RSSMicrosoft Alters IE Due to Patent Ruling
By David Worthington | Published October 8, 2003, 4:26 AM
As Microsoft's legal woes continue, the company is making changes to Internet Explorer and Windows in an attempt to sidestep the $521 million Eolas patent ruling issued by a federal court in August.
Even while Redmond is appealing the court's decision, Web developers have until early next year before Microsoft modifies the way Internet Explorer handles ActiveX controls embedded in Web pages.
Eolas, which suggests Microsoft license its technology for a price, received rights to plug-in technology researched and developed at the University of California in 1994. A lawsuit filed by Eolas alleges Microsoft used the plug-in technology without permission in its products released over the span of the past decade.
Microsoft and its partners, as well as some competitors with aligned interest in the Windows platform, is providing developers with specialized documentation on how they should deal with these changes.
A brief listing of products affected by the litigation includes: Macromedia Flash, Apple QuickTime, RealNetworks RealOne, Adobe Acrobat Reader, Sun Java Virtual Machine and Microsoft Windows Media Player.
Web developers who do not abide by the directions of these vendors and author new code, will encounter a scenario where a dialog box will display in place of a control when an affected page is loaded.
"This ruling affects more than just Microsoft; it affects a broad array of partners and customers -- including companies that many would view as competitors," said Michael Wallent, general manager of the Windows Client Platform at Microsoft.
"Microsoft has been very proactive in reaching out to this group to develop steps that will reduce or eliminate the ruling's impact on consumers and other companies, even as we appeal it," said Wallent.
According to Microsoft, further technical information on the proposed changes to Internet Explorer and early versions of the documentation are available on the MSDN Web site.
If i understand the patent properly you can't embed an external application in a hypertext document. First, what defines a hypertext document? The only reason i ask is that could in windows 3.1 create a document in Write, embed a file and have an external play show it inside the document. And if a Write document could be classified as a hypertext document, then the patent is void because Write came first.
Score: 0
|I feel they went a little overboard, if this was a issue wiht kiddie porn or stalking, remove those rooms!!!, you could go down through the list of chat rooms and see what they were named and you realized what they were intended for
DUH
just like with Hotmail, after Microsoft took it over, they started wanting to charge you if you used more than your "allocated" disk space
right!!!!!
sometimes you cant believe half of what you see, especially when its from a company like Microsoft
Score: 0
|Sorry, but did you actually read the article ?
Score: 0
|Huh-huh-huh. Just imagine the browser asks you "Do you like to allow to display this Flash bannner from this site to you", as it should according to the proposed IE changes
Score: 0
|I like activex. and I hate to see how those people who developed this implementation technology have waited for 10 years just to come forward now and to press charges. they always do such greedy ugly things. Like the guy who invented popups - he now wants money from every website that implements this technology for ad purposes. or like the gif foundation that waited till everybody was using gif until it came forward and wanted money for the usage of their format. and then the whole internet has to jump and say, "yes, thank you, sir, we are going to pay for your technology..." no, of course nobody pays, but that means that every single page or product out there has to be radically changed. I think that certain wide spread things like winzip format or gif format or popups or activex should become public domain. First they push some weird format like flash or coldfusion or quicktime or real media onto the people, wait till it spreads itself and then they start to press charges. so unfair...
Score: 0
|remember, they did go out right away. the patent was filed in 1994 and in 1995 they were already taking about infringements.
Score: 0
|Flash and Cold Fusion weird formats that we'll end up paying for?
Huh?
Flash will never be charged for since they charge developers for the software to create the files and Cold Fusion is server side...
Score: 0
|what i really love about this is that everyone is going to see this as another "evil microsoft" thing. as losely stated in this article, it affects every browser that implements technology similar to ActiveX or Java Applets. the patent covers the technology that allows for a browser to embed a child process that is both able to potentially run in the browser and also to communicate back and forth with a server. microsoft just happens to be the richest in the group so eolas is going after them. it could have easily been netscape but everyone knows there's no money there.
Score: 0
|"it could have easily been netscape but everyone knows there's no money there"
There's no Netscape either. :)
Seriously, you're right. The Mozilla Foundation is very concerned about this case.
Score: 0
|The lawsuit started because a user used MICROSOFT products and not NETSCAPE. So why sue netscape even though they use similar technology when you use microsoft and got hacked using microsoft products?
Score: 0
|please forgive me, but i'm trying to understand if you're being sarcastic or realistic. if you are trying to bring in anything else beyond the point of the patent infringement you're argument is irrelative.
Score: 0
|Word around the web is if Microsoft *really* looses this one, everyone that uses the technology will loose also. So, do we cheer that MS has so far "lost" this one, or should we hope they win the appeal (citing prior art in other products?
Score: 0
|I think we will have to see how this really affects us if something actually happens. If it does we will only see the changes in Windows Loghorn due out in 2005 so don't get your panties in bunch because this is only the begining.
Score: 0
|This seems to be the talk of the town, as they say... I was watching TechTV and nearly every program seemed to mention this case. From what they said, it seems that the problem is more than plug-in technology per se; ActiveX is supposedly the problem... Well, that's clearly misleading as the problem is more general than that, which means it extends FAR beyond the evil empire called Microsoft. =oP
If M$ loses this case, the means that we'll see a VERY big change in how web browsers work; it'll likely make performance much worse... Companies will either have to pay royalties or change their underlying technologies as the plug-in system is pretty low-level.. Sucks that Eolas comes out with this now; I guess that's what a company does when they're desperate for money. =oX
In any case, I already can think of other ways to handle plug-in's.. Heck, it may be as simple as just changing the way the technologies are worded/termed... There's all sorts of ways to dodge these legal bullets. Been there, done that, bought the the t-s***.. I think Microsoft will BS their way out of this easily like they usually do but, if they don't, the rest of the industry should be scared. Heck, Mozilla probably is next on the hitlist! o_O
Score: 0
|just as a note, the patent was filed in 1994 but i don't think it was officially accepted(?) until November of 1998. the original suit from Eolas is from 1999 although they have documented news reports from USA Today and ComputerWorld stating that they were looking at Sun and Netscape for possible legal action back in 1995. interesting.
Score: 0
|The problem is with a patent system which issues patents
for mere ~ideas~ and processes rather than for products.
Everybody agrees that the proverbial 'better mouse trap'
ought have patent protection. But, when the concept of
trapping mice gains the same protection, the whole purpose
of the patent system is perverted.
Broadly-defined "intellectual property" should NOT rise
to the level of patent protection !
Copyrights and patents have gotten out of hand in this
country, and a revision of the laws would be appropriate.
The DataRat
Score: 0
|El Raton, that there is THE smartest thing you have ever said! What's funny, though, is how select USPTO is about cases involving software. You see, someone can blatantly clone a video game concept and just change the name and *MAYBE* a few other things, then there is suddenly no chance of there being a worthwhile court case, let alone any sort of hearing.
Conversely, people can patent technologies and design paradigms that they have not necessarily implemented, and then people must pay them royalties if they wish to use their "intellectual property". Even worse, some people have even patented certain catch phrases and get a pay-out every time someone uses their phrases with a mass audience present. That is VERY discerning, to say the least.
As a developer that has some ideas that are, IMO, very innovative, my fear is that these laws are so loosely supported that I will not have the protection I need when I need it... But then there are clowns like Eolas that exploit "the system" and quite well at that.
Someone made a comment about how this all goes back to like '94... Very much true. While the details of this ongoing story are a bit hazy in my mind, I do recall that there was a compant that filed for a plug-in patent but they only obtained it AFTER the fact. Last I checked, "post mordem" liability does not exist in the U.S. justice system but I could just be talking out of my arse... I do write a lot of contracts all the time, just to cover my butt... Liability is such a HUGE thing to consider and most businesses only look at it as an after-thought.. Sad, really... =o\
USPTO sux0rz. =oP
Score: 0
|/agrees resolutely
the patent process is in horrible need of revision.
Score: 0
|Reviewing what I just wrote, I noticed a typo or two so excuse me on that... I also thought of an important question: can/should a company be liable if they release a similar product unknowingly? It is my understanding that royalties are only necessary when someone clearly uses another's software framework, API, kit, and what-not BUT how do you prove intent beyond reasonable doubt? It's an issue that always come up... So what do you guys think about that?
I think that the USPTO needs to have a separate division that handles online businesses because it is a trend that still grows EVEN after the [DOT]COM boom. I checked their site and they seem to have some sort of policies and procedures but it all seems SO open-ended. USPTO has five organizations that are part of the Office of General Counsel (OGC) and NONE of them specialize in anything that closely resembles Internet, software, computers, or any sort of IT concentration. Meanwhile, the government is trying to regulate such things yet the law needs *MAJOR* revamping; they lack the organizational bodies and expertise, from what it seems. I've worked for gov't agencies and, BOY, it can make you want to jump out a window.. Gotta be careful what I say or my post may flag something at the FBI HQ or something. =oP
In any case, patent and trademark procedures definitely need some expansion and ellaboration, at that. It's a pisser that people exploit the system so much and gov't officials just sit around with their thumbs up their pat00ts. =oX
Score: 0
|The Computer Rodent is no patent attorney ...he's the
Computer Rodent ! But, El Raton thinks we got to return
to the original intent for having patent laws: To
stimulate innovation and product creation rather than
stifle these things.
Patents ought be linked to concrete ideas and specific
processes marketed as real products. Concepts which
are so broad the creator can't turn them into specific
marketable products should NOT receive patents.
Lines of code are one thing. However, patenting things
computers ~might~ do is an abuse of the patent system.
The DataRat
Score: 0
|i honestly don't know where i stand with the issue with patents because i find myself asking questions that i can't exactly answer. is patenting software like patenting a recipe? the ingredients are all public knowledge, it's just how they're all put together is what's patented. if i patented the airbag, don't i have the patent on all types of balloons that pop out of the stearing wheel? theoretically everything has been done in the programming world. at the near lowest level you've got a bunch of FOR loops, some IFs and variables and maybe a database. the FOR loop is a construct, built into almost all languages in some way, how may FOR loops must i put together before i can achieve a patent? is program code more like literature and needs to be copyrighted? so some third party must be allowed to examine both sides to see if party B infringed on party A? i don't know.
Score: 0
|stop talking about yourself in the third person you ego maniacal nit
Score: 0
|