Microsoft has suffered another legal setback in the patent dispute with software developer Eolas and is now advising developers on workarounds, as new details emerge of its plans to tweak Internet Explorer.
IE Patent Endgame Detailed
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Eolas’s actions have really disgusted me.
I especially agree with the end of the article, the W3C has attempted to make the web patent free, but this little company may ruin all that.
Looks like Microsoft got its very own SCO.
I’m just glad Microsoft isn’t buying them out (like they do everyone else).
… and politicians will understand how extremly stupid and useless software patents are. the idea of plugins is trivial and microsoft used some kind of plugins long before (was it called OLE? IBM/Apple developed OpenDoc)
microsoft should buy eolas and close it and than sue mozilla, kde, opera, apple for plugins in their browsers. would be even better.
Wondering if this affects also other browsers.
Where is suites against Opera Software, AOL or Mozilla Foundation?
Microsoft isn’t buying them out YET … wouldn’t supprise me if they’d try that when all else fails.
(just my 0.02 euro)
The company offers nothing. Go their website and try and find a product.
There are none. This is a company setup to make money off of “R&D” and milk patents in the IT field. I’m sure they’ll “license” you technology, but what does that mean ? You still have to write the code to implement it!
A disgrace to say the least.
And shuts down annoying imitations like Mozilla and Konquerer. We deparately need some standards on the Internet, and Internet Explorer is it. Coding to one browser only makes the web developer’s job so much easier. Its such a pain having to also test with crappy knock-offs just to please some geeks who write Microsoft as Micro$oft…
We deparately need some standards on the Internet, and Internet Explorer is it.
Gee and I thought that was W3C’s job
no, it doesn’t. Technically, yes, most browsers violate this patent, but the US patent system allows patent holders to be choosy. Eolas can sue Microsoft and allow everyone else to use the patent without fear of legal action simply because they may nit like Microsoft.
Doubt they can buy Eolas. It’s not a publicly held company, and the “owner” of this patent seems to want to just screw things up for everybody else. He’s on a crazy power trip or something. You can’t buy people like that. I dunno what you can do (except replace the patent system with something that doesn’t suck)
Well as much as I like to see M$ get the stuffing kicked out of it at every given oportunity it does seem to me that this group don’t actually *produce* anything, in effect, they are to M$ what SCO is to Linux. Only Eolas did what they did quickly and efficiently from the start, rather than make large noises and do little…
The flip side to this is that if Eolas get bought out, which given M$’s past is entirely possible, what will that do to the rest of the Browsers that are out their?
Since most Linux browsers are way behind on plug in technology, only a few native ones exist, this could but a nice light on Linux based browser and give them a chance to gain market share.
How are linux browsers behind?
There’s native:
Flash
Java
video and audio for basically every stream (thanks to mplayer)
The only thing I see missing is SHOCKWAVE, which is hardly that important (I haven’t missed it at least).
no, it doesn’t. Technically, yes, most browsers violate this patent, but the US patent system allows patent holders to be choosy. Eolas can sue Microsoft and allow everyone else to use the patent without fear of legal action simply because they may nit like Microsoft.
That simply isn’t true. Failure to defend a patent will mean that subsequent action down the road will be thrown out.
That simply isn’t true. Failure to defend a patent will mean that subsequent action down the road will be thrown out.
Your thinking of copyright. Patents do not need to be defended. Think about the GIF situation, where they claimed only to go after “commecial entities” and wouldn’t go after end users, and all the changes of stance they took before that.
A STANDARD IS NOT THE PRODUCT ITSELF.
Except when it’s someone elses IP.
From the article:
“When you think about this, having to go around the patent highlights the stupidity of the patent system,” he said. “Everyone in the field is very saddened by the whole thing, that we have to go through this exercise. The W3C has worked very hard to make the Web remain patent free and this might be the one thing that screws it all up. It’s really very frustrating.”
The problem for developers is caused by MS. They could have engineered around the patent a long time ago.
Regards,
Mark Wilson
Someone mod that ackman turkey down…
He’s been throwing bricks all day…
Who owns C|Net?
(I already know…, but do you?)
Foo wrote:
“Failure to defend a patent will mean that subsequent action down the road will be thrown out.”
The above statement is completely false. Patent law confers the absolute right during the term of the patent to choose to stop any other person from using the invention, entirely at the discretion of the patent holder.
See
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/whatis.htm
Regards,
Mark Wilson
In the article, MSFT is saying that you would have to change how you built your web pages.
Nope, only msft losers would. Or anyone using IE.
The internet web page standards are not governed by microsoft, or eolas.
surely microsoft should learn that the ability to IP anything is a bad idea… especially when it itself gets bitten
Who owns C|Net?
(I already know…, but do you?)
Euh … no … d*mn*d, now I’m curious … who?
And shuts down annoying imitations like Mozilla and Konquerer. We deparately need some standards on the Internet, and Internet Explorer is it. Coding to one browser only makes the web developer’s job so much easier. Its such a pain having to also test with crappy knock-offs just to please some geeks who write Microsoft as Micro$oft…
Ah, the pissing and whining of the lazy web designer. Competion is good AND standards are good. I design web sites and my sites work in all of the browsers I can test. And no, they’re not simple brochureware sites but interactive applications and db, etc.
Its just part of the process. IE was late in the browser game and lacks bad in many feature to this day. To call Konqueror and Mozilla “imitations” is a short cut to thinking (to misquote Ray Manzarek).
The idea of a plug-in is no different than adding an extention to any sort of device or product, and as such should not be able to be patented due to it’s simplistic nature and to the fact that the idea is used not only everywhere in the software industry, but also in every single other industry today.
The patent office shows that they truely do not know what they are doing when giving away patents such as this one, its just getting insane.
What does it matter whether it was ‘a long time ago’ or today? The fact is the patent is incredibly vague and there is a great deal of work done prior to this horrendous patent.
I love how people just blindly follow the anti-MS crowd in EVERY respect. Yes, Microsoft is not perfect.. heck, neither is any other company, but not everything they do is wrong.
there’s an interresting article on prior art in lotus notes R3 http://slashdot.org/articles/03/09/13/1747219.shtml?tid=113&tid=126…
I love how people just blindly follow the MS crowd in EVERY respect.
microsoft should buy eolas and close it and than sue mozilla, kde, opera, apple for plugins in their browsers. would be even better.
That or a IP licensing from Microsoft should be the main ideia behind the court trial.
Those who are glad Microsoft isn’t buying them should be considering the event of not being able to use Mozilla and Konqueror or Java. Eola has on their web page that the IP is about the possibility of connecting external binnaries embedded on a web page to run inside the (any) browser.
http://www.eolas.com/technology.html
this invention lifted the glass for the first time from the hypermedia browser, enabling Web browsers for the first time to act as platforms for fully-interactive embedded applications. The patent covers Web browsers that support such currently popular technologies as ActiveX components, Java applets, and Navigator plug-ins.
Macromedia Flash is the most widdely used plugin. I wonder why they sued Microsoft and not Macromedia or Sun (Java) 😉 $$$$
In Sun’s case that would be the same taste as when they sued Microsoft for using their own Java Machine …
Some software bussiness might even be at risk.
Macromedia Flash is the most widdely used plugin.
That would be a good thing, imagine a web without flash, a better place for everyone
Well I have a patent pending too. Nothing earthshaking, very technical in the error correction field, just a small improvement in the art. To understand it you would need some good math & engineering knowledge so only a few companies would ever come across it. Thats probably the way patents should be.
If a patent can be understood by an uneducated person, it probably shouldn’t be patented. In EET there is talk of PalmChips recent patent, just as stupid and just as obvious (it’s been in HW text books forever) about moving data along busses. Just about every chip is full of these unidirectional busses so we will see.
Personally I detest working on patents, they are just weapons that end up in IP portfolios that get exchanged between companies.
my 2c
imagine a web without flash, a better place for everyone
It is better than animated gifs eternally repeating …
It is the Advertisers / Designers who make a very poor use of it. That’s not Flash’ tech fault.
True, but at least, you can easily block those animated gif banners.
Flash is actually a good medium, but it’s overused and in most cases, misused.
I like patents. I think they are necessary..but it is too easy to get SW patents. I think software should be patentable, but when you can patent concepts and call it software, this isn’t good.
And shuts down annoying imitations like Mozilla and Konquerer. We deparately need some standards on the Internet, and Internet Explorer is it. Coding to one browser only makes the web developer’s job so much easier. Its such a pain having to also test with crappy knock-offs just to please some geeks who write Microsoft as Micro$oft…
Mozilla is the opensource version of Netscape, and Netscape was around long before Internet Explorer. So I wouldn’t go around saying Mozilla is a “crappy knock-off”, when the exact opposite is true. Also, Mozilla and it’s rendering engine, Gecko are award-winning products. It follows the W3C standards to a T, unlike the unnoficial addons IE has made into HTML. Many new desktop browsers and embedded browsers for PDA’s are starting to adopt Gecko.
Please don’t post about stuff you don’t know. It doesn’t help.
And shuts down annoying imitations like Mozilla and Konquerer. We deparately need some standards on the Internet, and Internet Explorer is it. Coding to one browser only makes the web developer’s job so much easier. Its such a pain having to also test with crappy knock-offs just to please some geeks who write Microsoft as Micro$oft…
—————
If MS would have followed the W3C standards, it wouldn’t be a problem in the first place.
Besides, IE may never become the standard because the internet how you view it would depend on 1 company and thus you would privatize it and close it in properiatry formats, which is against everything the internet is. The internet must stay an open place.
…would be blocked somehow, because I doubt any government would allow MS to have a monopoly on the browser market.
Also Eolas are a SCO looking to make profits. Where have they been all this time? Can anyone answer that? All they have done is wait and make sure the Internet is dependant on this plugin system.
Does anyone have a link to their patent? I bet you can’t even tweak a browser because it would still be considered a plugin.
He’s on a crazy power trip or something. You can’t buy people like that.
You can pay to have people like that killed. Sounds like enough money is at stake.
From EOLA’s web-site:
“zMap: Moving hotspots on video clips
Method and apparatus for identifying features of multidimensional image data in hypermedia systems
U.S. Patent 6,616,701, Filed on May 23, 1998, Issued September 9, 2003
Inventor: Michael D. Doyle
This invention turns full-motion video into a fully-interactive experience. Imagine, for example, being able to view a movie trailer and being able to click on individual actors, as they move across the screen, to bring up Web pages with more information on their bios, other films, etc. Or imagine that you’re watching a video of the 1996 NBA finals, and being able to click directly on any of the players at any time to retrieve their stats, where they are now, etc. The zMap technology makes all that possible, and more.”
————————————————————
This sound familiar? Hell YES! More like Flash ? Maybe…
Anyway, this concenpt is not new, how the hell did the guy get a patent on it? If I would reimplement or, say, design some similar software that would do that, what would happen to me? Get sued just for using the concept and doing all the hard work like that? If it works like this then I have an excelent idea!: I will tomorow file for a patent on a concept: “Flying with non-moving or stiff wings.” I would like to see how the rest of the world, except me, will fly after my patent gets aproved.
PS: Their web-site looks unproffessional and amaterish, jerks!
I will also patent the wheel, the Diesel engine, and the concept of hauling with a Big Rig…
Lets see how truckers will move fright after that…
[I have a CDL btw…]
CPUGuy wrote:
“What does it matter whether it was ‘a long time ago’ or today? The fact is the patent is incredibly vague and there is a great deal of work done prior to this horrendous patent.”
You might be right. So far, the courts have disagreed.
“I love how people just blindly follow the anti-MS crowd in EVERY respect. Yes, Microsoft is not perfect.. heck, neither is any other company, but not everything they do is wrong.”
I definitely don’t care for much of what MS does, but I don’t follow anything blindly. My views on MS are based on experience, reason and rational analysis. I am aware that other companies are not perfect. For example, Oracle’s new fad for the next few quarters is grid computing — what a joke. Sun hasn’t been too stupid for awhile, but I’m sure they’ll step up to the plate soon. I haven’t had a bad thought about IBM for a long time now… And yes, MS some times does things that are not wrong. Their work on accessability is admirable.
Also, Steve Ballmer scares we he jumps up and down, dances and screams in front of thousands of people.
See:
http://www.stenstad.net/storage/ballmer_dance.mpg
Regards,
Mark Wilson
From the eolas homepage (http://www.eolas.com/technology.html):
— quote
The Web Application Platform
Distributed hypermedia method for automatically invoking external application providing interaction and display of embedded objects within a hypermedia document
— end quote.
Now, plugins are external applications? What’s the legal difference between an external application and a shared library?
This is relevant because the java plugin in mozilla on linux (for instance) is a .so file (shared library). Not an external application, but an extension to mozilla (using code from a third party, yes, but respecting the mozilla/netscape plugin interface). Not an external application because you can’t run it by itself.
Flash for mozilla on linux is also a .so and can’t be run by itself.
Is Microsoft doing something different? Because what mozilla uses doesn’t seem to be touched by the patent — so I don’t see how mozilla/galeon/epiphany are in danger here.
Please enlighten me.
Thanks,
Miron Brezuleanu
quote…
Also, Steve Ballmer scares we he jumps up and down, dances and screams in front of thousands of people.
See:
http://www.stenstad.net/storage/ballmer_dance.mpg
Regards,
Mark Wilson
I wonder how many servers around the web host that file.
What are the stats?
If I remember correctly, Eolas said they would only sue Microsoft. Because of their monopoly (or something like that)… so Mozilla won’t notice it…
Still it doesnt feel good, but it could restart the browser wars again! Although, Microsoft will win again… because they still have all the monopoly needed to gain/keep control
*sigh*…
What is this.? Did SCO started something bigger than we see? Apple Corps. is suing Apple Computer , again , for the use of word Apple in connection with iTunes. Is this a shares washing year or what.
Eolas is a R&D house and developes patents for a living. MSFT contacted Eolas while trying to develope IE; they looked at Eolas’s way of doing plug-ins and then designed their own way based on Eolas’s work. This is a clear patent violation.
There are several ways of doing plug-ins; the Eolas way is one and the Netscape way is another. Thus, brosers designed to handle Netscape plug-in’s aren’t covered by the patent.
I use Safari and it handles plug-ins differently the IE also. IE can open Acrobat, Word, Excel, and just about any other application under the sun with-in the IE window. Safari supports shared libraries (flash, java, …) but will download files and run the applications for things like (Word documents, Acrobat, …); thus, Safari isn’t affected by the patent.
MSFT has a simular problem with a security group; MSFT went to their offices, looked at the code, viewed the demos, and then went home and wrote their own. The security company is now sueing them for Patent violations because the APIs developed by MSFT look almost identical to their APIs. For everyone using Windows, I might suggest they start looking for a new OS if this company wins and refueses to license the patent to MSFT. The current products violating the patent are: .NET, Windows XP, Microsoft Media Player, and the entire DRM system.
Ackman (IP: —.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) – Posted on 2003-09-13 20:13:52
And shuts down annoying imitations like Mozilla and Konquerer. We deparately need some standards on the Internet, and Internet Explorer is it. Coding to one browser only makes the web developer’s job so much easier. Its such a pain having to also test with crappy knock-offs just to please some geeks who write Microsoft as Micro$oft…
Already reviewed
How can some one explain that? 2 inflamatory comments with in the first 15 posts, yet, the moderators literately give it the slashdot equivilant of “insightful +5 points”.
This type of thing is exactly why software should not be patentable. Next thing you know it will be possible to patent other literature and we’ll have Arthur C Clarke suing Greg Bear because the Thisledown in Eon is too similar to Rama and Clarke has the patent on all ideas of an unknown object being detected transversing the solar system.
Software is no more creative than fictitious literature and should only be protectable in the same way. I can think of no good reason for software patents and I don’t think there are any. Vague patents like this one are the worst of the lot, they don’t even have to show a working version. There is no apparatus to look at to determine if something similar has already been patented and the wording of these patents can be such that they can be interpreted to mean any one of dozens of things and as a working version was never required, cannot be pinned down to one function.
Anyone with any sense would immediately find their countries petition against software patents, sign it and encourage anyone they know to sign it.
A U.S. Petition can be signed at http://www.petitiononline.com/pasp01/petition.html and a European Petition can be found at http://petition.eurolinux.org/index.html?LANG=en
As a policy matter, it may be a good idea to limit the patentability of software inventions. I think, however, that a lot of ground could be gained by properly applying the requirement that an invention meet the existing requirements for non-obviousness and inventiveness, by properly assessing prior art and by appropriately limiting the scope claims. One advantage of patents to society is that they require disclosure and that the invention is freely available after the patent term has expired.
Regards,
Mark Wilson
IIRC patents of all types last 25 years which in computing terms is forever. If software patents were limited to a more reasonable time such as 5 years it might be more acceptable but still dangerous. You have never before been able to patent an idea without showing its workability and it is now almost impossible to research a patent to be sure it doesn’t infringe on another obscure line buried in another software patent. The problem with software patents is they are words not objects, you can say the same thing in a multitude of ways and a single phrase or paragraph can mean a multitude of different things. It is virtually impossible to keep track of them even if you aren’t an non technical patent officer who wouldn’t know his assembly code from from a hole in the ground.
How can some one explain that? 2 inflamatory comments with in the first 15 posts, yet, the moderators literately give it the slashdot equivilant of “insightful +5 points”.
The difference is that these are pro-Microsoft comments. If they had said that they wished this patent suit would vanquish I.E. so the web could finally have some standardization instead of Microsoft’s poorly implemented crap, then they would have been moderated down; much like I’m sure this post will be.
That comment, while incredibly stupid, was someone’s opinion, was on topic, and did not flame anyone.
is that why mozilla and konqueror are more standards compliant than ie and when writing a standards compliant web page, one has to write loads of little work arounds for ie and none for mozilla/konqueror?
CPUGuy (IP: 24.92.223.—) – Posted on 2003-09-14 23:59:36
That comment, while incredibly stupid, was someone’s opinion, was on topic, and did not flame anyone.
There is a VERY big difference between saying, “I believe that Microsoft did not infringe on any software patents. It seems like there is just alot of nit picking”, and what WAS written, “Mozilla and Konqueror should die” or “Microsoft should buy out Eolas then sue Mozilla and KDE foundation”.
CPUGuy, you are the WORST offender of the osnews.com acceptable use agreement. There is a BIG difference between having a different opinion and being a straight out shit-stirrer.
[quote]
And shuts down annoying imitations like Mozilla and Konquerer. We deparately need some standards on the Internet, and Internet Explorer is it. [/quote]
REALITY CHECK! You probably haven’t used Mozilla 0.7; you are commenting on something you don’t know about.
Try Mozilla Firebird and you’ll realise IE is an outdated browser. It’s two years old, and full of IE specific crap. Install Firebird and you’ll see it runs faster, and the same features as IE. Okay, no coloured scrollbars. Like I care. Plugin architecture is very good. WYSIWYG editor support. Etc…
Yes, there is a difference, one was is tactful, the other is blatent and quite possibly flamebait (which everyone took), however it is someone’s opinion, it does not have any sort of name-calling, etc….
Just because you have differing opinions than mine does not mean I’m a “shit-stirrer”… perhaps you need to grow up and realize that your opinion is not the only one, and may not even be “right”.
Yes, there is a difference, one was is tactful, the other is blatent and quite possibly flamebait (which everyone took), however it is someone’s opinion, it does not have any sort of name-calling, etc….
Just because you have differing opinions than mine does not mean I’m a “shit-stirrer”… perhaps you need to grow up and realize that your opinion is not the only one, and may not even be “right”.
When have I ever said that my opinion was the only correct and valid one? I disagree with Bascule sometimes on his opinions regarding SUN and its direction BUT I don’t do what some people have done and deliberately incite a flamewar.
I disagree with ELQ on her ideas regarding usability, yet, again, I don’t incite a flamewar.
CPUGuy, you are the same very sad person who trolls activewin.com in hope of a reactionary to come out and start flaming. Sorry, but you tactics haven’t worked. How about going back to reading you Harry Potter books and allow a constructive conversation to continue at osnews.com.
Perhaps you don’t know what a troll is… in fact, I NEVER am the first to post something on activewin, but only refute or incourage what others have said…
But then again, my opinions often differ from yours, so you might as well just go name-calling, eh?
“He’s on a crazy power trip or something. You can’t buy people like that. I dunno what you can do (except replace the patent system with something that doesn’t suck)”
Maybe that’s what Eolas and U. of C. want. Maybe they’re in a “you get what you give” mode or something. Get megabucks out of Microsoft and scare them into abandoning their fight for software patents.
😉 Heh heh heh…
“f software patents were limited to a more reasonable time such as 5 years”
…like copyrights used to be? You’re living in a world run by rich pigs. If they could, they’d make copyrights last a thousand years. Patents, too, if technology stagnated.
Remember all that feedback the Commerce Committee asked for WRT copyrights and hardware limitations? I wonder what good it did?
What happened to that rule they were going to look into, where a copyright holder has to pay $1 after 50 years to keep the copyright?
This is very to similar to “Microsoft patents Ones and Zeros”
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatents.html