Daddy Clanger (imc) wrote,
Daddy Clanger
imc

Software patents bad, OK?

. . . Even if Microsoft has just been ordered to pay over half a billion dollars for allegedly infringing Patent 5,838,906.

I went and looked at the text of this patent only to find myself knee-deep in legalese and vaguery. It appears at first sight that anyone who uses an interactive browser plug-in is at risk of falling foul of this patent, but it's actually intended to cover cases where the program providing the plugged-in content is running server-side and communicating with the user via IPC (inter-process communication). I'm not sure which bit of IE is meant to infringe that: fingers have been pointed at ActiveX but that's a rather large haystack in which to find the offending needle. And among all those `said servers', `said clients' and `said objects' I don't know how non-specific the text of the patent actually is in legal terms.

Reports of what Microsoft will do next range from `completely rewrite IE' to `disable a small part of ActiveX' but I can't help hoping it teaches all those people who have web sites `best viewed with Internet Explorer' a lesson or two.

You've got to laugh at MS having another misfortune in the courts, but that doesn't actually justify the action. In any case there's nothing saying Netscape/Mozilla and other browsers that use plugins are immune from future action.
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments