Changes to how internet explorer displays flash

[catbert303]

It looks like microsoft are responding to the embedded content patent problems

http://msdn.microsoft.com/ieupdate/activexchanges.asp

and macromedia's FAQ

http://www.macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/faq.html

[littleRichard]

great, so tommorrow i get to tell my boss that we probably need to fix everything we've done over about the last 3 years at no guarantee it'll even fix it permanently. ARGGHHHGAHGHA:mad:

thanks for the heads up btw

[farafiro]

booooooooooooo
this is not quite good

[Mortimer Jazz]

I just came here to post the same stuff - so here's something different:
http://www.theinquirer.org/?article=11963

I just thank goodness that for the moment there's such an easy fix - could have been a lot worse.

Maybe the realisation that things like this (and much worse) will continue to happen to us, will end up being the catalyst for a major revolt against these patent laws - then again maybe we'll all just sit back and do nothing. The amount of votes that European Patent Petition got was quite-frankly lousy.

I just can't believe that if ALL the businesses and ALL the developers that this will affect were to direct their anger in a single direction, there wouldn't be some kind of revised Government law passed on this issue. Obviously it's the businesses that hold the real power, and now that it's going to cost them money to revise their sites we may see some action.

Vive le revolution! :rolleyes:

[catbert303]

Let's hope this solution is final and we won't have to change stuff again a few months down the line because of some other legal ruling.

At the moment i'm just relieved I don't have too much content that will need changing. But I can see how this will be a nightmare for some people. For example the pained crys of an e-learning developer at http://www.flashkit.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=497130

*off to create my javascript include file*

[tg]

Originally posted by Mortimer Jazz
and now that it's going to cost them money to revise their sites we may see some action.

heh... not likely mort.

most likely the response will be 'less is more' ... get rid of the expensive multimedia/flash (on web/intranet) and stick with standards like xhtml/css.

i know for a fact our company wouldn't spend a ton of money fighting something like this when its much easier to do the 'least expensive' thing of going to standards.

[Mortimer Jazz]

I agree - that's not quite what I meant though.

It will cost sites (ones that currently use embedded technologies) either way - whether they update existing embedded technologies or use alternatives they'll still have to make some changes.

If they are made aware that the whole patent issue extends way beyond embedded technologies (and let's face it, this is probably the first of many patent suits to come), and that it will almost certainly cost them more money in the future in other web areas unless businesses start to take a stand, we may start to see some action.

So they use DHTML ... then someone says "I own the <script> tag" or "I patented image-swapovers". What then.

[dr.swank]

Mortimer Jazz,

please stop presuming that an idea that is already in public usage that is not already patented can be patented. IT CAN NOT! A patent must be for a new and unknown technology or product, thus everything we use except for the embed tag (which was apparently patented earlier) is no longer available to be patented..

please excuse my gruf tone, but this is not a good situation, so we do not need this kind of panic development.

cheers, doc

[Mortimer Jazz]

I understand where you're coming from but please give me some credit and don't presume that I'm presuming anything.

I am fully aware that a patent must exist already. There are already many other patent battles going on.
Here are just a couple of examples for you:

"Gift Express (now E-data Corp.) in August sued 21 companies, including Adobe Systems, CompuServe and McGraw-Hill. It claimed they were infringing on its patent that covers ways to sell software electronically.
http://www.eolas.com/TryingtocontroltheNetPatentheseekscouldaffectallWe bbrowsers.pdf

"Acacia Media Technologies, said it owned patents on the process of transmitting compressed audio or video online" - source: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-983552.html?tag=fd_ots

"Telecommunications giant SBC Communications is claiming rights to Web site "frames." Another company says it has rights to the e-commerce site staple known as the shopping cart."
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-983552.html?tag=fd_ots


There are plenty of others out there that you can find. I am not scaremongering. I was merely stating my feelings given what I have read.
Now, I assume there's no patent on that? ;)

I do however want people to get a little riled and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT when they have an opportunity, because I feel that this is something to get a little riled about. I'm not quite sure how the opinions I originally expressed would make things worse - yes, it's a bad situation. I'm not panicing, but nor am I prepared to just sit back and do nothing. If I can persude another business (via word of mouth... or however) to start fighting the software-patent laws then I will, and I make no appologies for that.

I'm not saying patents are bad in principle and I'm not saying Eolas didn't have more of a case than most, and I'm not saying 99% of these cases won't be thrown out of court, but people do need to be made aware that we're not talking about 1 or 2 isolated incidents here, and judging by your reaction it seems to be that people (like yourself) aren't aware of a lot of these other cases - would I be right to say that? People here are big 'n' ugly enough to make their own decisions based upon what they read - I do not wish to make decisions for them, but I want to prevoke a least a few into wanting to find out more for themselves.

The main problem is obviously opportunists trying to 'extend' patents beyond their original meaning and claiming that they cover more than they do, and in most cases these will fail.

Do you not remember a very short while ago when British Telecom tried to lay claim to the hyperlink - because of some patent that was dug out of a closet (infact unearthed by accident)?

The thought of someone being able to even attempt to lay claim to such a fundamental part of web technology would be laughable if it hadn't already been attempted! So who's to say in another 5 years if we let this roll-on-by, that someone won't unearth a patent that covers one of the tags I already mentioned, and this time it will get through? I'm not saying it will, but I am saying that wit hthe current laws it's quite possible.

You see, this is why I feel no compulsion to appologise, because the whole situation is already so ridiculous. I didn't make some knee-jerk statement, I did my research best I could before I passed comment. I've read a lot on this subject and I feel that maybe people should be getting a little more angry about this then they are - perhaps if more and more businesses start complaining, and this starts getting more media attention (I saw nothing on TV about Microsoft vs Eola) things will change.

Oh yeah, and I hope I don't sound like I'm annoyed at your response - I'm not. I can see why you were/are annoyed. I hope I've put forward some valid points for continued discussion and that we can all learn something we didn't know from this... else what's the point right.

Cheers,
Mort

[dr.swank]

I think we are in agreement Mort. :)

I am a positive thinker, and as such tend to trust in the bettering of things. Maybe I should be a bit weary of some of my trust, but it's just the way I am. That being said, after having read the changes that MS is introducing to active content and the possibility of loading active content from the same domain and or using scripts as oppossed to embed means that the internet community will probably take the same route as Ikea has taken. They will find a hole in the patent and make it work very close to the original.

I will however try and make a noise myself.

<smacks monitor and turns up the volume on Rage Against the Machine>

doc

[Mortimer Jazz]

Heh. Well, y'know, guess I'm getting old now! You might not believe it but I'm actually a positive thinker too :)
Where-as I used to be a trusting optimist much like yourself, the nearer I get to 30, the more my optimism is tempered with realism (- well, at least, from my own experiences on how the world seems to work, which is all I have to go by).

I'm still an optimist with regard to this whole scenario. I believe that it either won't be as bad as we think, or that it will be as bad, but that pressure from business is powerful enough to force a change in the law - we can do something about it!

...and sometimes I admit to playing devil's advocate on purpose, because there's nothing like a good argument to bring up points neither side had previously considered...and it's fun

<smacks monitor and ... oh bugger, think I broke it>

Oh doc, could you take a look at this rash on my arse?

mort

[catbert303]

This page makes some interesting comments about the case regarding prior art (the guy who wrote the page developed a browser that displayed embedded content before EOLAS' patent)

http://www.xcf.berkeley.edu/~wei/viola/aboutEolasMicrosoft.html

[Mortimer Jazz]

very interesting read.
Thanks catbert

[junahu]

so.... what can we do about it? You keep saying that if we can get buisnesses to see the severity of the problem then maybe we can do something about it. How the hell can any of us do that? I don't think irony will save the day (Where everyone sues the living daylights out of everyone else and realises that this is a bad thing). So what can we do?

[Mortimer Jazz]

You sound like you're a little edgy with me there junahu (?)

1. You'll be suprised how many employers will take time to complain to local government if they become aware that a new law will end up costing them money (ie having to make changes to any websites that use streaming technology)

It is obviously business (not developers), that hold the most sway, as they're the cornerstone of the economy, and if lots of businesses start complaining to local or regional council/government about the same issue then, not suprisingly, people in government start to sit up and take note.

So at the most basic level, if you work in the web industry you can make sure your boss is simply aware of the issue (I know my employer wasn't). Explain what's going on and that it will result in extra labour costs to fix it. You could also mention some of the other patent battles going on (see above) such as the shopping cart issue, so they don't think the embedding workaround will be the end of it.

Even if you don't work in the web industry lots of people are actually interested to learn about it, and I've heard the phrase "I can't believe I haven't heard about this" more times than I care to remember. When people hear how ePatents could change everything from the functionality of their favourite applications like Word, to the availability (or rather decline of) free software and games on the net, they tend to want to know more.
Making sure people are aware of it in the first place is perhaps the most important thing you can do.

How the hell can any of us do that?
2. We have this AMAZING source of almost endless information - this huge encyclopedia of knowledge called the internet at our fingertips, and yet people only ever seem to use it to search for porn :rolleyes:

I decided to try typing something other than "lesbian teen sex kittens" and "flash tutorials" into Google. I tried "petition patents" and look at the wealth of information that comes up!

The petition on Eurolinux.org about the European Patent Law petition (which was posted all over this forum a few weeks back) is now closed, but there are other petitions and other pages telling you what you can do, like writing to your MP and sporting anti-ePatent banners on your website (shamefully I just realised I haven't done the last one yet, but I have written to my MP and contacted the local press to goad them into running a story on it)

Have a look here: http://www.eurolinux.org/index.en.html

The way I see it, we have two options. We can sit here and bitch about it, or we can try and do something which may have a positive effect, and if it doesn't then at least we tried.
It doesn't mean giving up your life, having anti-ePatent tattoos etched on your forehead or going on all day marches and eating toffu. Everyone can do a few simple things that only take moments, and could really make a difference.

[junahu]

Hey I'm sorry jazz. I was late for a lecture and I had to squeeze my arguement out as quickly as possible. But now that I'm back and have read your response I guess there is something we can do. My apologies.

I have to give a presentation (that was what the lecture was about) on an issue or topic. Maybe I could do it on this. I'll obviously follow your links but other than that I don't want too much help from everyone here.

One problem is that my sources can't all be internet related. Is this issue documented on any other medium or should I make something up?

I'll try my best.:D

[junahu]

HOLY CHRIST! I didn't realise it was THAT bad. (lost for words)

[Mortimer Jazz]

That would be a really good topic for debate. I'm sure you'll find it in print (in internet magazines - does that count?!) I would have expected to see something on the news to be honest, but I've not heard a squeak.
HOLY CHRIST! I didn't realise it was THAT badLol, does that mean you've read a bit more about it then? It has the potential to be bad, but rather than panic let's try and do something about it :]

[catbert303]

Its possible there are published papers on the Viola browser (linked to previously) that may contain information on how that implemented embedded content (in theory) before Doyle had done it.

Although the information is again web based the W3C mailing list on this issue could be a good source of information too.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-web-plugins/

[junahu]

I've followed most of your links. There's quite a lot to sift through but I'll manage. Thanks you guys.