Microsoft Wins HTML App Patent 404
crataegus writes "'Microsoft on Tuesday won a patent for launching a certain kind of HTML application within Windows. The patent, "Method and apparatus for writing a Windows application in HTML" (Hypertext Markup Language), describes Microsoft's way of opening up HTML applications in a window free of navigation and other interface elements, known as "chrome," and browser security restrictions.' Why does this sound vaguely familiar?"
need to copy (Score:1, Insightful)
Windows applications... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, everyone using Mac and Linux are free to use chrome?
New "Features" (Score:4, Insightful)
So now we have microsoft with patenting a new way of creating macicious popups with windows. Knowing Microsoft, stuff like Gator and Eyeblaster ad's will soon show up in this space and, without my usual restrictions, everyone who uses Internet Explorer will soon have spyware again. While it'll be quite profitable (for me too, I do computer repair and tune ups), This could easily become a HUGE annoyance for systems administrators around the world. Time to switch everything to Mozilla and Opera.
So they have a patent (Score:4, Insightful)
XAML (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:familiar (Score:4, Insightful)
Because this is an open forum, a discussion, not a journalistic media outlet where every "story" has to be vetted for signs of opinion.
Don't like the submitter's slant? Then you are perfectly free to rebut it with your own comment. But why would you expect someone to post a story without counterpoint, incidental links, or personal opinion, if every other visitor is afforded these options.
HTML vs. XUL (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, given that XUL already existed when this was filed, you could make the claim that using HTML instead was "obvious", but it isn't, strictly speaking, the same.
Perhaps the Mozilla people should patent XUL. For defensive purposes, if nothing else. But the conspiracy theorists should look elsewhere for Microsoft threats to open-source browsers.
Re:Companies Today (Score:3, Insightful)
ALL patents are bad (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, the issue isn't that this is a bonehead patent it is that all patents are inherently burdensome to society, and this patent sillyness is just a symptom of a poor belief system taken to it's logical conclusion.
Yeah, I've heard it all before
Naive question on patent law (Score:2, Insightful)
Just wondering....
* Innovative (MS, SCO, et. al definition) - scouring the world for ideas for which they can claim ownership.
Is there some wayt o hold the USPTO liable? (Score:5, Insightful)
A couple years ago the Australian PTO granted a patent for a wheel. (I believe I saw this in the ignoble awards) The applicant had actually drawn a cart illustrating the role of the wheel. Clearly the USPTO is not alone in its level of incompetance.
Under law as I understand it, these beauracrates have a responsibility to follow the legislation. Clearly due to their collective incompetance and possibly several other factors they are not doing this.
So is there any way to challenge them and if not can a lobby be put together so that before a patent is granted there is a peer review of its validity? Why should software developers for instance face invalid patent after invalid patent which creates unnecessary litigation at terrible costs when a simple peer review process done in conjunction with the patent office could avert the problem. Please note that the court system is already overloaded and that it is a serious drain on the taxpayers of the nation. As such it would seem that a peer review process might be in the best interests of everyone.
Perhaps the patent office would even go along with such a process because it might save them considerable embarrasment as well as offloading some of the workload of their examiners. Is there anything in the law that prohibits something like this?
Please note that at least IMHO I see invalid patents as the greatest threat there is for the opensource community. We need to address this as soon as possible in an effective manner.
"...Microsoft has no..." (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh huh...GIF...jpeg...FAT... I know...they're not all MS patents, but...
We are at that awkward stage in our history where it's too late to vote them out, but it's too early to just shoot the bastards. - ?
Re:New "Features" (Score:3, Insightful)
Bzzzt... wrong answer.
This patent covers Microsoft HTML Applications. An HTML Application is a file with the extention of
An HTML Application is just like a normal executable except for the fact that it is written in HTML.
Re:It doesn't bother me! (Score:2, Insightful)
Very ironic that a VB guy is pissed off at HTML guys!
Re:Over 10 years of VB? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)
More Proprietary markup? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm just guessing here, but I would imagine that with the poor interface and interaction that "html" provides as compaired to, say, the flexibility of a "real application" UI, MS is going to have to provide a boatload of proprietary tags and hooks to make this actually usefull (at least MORE usefull than an actual web browser). Does this mean that more content will be delivered as a Microsoft web app (ie. online shopping) and will therefore make it impossible for me to access with my RH or OSX box?
Re:New "Features" (Score:5, Insightful)
So now we have microsoft with patenting a new way of creating macicious popups with windows.
Remember that, when they applied for the patent, Sun was trying to break their monopoly on OSes by creating, with Java and Javascript, a platform-independent secure sandbox within the web browser for running web-distributed mini-apps. Letting users build Windows-only apps that could escape the sandbox and use OS-dependent features (but only on Windows platforms) would seem like a plus.
Of course the patent would block others from doing the same on OTHER proprietary OSes. So web site designers could build portable content, Windows-only content, but not Other-OS-only content. This would help prevent another OS from displacing them as the monopolist and then using their own tricks on them to keep them out of the catbird seat.
Re:Posting Prior Art (Score:3, Insightful)
The next big Open Source challenge will come from patents. We should start now, but where?
We need some friendly corporation with deep pockets to sponsor hosting a web-based database where open source types can submit papers / code / writeups / etc. to serve a "defensive prior art" for ridiculous patents.
The quality of the papers wouldn't necessarily have to be very high, and duplicates would be fine, I think. The big thing it needs is a very effective search engine, and a way to verify the submission dates for submitted works.
Then anytime a new questionable tech patent is issued, the community can search the "defensive prior art database" for anything useful, and then notify the patent office.
It would also be nice if the tech community could establish some kind of dialogue with the USPTO where we could feel confident that we could actually get these questionable patents reviewed and (possibly) thrown out.
Re:It doesn't bother me! (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and so is binary, but I'd rather shoot myself in the kneecap (ok, maybe not the kneecap, I heard that hurts a lot) before I'd write a program in 1s and 0s. I played with VB it once, and I hated it almost as much as clippy.
Re:So they have a patent (Score:2, Insightful)
Misleading topic - nothing to do with chrome (Score:3, Insightful)
His link defines chrome like this:
What is Chrome? - The chrome is that part of the application window that lies outside of a window's content area. Toolbars, menu bars, progress bars, and window title bars are all examples of elements that are typically part of the chrome.
Now read the abstract of the patent below, and tell me, the way you understand it, does it have anything to do with chrome?
United States Patent 6,662,341
Cooper , et al. December 9, 2003
Method and apparatus for writing a windows application in HTML
Abstract
A method, apparatus, and computer-readable medium for authoring and executing HTML application files is disclosed. An HTML application file is basically a standard HTML file that runs in its own window outside of the browser, and is thus not bound by the security restrictions of the browser. The author of an HTML application file can take advantage of the relaxed security. The author of the HTML application file designates the file as an HTML application file by doing one or more of the following: defining the MIME type as an HTML application MIME type; or using an HTML application file extension for the file. When a browser, such as the Internet Explorer, encounters one of the above, it processes the file as an HTML application file rather than a standard HTML file by creating a main window independent of the browser, and rendering the HTML in the main window.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Most existing Windows application development environments require knowledge of specialized computer languages such as C++, or Visual Basic. Learning a specialized computer language is often difficult for non-technical individuals. However, many non-technical individuals can use HTML (HyperText Markup Language) and scripting languages, such as VBScript and JScript. HTML and scripting languages are run inside of a Web browser, and thus, inherit the browser's user interface and security mechanisms. Because non-technical individuals have knowledge of HTML and scripting languages, it would be advantageous to leverage such existing knowledge to implement a Window's application. Such applications should be free to define their own user interface elements and to run as trusted code on the system, i.e., outside of the security model imposed by the Web browser. The present invention is directed to achieving this result.
END EXCERPT
In fact, why don't you go to www.uspto.gov, and search for patent # 6,662,341, and educate yourself a bit about patents. Read the abstract, then the "field of invention" and introduction parts - they are the most important for start, even though the claims are the only things that matter in court. Because of that claims are written in very hard to read lawyer lingo, and only read them after you read the rest, to double check that the claims are actually saying what you understood from the rest of the text.
Basically this patent is about programming, as opposed to C or VB, you end up programming in the C-like javascript. I don't feel this deserves a patent at all - the amount of effort needed to relax securities for a special
Its the claims, stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
So, everyone using Mac and Linux are free to use chrome?
Read the claims. Not the headline, not the abstract, not the description, THE CLAIMS! The claims and nothing else decide what the patent covers, so it's really the only thing you should read. The rest of the patent is probably designed to be worthless to competitors (while still having the patent granted) whereas the claims are drawn up to be the broadest possible.
I apologize for being a bit harsh about this, but it's quite important. It's also worth remembering that if your implementation changes one single thing in the claims you're not infringing on the patent. In fact you could probably patent the adjusted idea yourself (obvious or not).
Re:It doesn't bother me! (Score:2, Insightful)
VB Rocks!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The good thing about VB is, I really hated it with a passion after about 20 minutes and put it down as soon as I could. Then I really got pissed at Microsoft for making such a weak product and got rid of Windows too. I'm now quite happily using open source products. See, VB is good.
ironic reversal of history (Score:3, Insightful)
That is, the use of hypertext and scripts for building local applications preceded the web and was the historical foundation for it. It's ironic (and stupid) that Microsoft is going back in 1999 to try to patent the precursor to the web from the 1980's. Anybody who works as a developer or inventor in hypertext systems should have at least a passing familiarity with the history of the field. I think it demonstrates that the people at Microsoft who wrote this patent don't even know the basics of their profession.
Note, incidentally, that you have been able to use HTML and JavaScript for building "trusted" applications on your local machine for many years, depending on your browser, so this is nothing new even as far as HTML specifically is concerned. Hypertext with embedded widgets and scripting has also been widely used for building local applications with the Tcl/Tk toolkit.
Re:Over 10 years of VB? (Score:2, Insightful)
You are lucky though, my first Windows OS is Windows 98 (First Lousy Edition.) I got so pissed off with Windows I eventually switched to Linux. It's not anywhere near a perfect OS, but it gets the job done without pissing me off.
Oh great, I just pissed off the Windows zealots by saying Windows in unstable and pissed off the Linux zealots by saying Linux isn't perfect and not calling it GNU/Linux. And what about the OS/2 zealots? I didn't even mention OS/2! I am so screwed, and not in the fun way!
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Insightful)
the patent was filed May 20, 1999
it means this:
HTML Applications (HTAs) appeared with Internet Explorer 4.0, which was introduced in 1997, I believe. Long before the Mozilla project started.
must be referring to something other than the patent. If they distributed and sold their patented invention in the US two years before filing an application the patent would not be valid. So either the patent is on something else or the USPTO screwed up.
The sinister use of this technology (Score:3, Insightful)
Business is Business (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes down to it, you could view this not, as
Microsoft may well be taking a well-thought-out risk here. This could, if someone takes the matter up in court, go two ways:
1) Microsoft pay a relatively small amount in legal costs and lose the patent.
2) Microsoft get to keep their patent and go on to make large licensing deals.
We often make the mistake of thinking of these as acts of evil - they're not. At a very basic level, Microsoft are not in the software business any more that banks are in the financial assistance business. They're both, as is every other for-profit company in the world, in the money making business.
It's a lovely idea that people would turn down huge amounts of money to stand by their (arguably rather niche) moral views. But I'm willing to bet that if
Re:It doesn't bother me! (Score:2, Insightful)