Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Will Flash Be Taken Off The Shelf? 524

Posted by Hemos from the battle-continues dept.
bugninja writes "According to an article at News.com, Adobe wins 2.8M from Macromedia today for using some patented interface stuff in Flash. But this isn't the end, further legal battles could require that Flash be removed from Macromedia's list of "products for sale". We may not all be Flash lovers, but is it right to take a good product away from so many people who really do like it just because another company's product isn't taking over the market like they hoped it would?" Update: 05/03 13:29 GMT by J : Speaking of Flash, yesterday eEye discovered a very serious security hole in the version of Flash distributed with most copies of Windows. Go download the fixed release.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Flash Be Taken Off The Shelf? More

Will Flash Be Taken Off The Shelf?

Comments Filter:

  • Microsoft defense team speaks (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "is it right to take a good product away from so many people who really do like it just because another company's product isn't taking over the market like they hoped it would?"

  • I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fewl ( 133959 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @01:51AM (#3455601)
    if everyone's response to Adobe will be as vehement as if Microsoft did it...
    • Nah, responses will mostly look like this:

      4 misguided first posts
      3 W00T!! l33t p05t5
      150+ I hate flash
      75 I love flash, you can do some cool stuff w/it.
      4 I hate Bill G posts
      10 I like Adobe cause of Acrobat posts.
    • I already HATE Adobe with a passion after the crap they pulled with Dmitri (much more than I dislike Microsoft.) Now they are using the courts yet again trying to shut out competition? They're the worst.

      I use almost no Adobe products and recommend to everyone I know and work with that they use other products when possible (Anyone know of a decent PDF reader?) I know a lot of other people that are doing the same.

      However, I do use a ton of Macromedia stuff, though not Flash which is in general a waste of brainpower. But Dreamweaver and Fireworks rule- AND both use the same UI as Flash which means they have the customizable tabs too. Even the newest MX versions Are these products going to go away too?

      ARRGH, Adobe sucks. I hope Macromedia's counter suits REEM them.

      BOYCOTT ADOBE. Send them an economic message that they suck.

      -Russ

      • Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by FFFish ( 7567 )
        Acrobat alternative: JAWS PDF [jawspdf.com] (and it's arguably better than Acrobat. I find it far less buggy.)

        But it's not a reader, it's a PDF print engine.
  • How are tabbed palettes patented? That is totally inane! From the article: 'alleging that the user interface of Macromedia's Flash Web animation tool infringed on Adobe's patent for "tabbed palettes," a feature that allows users of design software to rearrange the work space on the PC screen.'

    • Re:patented 'tabbed palettes'? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      How are tabbed palettes patented?

      Take two random computer terms xxx and yyy.
      Let the patent title be xxx'ed yyy's.
      Write 36 pages of bullshit about it.
      Submit everything to the patent office.

    • This Just In (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cscx ( 541332 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:02AM (#3455657) Homepage
      Apple sues Microsoft over "the close button in the upper corner of the window."

      What's next, the icon? Are the tabs in Mozilla in violation? The concept of "tabs" in "windows" no matter if you call them "palettes" or not, was part of the Windows API as long as I can remember.

    • Re:patented 'tabbed palettes'? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Twylite ( 234238 ) <twylite&crypt,co,za> on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:42AM (#3455776) Homepage

      There is a tendency, especially in the OSS/FSF world, to under-estimate the significance of innovations in software. While I am largely against the current patent system, my dislikes for it revolve around the duration of patents, and the inability of clerks to apply or monitor the requirements for innovation.

      You consider "tabbed palettes" ludicrous. With the benefit of hindsight, I can hardly disagree ... but were they innovative at the time, before world + dog started using them?

      Maybe a better example (unpatented, fortunately): toolbars. Would those be patentable? Are they (were they) innovative? We managed to get through over 20 years of GUI use without the widespread use of toolbars. Anyone know when they first appeared?

      Assuming a windowed environment, the use of a title bar with some system buttons can be considered obvious: that has been around since the beginning. But the idioms by which we further break down interfaces and make them accessible are developed over time. Which necessarily implies that there is room for innovation: doing something which is NEW, and not just a variation of what has been done before. And that is patentable.

      So we're left with two questions: should such innovation be patentable; and are tabbed palettes new or a variation?

      I assert that GUI innovations SHOULD be patentable (although I'd like to see a much shorter duration on all software-related patents). There are individuals and companies which spend a lot of time, effort and money researching GUI concepts, improving ease of use, and generally developing idioms which gives their software an edge ... but then have that idea reused by others in less than a couple of months, because the development cycle is shorter than the research cycle.

      From Adobe's site:

      Q11: Tabbed palettes are fairly common throughout software applications and operating systems -- what makes Adobe's palettes special and patentable? A: Like Velcro® and Post-It® notes, the very best inventions become so familiar that they are taken for granted. The fact that tabbed palettes seem so natural and common now is a testimony to the Adobe development effort that went into the invention. Adobe's patent describes a unique method that allows tabs within palettes to be customized, separated and reorganized by users. This invention was a significant leap forward for customers' productivity and personalization of the interface.

      As for tabbed palettes ... this is a more difficult one. But first you need to understand the patent. This is not just about a tool dialog with a tab panel in it! The patent [adobe.com] is available from Adobe's site, and a set of animations [adobe.com] illustrate the infringment.

      As you can see ... this patent is about multiple tool dialogs (palettes) which dock together to form tabbed panels within a single dialog. Suddenly the idea is not so obvious anymore. Dockable components which overlap to save space ...? That's not a universal GUI concept; showing and hiding tool windows or popping up dialogs in a stack is a traditional means to handle this problem. Arguably Adobe DID innovate in this instance.

      • Re:patented 'tabbed palettes'? (Score:5, Funny)

        by KFury ( 19522 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @03:23AM (#3455888) Homepage
        That set of animations [adobe.com] demonstrating the design overlap would have been a lot smaller if they'd done it in Flash.

      • Re:patented 'tabbed palettes'? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by zulux ( 112259 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @03:24AM (#3455891) Homepage Journal
        but were they innovative at the time

        Inovative yes, but worthy of a monopoly of 19 years? No.

        See the way patents use to work is that a company would disclose a non-obvious method, in return for a temporary monopoly. A tabbed interface is quite obvious, and it's disclosure of it's inner workings does nothing for the public good.

        Just by seeing one (tabbed interface), I can duplicate it's effect. I don't need a patent desclosure to figgure it out - so therefore it's a trivial invention, obvious to one skilled in the arts.

        I just hope that an OpenSourse/GPL author get a patent on somting vital to the computing field and brings companies like Adobe too it's knees.

        • Re:patented 'tabbed palettes'? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Twylite ( 234238 ) <twylite&crypt,co,za> on Friday May 03, 2002 @06:30AM (#3456258) Homepage

          I agree that 19 years of monopoly is unreasonable, hence my assertion that patents should be allowed, but the duration should be much shorter.

          Unfortunately patent law operates on an all-or-nothing principle: a major technological advancement that cost $1 billion and 15 years to achieve receives the same protection as a minor competitive edge which cost $10000 and 3 months.

          As for it being obvious ... creative research is like being on the wrong side of a trap door. Its really hard to go through, but anyone on the other side can easily work out the trick. Innovation is often about doing something which is blindingly obvious, but no-one thought of it before.

          Often just knowing the result and the fact that it can be accomplished makes it easier to reproduce. Chemistry is a good example: a theoretical compound can be proposed and its potential properties suggested, but determing how to manufacture the compound can be a tough problem. A couple of experts look at it and tell you it simply can't be done. Then someone announces they have create it, and cheaply. The experts reevaluate, knowing they must have missed something: it is possible, with current technology, and inexpensive - given those hints they are a lot closer to a solution.

          So, what SHOULD be patentable? Algorithms? RSA is quite obvious to anyone skilled in mathematics ... once they've seen the algorithm. Should the internal combustion engine have been patentable? It was a major technological advancement, it has been the bastion of private transport for the better part of a centuary, but it is arguably just a derivative of a steam piston. Obvious to anyone skilled in mechanics.

          I would like to see OSS obtain some patents and fight fire with fire. But it won't happen. No-one in the OSS world is prepared to put development effort into a product which involves patented technology, because of the stigma the community has attached to patents.

          • I would like to see OSS obtain some patents and fight fire with fire.

            Note that at least in electronics, corporations use patents to force other corporations to cross-license their patents far more often than they can collect significant royalties or maintain a monopoly using the patent.

            So how could the OSS community use the same principle? Maybe we write a GPL-like patent license -- in exchange for a license to use the OSS patents, you have to put the same or a less restrictive license onto your patents in the same area. The trick is defining "same area"...

        • See the way patents use to work is that a company would disclose a non-obvious method, in return for a temporary monopoly. A tabbed interface is quite obvious, and it's disclosure of it's inner workings does nothing for the public good.

          Just by seeing one (tabbed interface), I can duplicate it's effect. I don't need a patent desclosure to figgure it out - so therefore it's a trivial invention, obvious to one skilled in the arts.

          That is just a side effect of your knowledge of programming. That is, you might invent a magic salad chopper that most people, when looking at it, won't understand. You haven't patented the chopping of vegetables (just as Adobe hasn't patented the customization of UIs), but you did patent this one machine that chops vegetables. But, someone who has worked in the field (engineering, focusing on turbines or whatever it is your chopper is based on) might see it and think, "ah, of course." Now, should he be permitted to go recreate your invention? Patent law says no.

          • this is one of the many reasons why software patents are bogus - it's not a patent on an invention - that is, a new product that does something new, or something old in a new way. It's a patent on a concept, not an implementation. After playing with Photoshop for 20 minutes I know enough about these tabbed palletes to invent my own that would infringe the patent - yet the actual code I write would bear little similarity to Adobes, the binary I generate would be almost totally different - in other words, I would have invented a new way of doing something old (display tabbed palettes). This is like me seeing someones veggie chopper, deciding that I can make something that would do the same thing, and creating one that, while it does chop veggies, does it in a totally different way than his does. Thats not patent infringement, but in software it is? Please.
      • As for tabbed palettes ... this is a more difficult one. But first you need to understand the patent. This is not just about a tool dialog with a tab panel in it! The patent [adobe.com] is available from Adobe's site, and a set of animations [adobe.com] illustrate the infringment.


        I can see that Adobe had to run Flash to create the screengrabs and animations. Perhaps Macromedia will learn their lesson and put some text in their EULA, something to the effect of "By running this program you are giving up the right to sue us for patent infringement."

      • Re:patented 'tabbed palettes'? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @04:33AM (#3456028)
        I assert that GUI innovations SHOULD be patentable (although I'd like to see a much shorter duration on all software-related patents).

        When I was a CS undergraduate, I took the designing user interfaces course. As part of the coursework, I designed a voice activated interface (this was at a time when such things didn't exist). Various other students imagined how other interfaces of the future might work. Some of the ideas we came up with were great.

        Now, we could have all patented the ideas we came up with, and since then I'm sure some of our patents would have been infringed, and we could have licenced and sued. But would it make sense to do that? What if all undergraduate students did it? New developments in the software world would grind to a halt.

        The argument that interface innovations that appear obvious now weren't at the time they were invented is I believe a poor one. A creative person can sit down with a pencil and paper and come up with lots of ideas for possible user interface designs - it's relatively easy for those people who have an inclination for it. You've only got to look at the web sites of some of the more creative web designers to realise that there are many different creative ideas out there for user interfaces. The world would be a poorer place if all these designers patented their ideas and prevented other people from using them.

        The interface that is common today for products like Adobe Photoshop is a cumulation of many different ideas from many different individuals and companies. As a company focused on the creative industy, Adobe should be ashamed of itself for this kind of action.

      • As you can see ... this patent is about multiple tool dialogs (palettes) which dock together to form tabbed panels within a single dialog. Suddenly the idea is not so obvious anymore. Dockable components which overlap to save space ...? That's not a universal GUI concept; showing and hiding tool windows or popping up dialogs in a stack is a traditional means to handle this problem. Arguably Adobe DID innovate in this instance.

        You're joking, right? No, you're claiming that Adobe invented the...wait for it...file drawer! Look carefully at those little tabs on top of the palette. Now look around your office. Gee, what might have inspired the idea of putting little labeled tabs on top of records that are obscured by other records so that they can be quickly indexed? But the idea of having a file drawer simulated in software: now that's innovation! Dockable components that overlap to share space indeed...

        The FAQ mentions a unique method that allows tabs within palettes to be customized, separated and reorganized by users. Who could have thought up such a crazy innovation? [Shuffles through file drawer, reorganizing and relabeling files.]

        Sheesh.

      • Since I wrote my own extensive GUI (under the Watcom DOS extender) in 1991, my first heavy-duty Microsoft Windows programming was in 1996 using both Visual C++ and Visual Basic. It is my first time playing with a tabbed control, and I thought it was cool and innovative. But since I was programming instrumentation software and different users would prefer to have their instrument control panels arranged differently, I immediately thought of making them dockable.

        Like so many software patents, it's about who gets first exposure to new technology and then that person patenting the semi-obvious extensions. Patents were intended to be for those who either finally cracked long-standing problems or who created things in domains no one could ever have conceived of. Patents were not intended to protect market prognosticators.

        Patenting dockable tabbed windows in 1994 is the moral equivalent of patenting polymorphic Web Services interfaces today -- perhaps not obvious to every dolt, but obvious to enough of the developer population once people have, say, at least a couple of years to start using Web Services!

  • my favorite quote from Philip and Alex's Guide to Web Publishing
  • sounds like another bullsh*t lawsuit to me, nothin new fo adobe. But then again i'm not a big web developer, and i like to read the articles, and not really look at the animations....

  • It would be right... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cyberformer ( 257332 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:00AM (#3455646)
    ...if Macromedia had actually ripped off work that Adobe had put a lot of time and effort into, then shared with the public. (This is what the patent system is for: inventors share their work, and in return get a monopoly for twenty years, after which the work passes into the public domain.)


    Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. The patent is over "tabbed palettes", a type of user interface design. So it's not an invention, just a ludicrous software patent.


    Many years ago, Apple tried to sue Microsoft for copyright infringement over their user-interface. Had they (ab)used the patent system instead, they might have won, and there would be no Windows.

    • Re:It would be right... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Ian Peon ( 232360 ) <ian&epperson,com> on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:57AM (#3455817)
      I agree with you, I think that patent's should NOT apply to soft...

      Many years ago, Apple tried to sue Microsoft for copyright infringement over their user-interface. Had they (ab)used the patent system instead, they might have won, and there would be no Windows.

      ...OK, now I'm torn!

    • Re:It would be right... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by gl4ss ( 559668 )
      and quite rightfully too. what was windoze more than misuse of someone elses invention of gui?
      and what made apple products different from pc+msdos?gui.
      (yeah yeah i know it was demonstrated by some prof in 70(or 60) so it really wasnt their idea after all..)..

      but the 'invention' in this case, tabbed palettes as shown in examples, are NOT necessary for software to be usable, they're just HANDY. they should have just considered that using patented stuff(like swinging sideways) involves PAYING the inventor.

      and quite frankly, i'm not so keen on flash, especially it getting into a bloated to everthing replacement for java, only that it's not in the same spirit(more like coming to extra interface for activex or sh*t)..

  • Prior use perhaps? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Suppafly ( 179830 ) <slashdot@s[ ]afly.net ['upp' in gap]> on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:01AM (#3455651)
    from Macromedia today for using some patented interface stuff in Flash

    One would assume there is prior use for tabbed palettes (which is the interface stuff the mentioned in the article). Adobe has been around for a long time, but I don't see how they can basically patent tabs
  • then where do I send my check to support the plaintiffs?

  • good cartoon uses flash! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cdf12345 ( 412812 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:07AM (#3455668) Homepage Journal
    I know that on Adult Swim, "Home Movies" started using flash for their animation this season and it is wonderful, actually many of the Adult Swim Comedy block use flash if I'm not mistaken.

    This is really a shame, I hope a new version is available soon.
  • remember that NBA star that tried to patent the finger wiggle he did after he scored? ever notice how many web sites look exactly like Amazon.com? stand proud brother, you are an open source hero, you will never have to deal with this
  • Flash has long been the scourge of the internet. People use it to make large, annoying, ugly, flashy, and noisy animations instead of just making webpages. And now it's being used for obtrusive banner ads that even take up entire pages!

    But Flash has a number of positive uses - it can be used to create complex animations for presentations, or to create simple amateur animated movies in a fraction of the time taken using other tools. It can be used to create simple database applications. It has a powerful variant of javascript, which allows you to do many complex scripting tasks using only flash. It has powerful XML support for exchanging data with servers, making it possible to use it for e-commerce and data-transaction applications. It has a light memory and disk footprint, doesn't use too much unnecessary bandwidth, and has great multimedia capabilities.

    If Flash dissapears, I will sorely miss it.


    • And now it's being used for obtrusive banner ads that even take up entire pages!

      I've noticed more and more flash ads these days. Sometimes its obvious why - animations and interactive productions. But I've also seen very simple ads that would normaly be handled with either a still or animated GIF. So... why Flash?


      With the various shenanigans marketing types seem compelled to do these days, I can't help but wonder if there isn't a more nefarious reason Flash is becoming popular.


      With that in mind, how do YOU control Flash? I've been looking at junkbuster. I prefer to show banner ads where possible. But when an ad campaign uses technology I find offensive (tracking cookies, stupid java tricks, Flash) I will block it. Let the acceptable banners generate the stats.

  • Tiptoes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jcsehak ( 559709 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:23AM (#3455723) Homepage
    This is the equivalent of a car company patenting their cup holders and suing any other manufacturer who put them in. Who's the real loser in the end? As Macromedia CEO Rob Burgess points out, "Ultimately, it is our customers, and particularly our mutual customers, that will be harmed." Yup, half of us wind up with burnt, coffee-stained crotches.

    So what, now no software developer can include tabbed palettes? Wouldn't it be nice if Adobe said "Hey, Macromedia, you've used one of our ideas, but that's alright, we'll use one of your ideas, and both our products will be the better for it." No more can people stand on the shoulders of giants. Today, you have to stand on your tiptoes. Either that, or knock everyone else down.

    Well Adobe, for 2.8m, you've impeded the progress of software development, created enemies, and left your customers with a bad taste in their mouths. And you know what? I bet a lot of people will feel a lot less bad about pirating your software after this. I hope it was worth it.

    • Re:Tiptoes (Score:2, Insightful)

      by foniksonik ( 573572 )
      2.8 million dollars... what is that, like the amount Macromedia spends on catering yearly? Gimme a break.

      This is a nominal fee for back pay of the patent license. They'll work out a deal and probably have a better working relationship because of it. I know Adobe uses the SWF format in LiveMotion but Macromedia can't do a thing cause the specs have been open sourced... well, whatever... it's just drama.
    • This is the equivalent of a car company patenting their cup holders and suing any other manufacturer who put them in.

      Actually, I'd bet the really cool pop-out cupholders in the Audi A6 I rented are probably patented. Note that I'm talking about their design of cupholder, not cupholders in general.

      • Cup-holders (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Taurine ( 15678 )
        There is no such thing as a cool cup-holder. In any sane country its illegal to drink while driving because its too distracting. One of my favourite features of my E46 BMW is that it has NO cup-holders. Face it, for a cup-holder to be an effective preventer of spilled drinks, it has to be combined with a car engine that doesn't have enough torque to pull the skin off custard, and a driver who doesn't have the will to go round corners above a walking pace. Now I understand why the larger Audis I see often have such small engines - its to save the interior from coffee stains.
        • It securely held a can of warm Mountain Dew through a trip, and even got it ice cold on the way because the holder is right in front of the A/C vent.

        • Re:Cup-holders (Score:4, Insightful)

          by billh ( 85947 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @09:09AM (#3456674)
          I take it your country has no traffic? Some countries do, you know. Us Americans sometimes like to sip coffee while we are zooming along at 2mph on the way to work.

          I hear some people also like to purchase beverages from restaurants for later consumption.
    • Who's the real loser in the end? As Macromedia CEO Rob Burgess points out, "Ultimately, it is our customers, and particularly our mutual customers, that will be harmed." Yup, half of us wind up with burnt, coffee-stained crotches.

      Nope, in that case it's not the customer that'll be harmed ultimately. On the contrary, the customer will get a nice loot too. In the end, the real loser will be Mc Donalds'

  • Flash authoring app != Flash plugin (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mcasaday ( 562287 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:32AM (#3455740)
    Even if Macromedia was prohibited from selling the Flash authoring tool this would not necessarily have any affect on the browser plugin itself. I don't see what would keep Macromedia from developing a new version of its authoring application with an interface that doesn't employ tabbed palettes.

    Oops, they've already done just that [macromedia.com].

    I wonder how this would affect Flash MX. It doesn't feature the UI elements that Adobe claims to have invented. (And thank the gods for that, I hate tabbed palettes as much as most of you Slashdotters hate the Flash plugin itself.) Would Macromedia only have to pull Flash versions 5 and earlier off the shelves?

    What a waste of resources such lawsuits are. Companies squabbling like children, running complaining to mommy and daddy every time one of them has any kind of problem. Grow up or go to bed without any supper, I say!

    • Even if Macromedia was prohibited from selling the Flash authoring tool this would not necessarily have any affect on the browser plugin itself. I don't see what would keep Macromedia from developing a new version of its authoring application with an interface that doesn't employ tabbed palettes.

      Oops, they've already done just that [macromedia.com]

      Hmmm... Where have I seen that pallette before? Oh yeah, right here [microsoft.com].

      Better keep those lawyers around a while longer Macromedia. :-D

      Then again, Microsoft is the king of interface ripoff, maybe they'll just be flattered...
  • Until government gets out of the business of subsidizing property by taxing those who create property for the protection of those who own property, we'll have this situation in which property rights are disrespected.
  • I don't think anyone is understanding what the problem is here: Flash has a menu interface (as do tons of other products) that has movable little menus that float about the screen that you can place anywhere. Lets just set asside how crazy it is to be able to patent that: what does the court case say about Flash?

    Nothing about its technology. This is a user interface issue, not an issue on how Flash works. Nobody will have to stop using their Flash movies on their pages--the workings of those are not being disputed, nor how the Flash program generates them.

    So big deal. Macromedia will make a "non-tabbed-window" version of Flash (and of all its other products I guess because Director and Dream Weaver have the same style menus) with one big solid window and non-movable menus. I doubt it'll be hard for them to do that. Heck, fix a few things, add a few features, and its Flash 6.0. Time to upgrade anyway.

    Flash fans need not fear. You web pages are safe.

  • The first place that comes to mind is Visual Studio. In VC6 IDE, the "Output" window (where trace messages, build output, etc. appear), you select which type of output appears with a tab. I suppose it isn't a palette... But look at the tools palette in VB or Visual Interdev. Or the shortcuts in Outlook. Visual Studio 7 IDE uses these everywhere.

    So why didn't Adobe sue Microsoft? Because Microsoft could afford to fight them in court. Macromedia is a somewhat smaller company, so it is a little bit easier to beat them into submission.

    All in all, this just sucks. It doesn't matter how much we like or don't like Flash. What really matters is whether the "Tabbed Palette" is patentable...

    This is why I work for a large company instead of a fun startup -- I don't make as much of a difference, but at least my company can't be thrown around by the big guys for no good reason, so I have a small amount of job stability.
    • ... afaik, the patent is about customisation in tabbed windows, thus customize your tabs. VS.net has that too. I'm sure MS will come up with 'but these are 'dockable windows' instead of tabs', but it could be fun to see some jury of non-geeks break their minds on that case :)

      Btw, Macromedia isn't that small, they bought a lot of companies in the last couple of years and hold a strong marketshare in the webdesign market, where Adobe is, except for photoshop, a smaller player.
    • If these idiots win against Macromedia (plugin required to view this message because format is not open), that will make it easier for them to take on Microsoft next. Their patent does seem rather trivial, though, and you could probably bring it down in flames by pointing out that it's just mimicing real-life paper layouts (ie is not in principle new).

  • Not All Tabbed Palettes… (Score:5, Informative)

    by deharlow ( 460292 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:39AM (#3455766) Homepage
    From Adobe's FAQ at http://www.adobe.com/adobefacts/faq.html#Q11 [adobe.com] they are not claiming to have a patent on all tabbed palettes but only on those that can be customized, separated, and reorganized by users. Also for all those who say Adobe is claiming a patent in tabs in general check out Question 17 on the FAQ. Lastly check out the pictures that Adobe has on the site showing the problems...I bet the court took on look at those and had a lot of questions. Daniel BTW Now whether this patent should have been issued is a whole different matter and I am sure that others will cover it.

  • Oh, the hypocracy! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Otis_INF ( 130595 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:41AM (#3455770) Homepage
    "...but is it right to take a good product away from so many people who really do like it just because another company's product isn't taking over the market like they hoped it would?"
    Suddenly, 'Internet Explorer' comes to mind, looking from an average Joe Windowsuser POV.

  • OK, probably a troll, but... (Score:4, Funny)

    by tlambert ( 566799 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:42AM (#3455777)
    I think the most useful thing anyone has ever implemented in "Flash" is the "Bypass Flash intro" button...

    -- Terry
  • We need some kind of mass casualties to show how evil and stupid these software patents are. One of the biggest problems with the M$ case is that netscape didn't just completely die and have all its assets auctioned off.

    t.

  • ...here's a rant in support of flash... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jdbo ( 35629 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @02:54AM (#3455806)
    ...and this is coming from someone who just spent several hours learning all about the painful ins & outs of cross-platform/cross-browser Flash player plug-in detection...

    For certain applications, Flash works wonderfully _and_ far better than anything else out there. I am thinking in particular of short animations (with or without limited interaction) that can demonstrate ideas/diagrams/or tell a story.

    BTW, I work in educational R&D so I see great examples of this stuff used all the time to complement web-based curricula. Sure, it can't be indexed by a search engine, but it's there to _illuminate_ the ideas stated in the text; i.e. to enhance it, not to replace it.

    Sure, Flash can be abused (as many advertisers have done, and designers who want to use it as their entire tookit); However, the Flash-haters on /. are confusing the abuse of a general purpose tool (with some flaws that are being corrected [wired.com]) with the "dastardly deeds" done with it.

    BTW, how does /. usually respond to attacks on general purpose tools that some people are attacking based on a relatively minor domain of applications that they dislike? (hint: CSS, copyable-CDs, PVRs, reverse-engineering tools...) ...Sigh...

    Yes, most Flash ads suck. And so do 90% of Flash-heavy sites. This problem won't be corrected by removing a particular tool - the crappy designers will just migrate to SVG/Real/WM/etc. Besides, banning/spitting on something disliked is the RIAA/MPAA way of doing things.

    If we're such geeks we should be proposing/creating superior tools that are better focused on what Flash is best at, or improving Flash ourselves. Nope, I guess it's just easier to bitch about it.

  • Adobe's web-oriented offerings suck more balls than you can possibly imagine compared to Marcomedia's. Straight up, I use Adobe software to MAKE my content, and Macromedia software to DELIVER it. I would never DREAM of using Imageready for writing slicing or code and I sure as shit am not about to use pagemill.

    Adobe did some things VERY well- then Photoshop 6 came out, targeted for "web intergration"... and things have been going downhill from there.

    About two years ago, maybe three... all of a sudden, all of the new Macromedia apps started to look like Adobe apps. Fireworks is the best example- it handles like Photoshop the way Flash handles like Director (in other words, it looks exactly like it should handle the very same way and doesn't even try to).

    Adobe has had the "tabbed" features for as long as I've used their product. (about 4+ years). They didn't show up in Macromedia apps until recently... coincidentally, they're in Director, Dreamweaver, and Fireworks (apparently they're in Flash as well, but I hate flash and don't use it.). That's a good chunk of the Macromedia catalogue.

    If you really want to push it, the options screens for Word have ALWAYS been tabbed. And I'm sure Word's implementation predates Adobe's.

    Tabbed UI elements are about as fundamentally usefull as pulldown menus, rubber-soled shoes, batteries and bread. Patenting them is dumb, as it only impedes the useability of products that could greatly benefit from consistant and well thought out design.

    So it's bad. But if Adobe wins.... Flash could slowly wither and die. Which is fine by me- maybe then people will stop asking me if I know how to use it... and maybe, after that... they'll stop sending me links to flash sites.

    Adobe's just pissed that people are buying Macromedia's productivity apps instead of theirs. They haven't considered that in the areas they compete, Macromedia is way, WAY superior. [with the possible exception of Illustrator/Freehand].

  • Flash MX won't be taken off the shelf... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by silhouette ( 160305 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @03:02AM (#3455833)
    ...because it doesn't use tabbed palettes. Those were introduced in Flash 5, and replaced in MX by a windowish-docking system. I would wager that Macromedia's decision to change the interface in MX was based far more on the lawsuit than on user feedback.

    Adobe is seeking an injunction preventing Macromedia from selling "the infringing software" - which is, like I just said, Flash 5. Notice that Macromedia released Flash MX within the last month, and are now going to be actively phasing out their Flash 5 product and pushing MX instead. Is this good timing just a coincidence? You tell me. So what I'm wondering is what Adobe could possibly do to further harm the Flash product line (besides the $2.8mil in damages, of course).

    The original Legend of Zelda in Flash MX: a prototype [northwestern.edu]
  • Macromedia is countersueing over some hare-brained UI gimmick of their own; if we are lucky, the two companies will sue each other out of existence and web sites will stop using both PDF and Flash.

    Note that the patent applies to a UI gimmick in the Flash authoring software, not the Flash player. And if Macromedia's software engineering is at all reasonable, they should be able to remove this feature from their software within days and without losing any significant functionality. They can probably actually just post a small patch that disables the dragging for now and later come up with an alternative in terms of non-patented UI technology.

    The fact that this is patented at all and that Adobe has been brazen enough to sue over it is something we shouldn't forget, however.

  • Oh No! (Score:4, Funny)

    by NeuroManson ( 214835 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @03:09AM (#3455852) Homepage
    How am I gonna watch Osama Bin Laden In a Blender now???
  • What the heck is that supposed to mean ?

    Oh yes - I forgot, the only use for Flash according to /. is 'annoying banners'

    Forget the fact that it's the most widely used and distributed plugin. Forget the fact that people use it for presentations, cartoons, multi-media cd-roms, educational purposes etc. etc. etc.

    No, perhaps most of you 'code no graphics geeks' don't like Flash, but 90% of the rest of us do.
  • In less than a week I was able to write a kick butt XML based Internet Call Notifcation client in Flash. It notifies our ISP customers when they get phone calls while online. The thing can even play back any voice messages left by callers in real time! I was blown away by how easy it was to write the client and it was less than 50k when finished!

    Don't let lousy Flash ad banners or poorly designed webpage interfaces give you bad taste for the Flash format in general. It's really quite amaizing what can be done with it when used right... especially when developing sockets based web applications. Next on my list is a full fledged Flash chat client.

    I hope Macromedia doesn't get hit too hard from this. I just bought MX and I really dig the new features.
  • Admittedly, the graphics editing one I haven't had time to fully understand, and may have merit.

    But the ones for editing waveforms I swear I was doing on my Atari 1040 ST in 1987.

  • Visit this Corel trial page [corel.com] and click on the "Try Online" link next to CorelDraw 10 or Corel Photo-Paint 10.

    Wait until the demo applet loads.

    Click New Graphic from the intro window.

    Open a few dockers from the Window -> Dockers menu.

    Drag one of the tabs for these dockers into the main work area of the app, so that it acts like a palette.

    Now drag the other tabs still attached to the right side of the window over this palette.

    You've just constructed a tabbed palette using non-Adobe software.

    Now why would Adobe sue Macromedia and not Corel? Is it because Corel's take on the tabbed palette isn't as blatantly derivative as Macromedia's? Or is it because Corel isn't as much of a threat to Adobe's business as Macromedia? Yes, this is a trick question.

  • what the ... ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by __aahlyu4518 ( 74832 )
    Why is everybody talking like flash is dead because of this ? The existing product might be taken off the shelf, but that doesn't mean anything.
    They lose a lawsuit, take the tabbed palletes out(which btw is not the 'normal' tab feature you see in almost every application, but the abbility to rearrange things to save space or something... read the other posts) and sell the new product just as well... Might cost them a bunch, but flash will still exist.
  • Say what you will about this case, and say what you will about the companies involved, but this happens fairly often. I know very well that a post on slashdot won't change anything, at least not much, but is there anyone who seriously is trying to fight these kinds of software patents?

    I belive that if you put millions of dollars into a product, you want it to sell, and not be pirated or ripped off. Because of this I don't belive in removing patents all together, but I belive that they should only be used to protect, not to destroy. In the software field, they destroy, and they last way too long. Put the time down to two years instead of something.

    Hmm, I rant too much, maybe I should patent that and sue you all ^_~
  • Not saying I was the first one to do it, but I did and I can prove it. That predates the patent by ten years.

  • Hmm, so UI design is fair game... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MadFarmAnimalz ( 460972 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @05:37AM (#3456166) Homepage
    OK. Idea. Let's see what you folks think about this one.

    This case has established a precedent that elements of UI design can be copyrighted, lame as this decision is.

    Wouldn't this set up the foundation for a lawsuit against Microsoft for ripping the whole WIMP (windows, icons, menus, pointers) paradigm from Apple? Who in turn could get sued by PARC, I think it was?

    If my reasoning here is correct, then we'd have a win-win situation; MS is sued and that damn OS is pulled from the shelves, or MS wins the court case and Macromedia gets the Adobe sentence nullified.

    Any lawyers skulking about to comment?
  • Now this might be a strange position, but in a way,
    this news makes me glad.

    Flash is software used by a lot of people. Most
    of these people are average-Joe windows users.
    (Not /. or Linux people)

    This is the group we need to get to understand that software patents
    are no good. Having a very popular browser plug-in taken off the market
    makes for some good anti-patent opinion.

    Sometimes the ends justify the means, I guess.
  • If this is how software patents protect innovation, then may I never have a software patent.

    I hope this is the catalyst to get software patent reform moving. Unfortunately after the furor of the one-click patent died down, so did the attention on software patents.

  • Not a good idea (Score:3, Informative)

    by shawnmelliott ( 515892 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @09:32AM (#3456784) Journal
    This is not a good idea for Adobe since you have to consider who their market is

    Flash does something that most other products are NOT able to do. Make interactive sites easy enough for even GRAPHIC developers to create. Most of the people I find that LOVE Flash love it for it's ease of use. All of those people are graphic designers the same people who buy Adobe Photoshop. Adobe has a bad PR hurricane just ready to brew over this if they decide to push for Macromedia to pull Flash

    Also, what I find absolutely hilarious is Adobe's Front Page [adobe.com] which, of all things, uses Flash

  • Adobe Plays Microsoft's Game More than you Think (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arloguthrie ( 318071 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @11:18AM (#3457354) Homepage
    I hate posting this late in the game on a topic -- I worry no one will read it -- I don't think anyone has made this correlation yet.

    I agree that Adobe suing Macromedia for cramping their style is and should be a crock. Adobe is playing the same bullying tactics as another large company.

    Take, for example, the Photoshop monopoly. Used to be that if you wanted to bevel or automatically add shadows to items, you had to buy a third-party plug-in. Now those features are built in and have been since 5.5

    If you wanted to catalog your images, you had to purchase a third-party app like Extensis Portfolio. Photoshop 7 includes those.

    Natural media? Used to need Painter. Now Photoshop 7 has that, too.

    And somebody must have come up with the idea of slicing images before Adobe did. Hell, before Macromedia did.

    Fortunately for us graphic designers, we will use the right tool for the job. We learn that in school when we have to choose between graphite and charcoal in Design 101. Therefore, companies like Alien Skin, Corel, and Extensis aren't hurt dramatically by Adobe pulling the Microsoft "freedom to innovate" integration game.

    But my point is that Adobe steals features from everyone else. It's hypocritical of Adobe to sue someone for stealing their feature. And it proves the ignorance of software patents.

    Adobe, a company whose products I use every day to pay my bills, a company whose products I enjoy using, abuses their place in the market. Ahh, the idyllic socialist dreams of nerds...

  • I tried to complain to Adobe on their site but ... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @11:48AM (#3457546) Homepage
    they don't have any feed-back that's not related to SELLING their products.

    But it did have their address so I'll write something and send it via snailmail.

    This patent/copywrong crap is the type of bad corporate citizenship that Microsoft has taught businesses.

    I didn't pay for their Adobe Type Manager on my Mac but I WILL write to Apple and suggest that they look for some open source alternative.
    This is getting fuckin' ridiculous.

  • What a stupid sentiment (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stickerboy ( 61554 ) on Friday May 03, 2002 @01:14PM (#3458095) Homepage
    "We may not all be Flash lovers, but is it right to take a good product away from so many people who really do like it just because another company's product isn't taking over the market like they hoped it would?"

    Let's see...

    "We may not all be GNOME lovers, but is it right to take away XYZ software from so many people who do like it just because it contains GPL violations?"

    "We may not all be Netscape lovers, but is it right to take away Internet Explorer from so many people who do like it just because Microsoft is an abusive monopoly?"

    The popularity of a software has no bearing or relevance in this case or any legal case involving its use.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close