RSSMicrosoft Offers 60-Day ActiveX Reprieve
By Ed Oswald | Published March 29, 2006, 12:11 PM
Microsoft has acknowledged that a planned update to the way Internet Explorer renders multimedia on Web pages could cause some serious problems, and promised to give developers an extra two months to modify their pages to ensure a smooth transition.
The Redmond company was forced to make the changes in response to a patent dispute with Eolas Technologies. The fix would affect the way ActiveX controls are displayed on Web pages, according to experts. If no changes were made, a user would have to "activate" an ActiveX or Java control before it would be usable.
An update containing the modification was made available as an optional download earlier this month.
That patch to be delivered to all users on April 11 as part of the company's Patch Tuesday program would deliver an update with the change. Along with this download, another would be provided that would hold off the ActiveX changes through June, the company said. Affected HTML controls include the APPLET, EMBED, and OBJECT elements.
Microsoft said only those who need the extra time should apply the patch, as another in June would override these changes and ensure the loophole is closed. Most companies have made the necessary changes, as Microsoft has been assisting its partners since December 2005. However, a few enterprise customers have requested an extension.
While Microsoft says that the transition will be smooth, and has posted instructions on how developers can automatically activate their controls through the use of external scripts. Still, some experts speculate that because not all sites are making the changes, there could be chaos when the patches are applied to customers' browsers come April.
Maybe time to move away from the MS model and turn to Linux.
Too many holes and too slow to patch, already we're seeing 3rd party patchs for critical issues because of the slow response from MS.
I really struggle to see the advantage of IE 7 compared to Firefox, it's kinda beauty vs the beast :)
Score: 0
|Also not mentioned, is all OEM's that preinstall WIndows must install this patch on their machines, effective immediately. Office SP2 is also a mandatory version to be installed for all new Office 2003 sales.
Score: 0
|This is not such a HUGE deal except for the products out in the market right now. Its a simple build 1 machine create image your done kinda job.
Besides these oems are constantly updating their OEM disks to include security patches.
Score: 0
|This is the freaking DISEASE that is the Patent system. It is destroying innovation and causing havok in the software industry.
If you patent something and NEVER use it, and someone else comes up with the idea. YOU SNOOZE YOU LOSE. thats how it should be, not this lawyer fest we get nowadays with this system.
Freaking same junk that RIM had to deal with. stupid system. Its supposed to help innovation but it actually deters it.
Score: 0
|Not being too HTML savvy - Do other browsers, such as Opera and FF use any of the mentioned embed controls?
Score: 0
|Other browsers can support ActiveX through a plug-in.
Score: 0
|http://cityofrain.com/?p=567
This is a load of garbage. It will NOT be smooth. Every embed will have to be activated. Hopefully you can still remove 912945 after it becomes "mandatory".
All of those Flash, DW, swf embeds that handle code for you are going to be wrong. Nice downgrade.
Score: 0
|Wonderful. Keep automatic updates on notify, because this s**t is rediculous.
Or, just keep it off altogether like i do :)
Score: 0
|Don't blame MS. Blame that company pulling this BS lawsuit.
Score: 0
|Why not blame MS? They had every opportunity to license the technology.
http://news.com.com/2100-1032-5079642.html
If Microsoft supports patents (good or bad) then they have to play by the rules. It went to court and lost.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Eolas is the good guy by any means however the inventor applied for the patent in 1994 and won it in 1998. In 1994 IE didn't really even exist so they in effect had every right to sue them.
You are suffering because they chose to leverage their monopoly money and they lost.
Score: 0
|Not blaming. I'm saying this court ruling does NOTHING to help users. That's garbage.
Score: 0
|Thank Microsoft for that, they chose not to license the technology and fight it in court. The patent was found to be valid and they lost.
Score: 0
|I don't think it is a "critical" update and won't install automatically.
Score: 0
|As far as I am aware, this does not only affect Microsoft and IE, the Eolas patent is for the method of embedding objects within webpages, so potentially Flash and Java applets would be affected. This will affect Firefox, Opera, and all the rest (I do not see Mozilla or Opera scrambling to license the technology).
What is going to happen is everyone will have to rewrite their webpages to bypass the Eolas patent so that all the browsers can interact with objects without having to click on them first. Microsoft, being the biggest fish, are obviously changing their browser first to avoid any fallout from patent violation.
Score: 0
|I don't disagree, however I don't recall Mozilla or Opera announcing their intentions. (I probably just missed those announcements though.)
Score: 0
|Nah the problem is, as you know this is a bit of a bullcrap patent, Eolas is going after Microsoft cos that's where the money is. Firefox and Opera might escape it just now, and could go for some time without having to comply.
All that will happen is DreamWeaver, FrontPage and the like will change the Embed Object method to include a little bit of JavaScript at the start to activate the object "manually", and the world will keep turning, and Eolas will not get any money, and no-one will license "their" "technology", and they'll be forgotten in a few month's time.
The real problem here is the patenting system. When you can patent and idea, a concept, or something which is merely "obvious" then there is always the potential to hurt end-users who would benefit from the "technology"... See, for example, Amazon's "One-Click Checkout" and eBay's "Buy It Now". How can you patent ideas like this as technology? They are just so obvious, but because the companies have the balls to patent a simple idea, other competitors (and end-users, and consumers) lose out.
Score: 0
|There are lots of companies these days that are trying to make money from other people's products. It's unfortunate to see so many people abusing the patent system.
Score: 0
|Read the article. It becomes critical in 60 days. That's the point.
Score: 0
|It's because if MS did not force it, they'd have their a$$es in another frikin lawsuit. You think Microsoft wanted to make these changes ActiveX? Or that they wanted to offer a 'remove' option for IE in Windows OS'es after Windows 98? Or maybe Microsoft wanted to completely remove msjava, and Visual J++, right?
It's not their choice.
Score: 0
|okay, first MSFT killed all browser competition. Then, created/facilitated certain functionality into their browser they advertised to all the browser page writers, business or private. Now that the world was lured into using the IE ways, MS does not want to pay for the illegal facilitation / license the technology....0.5 billion their wanted saving, billions of cost off-loaded to the rest of the world. I say: Let the community force MSFT to pay up to EOLAS i.e. reduce their illgotten excessively billowing-over money coffers....
oh and BTW, i think it intollerable that they thru their Windows Update website patch out the functionality...well WAU is OFF from now!
Score: 0
|Absolutely, and Microsoft is a major player in that very game.
http://www.forbes.com/ho...z_df_0322microsoft.html
They have thousands of patents, I'd guess quite a few of those are for technology they aren't even using.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/49229.html
They are no better than the company they just lost too they just market themselves as the good guys.
Score: 0
|I couldn't agree more.
Score: 0
|You can say the same thing without appearing so stubborn. That way, people who like Microsoft will listen to you when you speak. Saying "...the world was lured...illgotten excessively billowing-over money coffers...." That makes MS supporters angry with you, and negates the rest of your valid (though untrue IMO) argument. Up to you, I'm just trying to be friendly.
It isn't really something they can do much about given the current situation. Again this is certainly not Microsoft's idea, see my post below...
Score: 0
|OMG. I'm assuming you read those articles, right? Balmer "wouldn't rule out such a showdown.", but all he said was "Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it." --that's it, he said nothing else about sueing. Other article states that "With 5,000 patents in the U.S. -- it holds another 2,000 international patents -- Microsoft is still well behind U.S.-leader IBM (NYSE: IBM) , which holds some 25,000 such protections in its portfolio."
So you are proving your point how?
Score: 0
|The point is that he is not ruling out using the very same method Eolas used against them against Linux. He didn't directly say it no, but he implied that it was a possibility. That's the key, they cry wolf when it's done to them but they are not above considering it themselves. ;-)
"Fans of the popular Linux software program have long fretted that software giant Microsoft will attack Linux by claiming the free program violates Microsoft's patents.
So far nothing has happened. But in an interview with Forbes.com, Microsoft (nasdaq: MSFT - news - people ) Chief Executive Steve Ballmer wouldn't rule out such a showdown."
Score: 0
|The Eolas guy said in an interview that his company licenses their patent for free to non-profit (read: opensource) organizations. This is clearly a stab back at Microsoft for using their technology to kill off the rest of the competition.
Score: 0
|All HE said was :
"Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it."
Forbes.com interpreted that to say he would not rule out a showdown, but Ballmer didn't say that at all. Yeah it could mean that, but to me it just means that MS isn't going to be unprepared. They "owe it to {their} shareholders to have a strategy." That's all. You could be right, but we can only know if and when it happens. Until then, this article doesn't really prove anything.
Score: 0
|Microsoft knows better than to sue. All they want to do is to keep the possibility in the news.
If they sued there would be counter suites and all the Windows source code would be examined in discovery. I would love to see how much GPL code has found it's way into Microsoft's products.
Score: 0
|