- Related Stories
-
Microsoft tweaks browser to avoid liability
December 2, 2005 -
Microsoft not out of legal woods yet
October 11, 2005 -
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 update changes how the browser handles Web programs known as ActiveX controls. The changes can impact how certain sites display. Microsoft recommends Web developers tweak their pages or consumers will have to make an extra click to get to some content, such as Macromedia Flash-based animations or media content.
"We expect these changes will have little to no impact on customer experience and partner applications," a Microsoft representative said Tuesday.
Microsoft is modifying IE to shield itself from liability in a long-running patent dispute with Eolas Technologies and the University of California. Microsoft expects a second trial in the case to start sometime this year after a federal appeals court last March partially reversed a lower-court decision that exposed it to more than $500 million in damages.
In September, the U.S. Patent Office upheld the validity of the patent at issue in the case.
Microsoft is delivering the IE update in phases. The company last December said it would make the tweaks and a month later made the update available on MSDN, its Web site for developers. The update is now available to the general public as an optional download via Windows Update and Microsoft's Download Center Web site.
"Microsoft expects the vast majority of existing IE customers will download the update as part of ongoing security updates in the next four to six months," the Microsoft representative said.
The update is available for IE 6 on Windows XP with Service Pack 2 and Windows Server 2003 with SP 1, the Microsoft representative said.
See more CNET content tagged:
Eolas Technologies Inc., representative, Microsoft Corp., Microsoft Internet Explorer, Web browser
and simply better browser? IE is a rotting corpse anyway. Its
woefully out of date, it can't follow web standards and the effect
of its market share is to be a F**KING PITA for web development,
it forces proprietary tech down people's throats making the
internet a closed rather than open system. If this takes us one
step closer to IE's dominance of browser share falling even
further, then fantastic. Every cloud...
Quote:
"They should just pay the $500M and settle before everyone
moves over to Firefox that doesn't have this issue."
and simply better browser? IE is a rotting corpse anyway. Its
woefully out of date, it can't follow web standards and the effect
of its market share is to be a F**KING PITA for web development,
it forces proprietary tech down people's throats making the
internet a closed rather than open system. If this takes us one
step closer to IE's dominance of browser share falling even
further, then fantastic. Every cloud...
Quote:
"They should just pay the $500M and settle before everyone
moves over to Firefox that doesn't have this issue."
But for us web developers, there has been ample warning of this potential change for several years now. And it's actually very, very easy to work around this problem by using Geoff Stearns' FlashObject JavaScript code (http://blog.deconcept.com/flashobject/). Using this method for Flash detection/insertion is incredibly easy and is (in general) better for most accessibility issues as well. But (now) most importantly, it also entirely circumvents the changes that MS has had to implement. So, if you just use a little JavaScript to perform your Flash insertion for you, not only will your XHTML actually be valid, but your users won;t get any dumb "click here to view media" warnings either. It is things like this that allowed MS to cofidently say that there will be minimal impact due to this change. They're probably right.
But for us web developers, there has been ample warning of this potential change for several years now. And it's actually very, very easy to work around this problem by using Geoff Stearns' FlashObject JavaScript code (http://blog.deconcept.com/flashobject/). Using this method for Flash detection/insertion is incredibly easy and is (in general) better for most accessibility issues as well. But (now) most importantly, it also entirely circumvents the changes that MS has had to implement. So, if you just use a little JavaScript to perform your Flash insertion for you, not only will your XHTML actually be valid, but your users won;t get any dumb "click here to view media" warnings either. It is things like this that allowed MS to cofidently say that there will be minimal impact due to this change. They're probably right.
with Eolas, Microsoft will choose to 'lose' the patent case by
throwing a poorly resourced defense at it. If Eolas prevails in the
suit, then guess who loses out? Not Microsoft - they will tout
their new WPF 'Sparkle' technology as the 'legal' way to present
interactive media on the web. The real losers are the general
public; users will be bombarded with 'click here to continue'
buttons all over the web whenever they try to play a Quicktime
movie, view a PDF, or visit a site that uses Flash. Microsoft will
just lay down and pretend that there's nothing they can do,
while gleefully watching their competition (Adobe & Apple)
suffer. Despite the JS workarounds that can be (sometimes)
implemented, it will task developers (millions of them) to carry
the water if the plug-ins are to survive. How convenient for
Microsoft - this is just another example of how they 'compete'.
It is a little bit difficult to explain to average public why/how Microsoft is the real winner here, but you have done a good job of starting it.
More about why this is so:
Under the disguise of fighting/adhering to this patent Microsoft is also validating the value of its own massive Patent portfolio, as well as doing same for other patent holders such as IBM, etc.
I mean what is $500Mill for Microsoft, not a drop in the bucket.
So they will gladly pay the $500Mill to this nothing Eolas company, but with this action then:
1- They are forcing Millions of developers to upgrade to the latest MS stuff
2- Indirectly validating the value of their own Patent portfolio because where as threat of $500Mill law suit means really nothing to MS, it does mean "death" to most companies.
So now if you are saying: "hey did MS hire Eolas to file this suit...." You may be on target :)
with Eolas, Microsoft will choose to 'lose' the patent case by
throwing a poorly resourced defense at it. If Eolas prevails in the
suit, then guess who loses out? Not Microsoft - they will tout
their new WPF 'Sparkle' technology as the 'legal' way to present
interactive media on the web. The real losers are the general
public; users will be bombarded with 'click here to continue'
buttons all over the web whenever they try to play a Quicktime
movie, view a PDF, or visit a site that uses Flash. Microsoft will
just lay down and pretend that there's nothing they can do,
while gleefully watching their competition (Adobe & Apple)
suffer. Despite the JS workarounds that can be (sometimes)
implemented, it will task developers (millions of them) to carry
the water if the plug-ins are to survive. How convenient for
Microsoft - this is just another example of how they 'compete'.
It is a little bit difficult to explain to average public why/how Microsoft is the real winner here, but you have done a good job of starting it.
More about why this is so:
Under the disguise of fighting/adhering to this patent Microsoft is also validating the value of its own massive Patent portfolio, as well as doing same for other patent holders such as IBM, etc.
I mean what is $500Mill for Microsoft, not a drop in the bucket.
So they will gladly pay the $500Mill to this nothing Eolas company, but with this action then:
1- They are forcing Millions of developers to upgrade to the latest MS stuff
2- Indirectly validating the value of their own Patent portfolio because where as threat of $500Mill law suit means really nothing to MS, it does mean "death" to most companies.
So now if you are saying: "hey did MS hire Eolas to file this suit...." You may be on target :)
Microsoft just bit the bullet first because they got sued.
instead of steadfastly defending their rights, they will opt to set a
precedent that will improve their bottom line - despite the patent
absurdity (pun intended) of the suit. Once MS rolls over, all the
other browsers will have to follow - and they know it. It's a sad
commentary on the integrity of businesses these days; their
shareholders will insist on the 'acceptance' of yet another bogus
claim of intellectual property just to pad their wallets...
1. The patent is valid. That doesn't mean there isn't prior art. A patent reviewer examines essential claims given an approved list of prior art with notarized dates or other supporting material such as time stamped email. In the review, the prior art was submitted by W3C members. A patent review is a logical dependency examination given the precise terms of the claims and the descriptions of the prior art. The logic of the claims and the reviewer are solid. It is the case that those seeking to overturn such claims may want to go further than their own backyard in finding prior art in the future, but the patent examiner's job was thorough and professional and the conclusions are logically valid.
2. To keep from violating a patent, the implementor has to find at least one step in their implementation that breaks the dependency graph. That is what Microsoft is doing and those doing Firefox and Opera work will have to do the same.
3. The holder of the patent has stated publicly that he intended to work against Microsoft to the favor of other competitors. So if EOLAS has not yet filed suit against these competitors, nothing obligates him to do so or to exercise restraint in the future. Caveat vendor.
Patents have become currency. Smart investors and companies are doing what they must to defend and provide for the success of their companies, customers and other stakeholders. If the result of the legally established claims is to break existing web pages, that is not the fault of Microsoft or any other vendor. It is not the fault of EOLAS in a business sense even if it is a breach of trust with a greater community. It is a caveat emptor condition but that is the condition under which the World Wide Web, a largely unregulated entity, operates at all times.
So suck it up and fix your script, kiddies.
Microsoft just bit the bullet first because they got sued.
instead of steadfastly defending their rights, they will opt to set a
precedent that will improve their bottom line - despite the patent
absurdity (pun intended) of the suit. Once MS rolls over, all the
other browsers will have to follow - and they know it. It's a sad
commentary on the integrity of businesses these days; their
shareholders will insist on the 'acceptance' of yet another bogus
claim of intellectual property just to pad their wallets...
1. The patent is valid. That doesn't mean there isn't prior art. A patent reviewer examines essential claims given an approved list of prior art with notarized dates or other supporting material such as time stamped email. In the review, the prior art was submitted by W3C members. A patent review is a logical dependency examination given the precise terms of the claims and the descriptions of the prior art. The logic of the claims and the reviewer are solid. It is the case that those seeking to overturn such claims may want to go further than their own backyard in finding prior art in the future, but the patent examiner's job was thorough and professional and the conclusions are logically valid.
2. To keep from violating a patent, the implementor has to find at least one step in their implementation that breaks the dependency graph. That is what Microsoft is doing and those doing Firefox and Opera work will have to do the same.
3. The holder of the patent has stated publicly that he intended to work against Microsoft to the favor of other competitors. So if EOLAS has not yet filed suit against these competitors, nothing obligates him to do so or to exercise restraint in the future. Caveat vendor.
Patents have become currency. Smart investors and companies are doing what they must to defend and provide for the success of their companies, customers and other stakeholders. If the result of the legally established claims is to break existing web pages, that is not the fault of Microsoft or any other vendor. It is not the fault of EOLAS in a business sense even if it is a breach of trust with a greater community. It is a caveat emptor condition but that is the condition under which the World Wide Web, a largely unregulated entity, operates at all times.
So suck it up and fix your script, kiddies.
It is a little bit difficult to explain to average public why/how Microsoft is the real winner here, but here:
Under the disguise of fighting/adhering to this patent Microsoft is also validating the value of its own massive Patent portfolio, as well as doing same for other patent holders such as IBM, etc.
I mean what is $500Mill for Microsoft, not a drop in the bucket.
So they will gladly pay the $500Mill to this nothing Eolas company, but with this action then:
1- They are forcing Millions of developers to upgrade to the latest MS stuff, or else your web site will not display correctly under new IE because MS had to adhere to this patent filing!
2- Indirectly validate the value of their own Patent portfolio because whereas threat of $500Mill law suit means really nothing to MS, it does mean "death" to most companies.
So now if you are saying: "hey did MS hire Eolas to file this suit...." You may be on target :)
It is a little bit difficult to explain to average public why/how Microsoft is the real winner here, but here:
Under the disguise of fighting/adhering to this patent Microsoft is also validating the value of its own massive Patent portfolio, as well as doing same for other patent holders such as IBM, etc.
I mean what is $500Mill for Microsoft, not a drop in the bucket.
So they will gladly pay the $500Mill to this nothing Eolas company, but with this action then:
1- They are forcing Millions of developers to upgrade to the latest MS stuff, or else your web site will not display correctly under new IE because MS had to adhere to this patent filing!
2- Indirectly validate the value of their own Patent portfolio because whereas threat of $500Mill law suit means really nothing to MS, it does mean "death" to most companies.
So now if you are saying: "hey did MS hire Eolas to file this suit...." You may be on target :)
For as long as this is not baked into a massive roll-up package for IE, you can use Windows Add/Remove programs to remove "Update for Windows XP (KB912945)". You may need to check the "show updates" checkbox at the top of the window.
Lastly I'll mention that I've inflicted a PC with this insult-to-common-sense-and-usability, and Microsoft did a good job. (..I can't believe I said that, and sure, I'd rather it never have been done..) It's not a dialog box, just a little tooltip. And you only need to click if you were going to click anyway. (So, the poor user will probably develop the habit of double-clicking flash/quicktime/applets that first time.)
Flash swfs are still running even if not clicked on. Ads will be as irritating as ever. (ahrg!) From a usability perspective, it's only a little painful.
For as long as this is not baked into a massive roll-up package for IE, you can use Windows Add/Remove programs to remove "Update for Windows XP (KB912945)". You may need to check the "show updates" checkbox at the top of the window.
Lastly I'll mention that I've inflicted a PC with this insult-to-common-sense-and-usability, and Microsoft did a good job. (..I can't believe I said that, and sure, I'd rather it never have been done..) It's not a dialog box, just a little tooltip. And you only need to click if you were going to click anyway. (So, the poor user will probably develop the habit of double-clicking flash/quicktime/applets that first time.)
Flash swfs are still running even if not clicked on. Ads will be as irritating as ever. (ahrg!) From a usability perspective, it's only a little painful.
If you leave a page and come back to it in the same browser session, it has to be enabled again.
I think many users will complain about it. Good news is that many places will have it fixed. Bad news is that this means a double-click won't always be the right behavior, as someone else suggested.
I expect a stormy few months.
- Even more impact that you might think
- by bernardf March 9, 2006 10:11 AM PST
- If you read the notes from Microsoft, it seems to me that each and every embedded control (ActiveX, Applet, Flash, etc.) has to be individually enabled.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(36 Comments)If you leave a page and come back to it in the same browser session, it has to be enabled again.
I think many users will complain about it. Good news is that many places will have it fixed. Bad news is that this means a double-click won't always be the right behavior, as someone else suggested.
I expect a stormy few months.