View Full Version : The Death of embedded Flash?
Mortimer Jazz
09-18-2003, 03:35 PM
Very worrying indeed, with reasonings behind why Microsoft may not even appeal.
When the Java runtime had to be removed, from Browsers Win XP wasn't ready so they patched w2k.
http://www.actionscript.com/archives/00000570.html
Mortimer Jazz
09-18-2003, 03:42 PM
http://www.zeldman.com/
currently 3rd article on this page
Mortimer Jazz
09-18-2003, 03:44 PM
..and sign the European Patent Laws (sticky) thread which you'll find at the top of this forum dammit .. not that it will help in this case
snapple
09-19-2003, 11:34 AM
And, realistically, the public would not care. There wouldn't be any town square protests mourning the end of Flash cartoons.
Valid point - it does seem that it is more than likely that there will in the near future be some fundamental changes to the browser.
Still, on the up side:
executives say, but should not affect ordinary PC users significantly.
``We're working to make sure that whatever we do does not have a big impact on users or the industry,'' Mr. Wallent said.
Thanks very much for the info Mort !!!!
Oh, btw - this is the real reason i haven't got Flash MX 2004 (not because i could not afford it ;) )
THis is a good reason to hold off on the upgrade of Flash. Why bother buying it if NOONE can view what you make. This really is a killer to embeded applications like Flash.
Regards, snapple
Mortimer Jazz
09-19-2003, 11:59 AM
Hey Snapple - I'm glad someone finally replied.
As per the comment I posted on Actionscript.com, what concerns me most is that this isn't going to affect us as developers - it will have started already. Any business about to embark on a new site is now going to see using Flash (or Java for that matter) as a gamble - at least until this is resolved (hopefully in our favour).
The company Eolas is actually one guy, who apparently just exploits patent-law. He stands to make $512 million, but how many developers will he put out of a job at the same time? Someone wrote "I'll just move into another area other than the web" - yeah, I'd like to see him fight it out for those relatively-few jobs along wit hthe other 1000's of people that would be in the same position.
---------------------------------------
update: http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5074799.html?tag=fd_lede1_hed
"last week's loss ... heightened the sense that not only Microsoft but the entire Web may soon be forced to make substantial adjustments--and that pages around the Web and on private intranets will have to be rewritten to work with an altered IE.
...
Now Microsoft, while expressing optimism that it will ultimately prevail over Eolas in the courts, is advising Web authors to take precautions and prepare for a post-Eolas world".
And of course this is just one patent. How soon before some opportunist trys to lay claim to something more intrinsic like <img>, <meta> or <html> ?
rant.
so i guess folks shouldn't patent their ideas and expect to get compensated for them? for fear some large monopoly will take and use that idea, while paying no compensation to the owner/patent holder of that idea for years/ever?
more rant.
so i guess its the guy who owns the patent who is the bad guy, not the companies who have used his idea/technology without paying for it?
and just a little more rant.
just feel lucky this guy hasn't desided to go the riaa route, and sue everyone who uses a browser that uses embedded plugin technology.
heh. ok that should get some comments coming this way. heh.
Mortimer Jazz
09-22-2003, 01:18 PM
Lol, yeah I've considered those points -
I'm against the idea of patenting an 'idea' not a finished product.
I'm not sure about the finer details of this case - I've read differing things, but I don't think I've referred to the MS/Eloas case as being wrong ...just damn worrying!
Does this guy really need to continue to sue the other browser manufactures with 1/2 billion in his bank account (assuming he wins)?
Wouldn't he be the king of cool if he shafted Microsoft for a lot of money and then donated his patent to W3C free of charge?
pixelwit
09-22-2003, 04:10 PM
So if TG is the devil's advocate will this make me God's advocate? ;)
I tried to read the patent. It's not easy. It's minor technobabble with major legal mumbojumbo. At one point the author says something similar to, "It's like Microsoft's OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) but different in the fact that it's cross platform compatible and in a browser." That's some major paraphrasing but it's in there.
Fact1) Browsers bring in data from different sources.
Fact2) Browsers display that data in the browser application.
Fact3) Some data is too complex for browsers to display.
$500,000,000 idea) Browsers will need the help of external applications to display complex data within the browser window.
So because the guy saw there was going to be a need for a technology similar to an evolved version of OLE and because he wrote it down "just right" he's entitled to 500 Mil?
To me, this just shows some of the spookier flaws in the US patent and legal systems. Hopefully this case will force some serious changes to take place.
-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com
Mortimer Jazz
09-22-2003, 05:06 PM
Originally posted by pixelwit
So if tg is the devil's advocate ...
How did you get TG to be your advocate? :eek:
Aw, I didn't mean you were the real devil ... more like a dust-devil.
Originally posted by pixelwit
Hopefully this case will force some serious changes to take place.Changes for the better of course!
pixelwit
09-22-2003, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Mortimer Jazz
Changes for the better of course! Yeah, I guess wishing for the best just comes with the territory when you're God's advocate. ;)
-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com
Mortimer Jazz
09-22-2003, 06:12 PM
Heh, yeah we all know you as Pixelwit-the-Pure.
Oh look, the light is positively shining out of your arse. Better not stand behind you - may get sunburn ;)
your right pixel... maybe it wasn't a 500 mil idea... if he had gotten a buck(as a royalty) from each browser that used that technology that was distributed, it would have been substantially more. and if ms was paying a royalty(as they should have been) we would be talking about much more important things right now... like the weather (its very nice here expecting sunshine and 80's).
pixelwit
09-23-2003, 12:22 PM
I'm not knocking the "value" of his idea. I just don't like patenting such a general concept. Should some guy who imagines putting light in a bottle be allowed to patent the idea when it takes someone like Edison (and his company) to make it work? People who can imagine light in a bottle are fairly common but people who actually do it are in far greater demand.
Sunshine? I wish. It's been pretty gray here after hurricane Isabel passed by.
-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com
so i thougth this guy had actually done the code, and was not just patenting and idea... i would imagine you would need some type of proof of concept to patent? maybe not.
McGiver
09-23-2003, 12:35 PM
well, what if there was a patent on electricity?
would the one with the patent be abled to take every price he want's?
pixelwit
09-23-2003, 01:02 PM
I checked the patent (http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5,838,906.WKU.&OS=PN/5,838,906&RS=PN/5,838,906) and found this:
"375 pages of Source code on 4 microfiche Appendices A and B are provided to this specification. The source code should be consulted to provide details of a specific embodiment of the invention in conjunction with the discussion of the routines in this specification. The source code in Appendix A includes NCSA Mosaic version 2.4 source code along with modifications to the source code to implement the present invention. Appendix B includes source code implementing an application program interface. The source code is written in the "C" computer language to run on an X-Window platform. "
So he's definitely made it work with his code. I suppose the issue should then be whether MS (and all other browser companies) used or needed his code to achieve the general concept.
You may have been the first person to write code to ease a ball across the stage but can you patent the idea? Don't you think someone else would have come up with a similar solution?
Some things are inevitable. Other things are revolutionary.
This also comes from the patent text:
"Other existing approaches to embedding interactive program objects in documents include the Object Linking and Embedding (OLE) facility in Microsoft Windows, by Microsoft Corp., and OpenDoc, by Apple Computer, Inc. At least one shortcoming of these approaches is that neither is capable of allowing a user to access embedded interactive program objects in distributed hypermedia documents over networks."
The fact that MS would extend its OLE to work in a browser environment sounds "inevitable" to me and the possibility that they could do it without the need for any of the Eolas code seems reasonable as well.
-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com
then i guess folks would need to check the browser companies source code to see which way they went...
sure if you come of with your own solution, then you owe nothing, and shouldn't be affected by the patent/lawsuit. however if you took a short cut and used his code as well as padded your profits by deciding to not pay royalties/or get a legally binding agreement from the patent holder to use his/her code?...
you tell me... if you had spent the time to come up with an idea, spent the time to write and debug 375 lines of code? and the largest software company in the world used your code, wouldn't you expect something at least .50-$1.00 per piece of distributed code... hell even a .01 per would be a big chunk of change. and looking at the price of windows xp....
pixelwit
09-23-2003, 01:39 PM
I agree with you in that regard TG. But I don't think they used his code.
I read somewhere that MS could circumvent the patent infringement by forcing people surfing the web to click a button to allow an embedded object to run which would defeat the patent's claim to "automatic" or "seemless" integration. If that's true then the dispute is over the concept rather than the code.
-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com
mcgiver... if you patent electicity, i'm gonna patent wood. they are natural substances. i don't think you can patent something that occurs in nature... altho i noticed the other day on one of my wifes plants, that the color of the flower was patent pending... man some people.
sounds too much like lawyer speak to me pixelwit. i'm at a loss here.
pixelwit
09-23-2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by tg
sounds too much like lawyer speak I'll drink to that.
Whatever the courts decide let's hope logic, reason and the facts prevail over greed or any other human weaknesses. Now how's that for "PiXELWiT the Pure"? :rolleyes:
-PiXELWiT
http://www.pixelwit.com
binkyboo
09-24-2003, 01:36 PM
Should some guy who imagines putting light in a bottle be allowed to patent the idea when it takes someone like Edison (and his company) to make it work?
pixelwit,
most countries have requirement, often described as the "inventive step" requirement: An invention that lacks "inventive step" is not patentable. In other words if the claimed subject matter would have been "obvious" to a hypothetical "person of ordinary skill" in the relevant art(s) at the time the inventor invented it. In conclusion, I'll never patent anything because I epitomize the "peson of ordinary skill.":)
hey binkyboo.
mark it zero!
hehhehheh
binkyboo
09-24-2003, 06:10 PM
my feet didn't cross the line! mark it eight dude!
binkyboo
09-24-2003, 06:13 PM
you said it man...
|
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.