this whole thing will probably get turned on its head after about 3 more years of litigation.

    Sigh.

  • Browser/OS integration (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nrc ( 112633 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:24PM (#7168000) Homepage

    And since Microsoft has said that it's not possible to separate the browser from the OS, that would mean...

    • Re:Browser/OS integration (Score:4, Informative)

      by Drishmung ( 458368 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @10:27PM (#7168786)
      MS could quickly ship a patch to IE/Windows (is that like GNU/Linux? Ah say, that's a joke son) that stopped the patent conflict. By stopping plugins. Windows would still work, and IE would still work, but without plugins.

      Most people would loose access to embedded Flash (more than anything else---it's the most widely deployed plugin) and the web would go on.

      This patent does not threaten Windows per se in that way.

      However, significant numbers of corporates would also loose access to their in-house ActiveX components, and they would not be happy.

      I suspect that's why MS has proposed the workaround it has---existing sites would work with an extra dialog box and click. They probably don't expect everybody to recode with the funky JavaScript to provide a seamless experience. However, they will suggest to the corporates that they CAN recode their intranets---and that even if they don't, at least the apps will still work (at the cost of an extra dialog box and click).

      The main victim of this patent is Browser+ActiveX, which happens to be affect Windows a lot, and everything else not very much.

  • or even.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joshsnow ( 551754 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:24PM (#7168001) Journal
    to stop Microsoft from distributing its IE software until they remove Eolas' patented technology for running plug-ins, or pay up for a license.

    or reach a multi-million $$$ out of court settlement like that reached with Be inc over alleged misuse of monolopy - the type of settlement in which the details are hidden from public scrutiny.

    Wonder what the world would be like if Microsoft were forced to not distribute IE? Not that it'll ever happen.
    • This is one guy, not a corporation representing a group of money-grubbing shareholders. As others have mentioned before, this person simply hates Microsoft. I imagine he would rather stop the distribution of IE and not get a dime than be bought out for a few measly millions of dollars.

  • Happy Days Are Here Again (Score:5, Funny)

    by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:26PM (#7168013) Journal
    Web developers face the possibility of having to significantly rewrite their pages or strip them of commonly used technologies like Macromedia's Flash.

    Gentlemen, the tech employment slump is now over!

    Please raise your hourly rates by $10.

    $20 if you do Java Server pages, a bad idea whose time has come (disclaimer: I do JSPs).

    Time to dig out those hookers' business cards!

    (And the office foosball table suppliers' cards too!)

  • $521 Million... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by RexHowland ( 71795 )
    Okay, it's crazy enough that Microsoft was ordered to pay $521 Million for a period of two years, especially when you consider that this is free software. (I realize it's highly important to Microsoft in that it killed Netscape, but they don't actually charge money for it.)

    But to then pay licensing fees on top of that? It's a little absurd, and just makes Eolas look like opportunists.

    And I especially love this line: Eolas has also calculated that Microsoft owes it about $111 million in interest on that aw
    • They are, actualy 1 guy is. This is exactly what is meant when people talk about malicious applications of patent. He has no desire or goal but to cause Microsoft pain. And while all the ./ crowd is in their mom's basement giggling and pretending that xbox doesn't own them; if this can be done to a company with nearly endless resources to throw at the problem, what'll happen when someone comes for your free software?

  • Will Cost Sites Money...Advertisers Like Flash (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ron Bennett ( 14590 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:35PM (#7168060) Homepage
    So far it appeared that websites had until about January to gear up for changes - now if this ruling comes to pass, websites that earn income from Flash ads could find themselves caught in a bad spot...

    * Do nothing and watch the complaints roll in as folks bitch about lots of pop-up warning prompts; some will even think the warning dialogue boxes are pop-up ads themselves - geez!

    * Continue to accept Flash ads, but add javascript and other nonsense to make them display with little or no warning messages - fine for many sites, but some sites don't use javascript anywhere for various reaons. So what to do?

    * Discontinue Flash ads (sure that makes many happy), but the loss of ad revenues will cause some sites to either use all sorts of bizarre scripting or reduce services due to lost revenues.

    Not sure the solution here. For as much as I personally don't care for Flash (nothing wrong with Flash per se, but is often over used and forced upon visitors) the addition of "Press OK ..." dialogue boxes are going to cause big time problems - beyond making many sites more combersome to use, such frequent clicking is going to only increase the chance of people accidently clicking open some nasty stuff.

    One possible solution, for as much as I don't care for Micro$oft at times, is for them to either fight this guy's IP claim to the max -or- settle and not change the browser -or- a long shot, find another way to get around the guy's IP claim without the zillion "Press OK ..." dialogue box nonsense.

    Lastly, if anyone is aware of a work-around to smoothly displaying Flash without using Javascript, please post and/or email to me. Thanks!

    Ron

    • One possible solution. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MtViewGuy ( 197597 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:41PM (#7168471)
      Why do I have this feeling that Microsoft will pay Eolas US$400 million to buy the technology lock, stock and barrel? Given Microsoft's huge liquid cash reserves such a payment would be pocket change to the company.

      Mind you, if MS does buy out Eolas they could cause no end of trouble for Netscape, Konqueror and Opera, since the non-MS browsers loads plugins in a very similar fashion.

      • Re:One possible solution. (Score:3, Informative)

        by ksheff ( 2406 ) *

        It's a private company, so they can't buy them out if the owners don't want to sell. Eolas wants MS to pay the fine and then sign a license agreement. Typical Microsoft response: license revenue is what other companies give to us, so find a way to weasel out.

        It is interesting that the founder wrote a book on tcl/tk [eolas.com] and another owner used to be a FBI agent.

  • Save the drama for your mama... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheRealStyro ( 233246 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:35PM (#7168062) Homepage
    Everyone knows what is going to happen here. MS cannot/will-not remove the infringing code from IE, and neither will they pay these fools for using the code.

    Obviously it will be Billy-boy to the rescue buying-out this company for an undisclosed amount (+$500 million). Billy will sell the company to MS for tax write-offs and MS will use the patents to give Linux & Apple a good high-colonic.

    • Re:Save the drama for your mama... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Klaruz ( 734 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:09PM (#7168277)
      Isn't the company a one man company owned by a uni? I know I've read that somewhere...

      The company is going to be very hard, if not impossible to buy out. The guy directing the company has said he wants to use the lawsuit to change the landscape of the current browser situation.
      • Maybe he has even grander ambitions: change the landscape of the whole patent situation. That would be a greater victory than bringing down IE or even Microsoft.

        Poeple have already tried to show how ludicrous the PTO is by patenting swinging on a swing [uspto.gov] and exercising a cat [uspto.gov], but that doesn't change anything. Suing Microsoft might just persuade the rich and powerful that software patents are a bad idea.

  • hell.. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ShadowRage ( 678728 )
    A windows system can work without IE, I tore ie out of win98 on vmware and the system survived, used mozilla ad the default browser.. it's kinda decent now.

    not by much.

  • Wouldn't that mean (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    they would have to stop distributing Windows?

  • Software patents? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gaber1187 ( 681071 ) * on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:44PM (#7168122)
    I tend to notice myself and others that work with software everyday having a hard time giving anybody credit for "inventing" anything in the software world. Somebody talks about it and you go, oh thats EASY, I coulda thought of that!! And in reality many of us probably did think of it.

    I still can't believe it when I read the court case for Amazon's 1-click patent. Apparently the *expert* witness could not figure out how Amazon would be able to sell something to people with just one click... apparently he had never heard of cookies... and this was one of the biggest reasons Amazon won, because it seemed possible that this was actually a revolutionary idea.

    But back to my main point, where do people draw the line for giving a software patent? I read that microsoft patented the IM feature to see when somebody is typing something back. That is dumb. But is the only thing that we are ok with somebody patenting is something that is like a compression algorithm that is so hard to understand that we say the guy must have been smarter than me that made it?

    I think the patent system is ok as it is, provided we have high quality patent lawyers out there that know how to code and maybe are able to put RAM into their computer... from my perspective, the patent system seems to be more angled toward granting a patent than not granting a patent. So its quite possible that you get a patent even though the quality of the invention is pretty lame.

    I think my view on software patents is this. If any software at all can be found that had the feature before being patented by some other company, then its in public domain and not patentable. The thing is, is that alot of great ideas show up in software people make for all sorts of reasons, but few people besides companies have the money to get a patent that usually costs about 10-20 grand.

  • I remember this cartoon from a magazine... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Esion Modnar ( 632431 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:44PM (#7168127)
    It shows one hideous little monster chasing another hideous little monster down a sidewalk. Two people are standing aside, and one says to the other, "It's just one goddamned thing after another."

    Seems to describe this situation absolutely perfectly.

  • Not Internet Exploiter, but Windows (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Wait wasn't it Microsoft who claimed that IE and Windows are one integrated product? I think the injuction should be against the *integrated* product which is Windows (all versions) not just the explorer component which according to Microsoft can't be removed from Windows without disabling Windows.

  • From the article... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Aardpig ( 622459 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @08:58PM (#7168214)

    Web developers face the possibility of having to significantly rewrite their pages or strip them of commonly used technologies like Macromedia's Flash.

    Surely this can only be a good thing?

  • Who is next (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:07PM (#7168268) Homepage Journal
    "piss on microsoft, let them suffer"

    Problem is they are NOT the only offender.. most all browswers are in the same boat..

    If they go after Konq next.. im sure there will be an outcry...

    This is way out of hand, though it IS their patent, and their right to enforce it.... we cant have it both ways

  • Eolas the inventor (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ispel ( 266661 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:23PM (#7168367)
    I've read a lot of posts attacking Eolas in support of Microsoft and IE. However when you consider the following, MS deserves to get screwed on this one.

    A long time ago, when people were using Mosaic, the proprietor of Eolas invented the plugin technology. He showed this technology to Microsoft who poo-pooed it. Fast-forward several months and Microsoft's adds plugins in IE. Microsoft gets sued, litigation ensures while the browser wars and Y2K come and go. Whether or not you agree with software patents, there is no doubt Microsoft screwed this guy. I highly doubt the jury would have given Eolas the case if MS had not done this.

    MS gets hundreds of patents per year and the only reason they don't make a big stink about it is because they can (currently) make plenty of money with out creating a huge PR stink (and possibly more monopoly litigation).

    Eolas's plugin technology was first demoed in 1993 and patented in 1994. The concept of Flash / SVG and plugins in general might seem obvious after years of ubigious browser support, however it was a significant invention in the early 90's.

    Microsoft takes full advantage of the patent system with aggressive patents like the typing indicator [slashdot.org] in IM, databased online polls [slashdot.org] and Microsoft's numerous other pre-emptive patents to curtail competition.

    I don't believe that Microsoft/Macromedia/et al's lame fix of document.write'ing the / tag instead of having them directly on the page gets around the patent. It simply stinks of a PR move to make Eolas look bad (lookie, he's wreaking the web) while not addressing the patent.

    In general I don't support software patents, but Microsoft deserves to eat dirt on this one.

    • Re:Eolas the inventor (Score:3, Informative)

      by JimRay ( 6620 )
      A long time ago, when people were using Mosaic, the proprietor of Eolas invented the plugin technology. He showed this technology to Microsoft who poo-pooed it.

      Not quite. The technology was actually "invented" by the University of California -- Michael Doyle didn't invent a single thing. His company simply secured the rights to exclusively license this absurd patent. I'll also point out that no product has made it to market as a direct descendent of this technology -- their simply sitting on a patent, r

  • I claim ignornace on this one. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by the uNF cola ( 657200 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:30PM (#7168422)
    I know this isn't simply about the broad subject about plugins. It's about how blugin's and browsers communicate. That's all i know. Where are the details on the particulars that are in layman terms (not the patent)?

  • Can't be done (Score:3, Interesting)

    by imnoteddy ( 568836 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @09:41PM (#7168477)
    Microsoft told a judge they couldn't remove IE from Windows, so if they can't distribue IE they can't ship Windows, can they? So no Wintel machines could be sold. Might ruin somebody's day. :)

    Yes, I know it won't come to that.

    • Re:Can't be done (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zerocool^ ( 112121 ) on Wednesday October 08, 2003 @10:40PM (#7168863) Homepage Journal
      Yes, I know it won't come to that.

      I hope to god it doesn't.

      Seriously.

      I know we all bash M$, and we all use the dollarsign instead of an 'S', and all that stuff. But, in all seriousness: If microsoft is prevented from shipping windows, that means that dell, HP, ibm, micron, et. al. are prevented from selling comptuers with windows.

      If no one can sell comptuers with windows, the tech sector in specific, and the american economy in general, is fucked. Plain and simple. Dell operates on making about half a billion a day, m ost of it from computers with windows, and most of it would not be sold if it came sans os (get off of your linux high horse for a sec and remember john q public). IBM is close to the same. When I worked at Best Buy, the comptuer department would regularly sell $30,000 worth of computer towers PER DAY, in one store. Multiply by 450 stores and you're talking 13.5 million in lost revs by one retail chain, PER DAY. And it was significantly higher starting black friday (we sold over 350k in the computer department 2 black fridays ago).

      I know it's cool to make fun of and bash microsoft, and all of that, and I understand your need to do that.

      But, please recognize. If no one can sell microsoft windows, then no one can sell computers with windows, and since most of the consumer sector doesn't want a computer with no OS, almost no computers will be sold, and the american economy will come to a screeching halt. We'll immediately be plunged back into the recession we're slowly starting to climb out of.

      ~Will

      • Re:Can't be done (Score:3, Interesting)

        by evilviper ( 135110 )

        Dell operates on making about half a billion a day, m ost of it from computers with windows, and most of it would not be sold if it came sans os

        It's true that few would buy computers if they came without an OS. However, we disagree on the rest.

        I personally know hundreds upon hundreds of people who buy new computers rather regularly. They range from the very high-tech (only a handful run Linux) to average consumers.

        Now, there certainly are several that have plenty invested in their Windows programs, and

      • Re:Can't be done (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Malcontent ( 40834 )
        Maybe if your doomsday scenario comes true then congress will act swiftly to invalidate software patents.

        Wouln't that be cool?

  • Can't remove IE from Windows, huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @12:50AM (#7169455) Homepage
    Watch how fast IE comes out of Windows if Eolas gets an injunction.

    But there's little need for Active-X controls anyway, except to lock people into Microsoft. Microsoft can still ship a browser with Flash and Acrobat; they just can't force an update of it remotely.

    The only real effect of this would be to discourage web designers from requiring the latest version of Flash, Acrobat, etc. For general web site use, you don't need the newer features of either. And for elaborate corporate intranets, the IT department probably wants to install whatever is needed directly, not via browser autoload.

  • What about the UC? (Score:3, Informative)

    by nerdguy0 ( 101358 ) <lwalkera@nOsPAm.ieee.org> on Thursday October 09, 2003 @01:28AM (#7169578)
    If you do some reasearch in to Eolas, you'd find out that the patent in question was loaned to them by the University of California, the same people who own the copyright to BSD. If you go to their Q&A [ucop.edu] about the lawsuit, you can see all the details for yourself.
  • Basically, Microsoft is letting this happen, because it means that the world's most popular and well-deployed browser, with 90+% of the market share, is suddenly not just not supporting plug-ins, but specifically not supporting plug-ins for Flash and Java.

    This means that Flash and Java are no longer ubiquitous ways to distribute web applications and advertisements. It also kills any momentum that SVG might be building up, and reduces the use of PDF files as a means of distribution. Microsoft couldn't be happier about such an announcement.

    It buys Microsoft time, by being the "good guys" legally and gaining good press, to actually write their own dynamic-web-animation system, all built in their own proprietary VB or JScript API, eliminating the need for Flash and SVG and all that entirely. And of course opening up a tremendous amount of new security holes for /. to report on.

    They want this to happen. They want the web world to not be dependent on Java and Flash and all that stuff. And now this patent suit is giving them what they want and still making them smell like a rose when they do it...

Slashdot Top Deals

One person's error is another person's data.

Close