20% off Inspiron & Studio laptops
December 2, 2005 2:00 PM PST
Microsoft tweaks browser to avoid liability
- Related Stories
-
Microsoft loses in Eolas patent ruling
September 29, 2005 -
Appeals court revisits Eolas decision
March 2, 2005 -
Microsoft ordered to pay $521 million
August 11, 2003
The software giant is notifying Web developers and other partners on Friday that it is changing the way Internet Explorer handles certain Web programs, known as ActiveX controls and Java applets.
With the change, Web developers will need to slightly modify their pages or consumers will have to make an extra click to get to some content, such as for a Macromedia Flash-based advertisement.
"We think that the user experience impact is relatively modest," said Michael Wallent, a general manager in Microsoft's Windows-client unit.
Microsoft will incorporate the new version of Internet Explorer into all new copies of Windows and also into the next version of the browser, IE 7, which will be available for Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and as part of Windows Vista. Existing users may also get the new code as part of future security updates, Wallent said.
"We believe over the next six months, most customers will be running copies of Internet Explorer with this behavior."
Microsoft has been in a long-running spat with Eolas Techologies and the University of California. In September, the U.S. Patent Office
A University of California spokesman said that its lawsuit against Microsoft deals with infringement caused by previously sold versions of the browser.
"The lawsuit covers sales predating this latest reconfiguration," he said.
In 2003, a jury
"We believe this change insulates us from any potential liability," Wallent said. "We don't expect we will have to make any other changes.
Wallent said that the move was designed to end uncertainty for the future as the Eolas case heads back to court later this year.
"With this change we are very confident that we would no longer have liability even if the case doesn't go our way in the end," he said.
Wallent added that Microsoft's move "in no way reflects a lack of confidence in our case."
"We'll continue to pursue our case and believe that the Eolas patent is invalid," he said.
See more CNET content tagged:
Eolas Technologies Inc.,
liability,
Java applet,
ActiveX Control,
Microsoft Internet Explorer
Patent system = bad
Microsoft = bad
Open-Source = savior
Standards = savior
News flash: The patent system is in place for good reasons and provides unequaled value to our economy. It IS NOT going away. Get over it.
Secondly, open-source is NOT a solution to this problem at all. And neither are standards, whether they be open or closed.
Even open-source software that complies with standards can infringe upon a patent. Linus Torvalds' position encouraging developers NOT to do due diligence actually increases the chances that this did/can/will happen.
Standards, open-source, and patent law have a danger that must be addressed. Try to comprehend:
If a standard is established, and then an open-source project implements that standard in a useful and reusable way, it will become a very popular package. It will be reused and incorporated into dozens, hundreds, or thousands of open-source projects that could be distributed to millions of users.
If it is later discovered that the original code violates an existing patent or even copyright, then every distributed copy is in violation of the law. Furthermore, because of the nature of open-source, no one company is liable for damages. Instead, each and every single user of the open-source, standards-compliant software can be sued directly by the patent holder.
The solution is simple. When you invent something, whether it is created in metal and wood or your favorite programming language, it is YOUR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY to determine that it is unique and original BEFORE you declare it your unique invention and distribute it throughout the world. Anything less than proper due diligence may very likely turn you into a criminal.
My opinion is that this patent is invalid because it fails the "obvious" test. What they've patented is an obvious extension.
http://www.orontesprojects.com/objectactivator.htm
Erik