Eolas Is Baaaaaaaaack; And It's Suing Everyone Over Embeddable Web Widgets

from the because-otherwise... dept

Well, here we go again. As you may recall, Eolas is a company that claimed to hold a patent (5,838,906) on browser plugins. The company sued Microsoft, and a long drawn-out battle ensued. Even though web inventor Tim Berners-Lee presented prior art and asked the USPTO to invalidate Eolas' ridiculously broad and obvious patent, the USPTO eventually upheld the patent (after initially rejecting claims). Even as Microsoft began presenting evidence that it actually had made use of the technology in question before Eolas applied for its patent, losses in the courts and the Supreme Court's refusal to hear the case eventually resulted in Microsoft agreeing to settle rather than continue to fight.

Since then (two years ago), plenty of people have been waiting for the other shoe to drop, concerning Eolas' plans to sue others. Now we know why it waited. It's now received a new patent -- a continuation patent, which is often used to abuse the patent system by putting forth a broad patent, then filing for continuations to make changes that let an earlier "invention" cover technologies that later become popular. In this case, the new patent (7,599,985), which basically just extends the earlier patent on browser plugins, and extends it to javascript widgets. Yes, those embeddable widgets used all over the web? It appears that Eolas thinks that those are infringing and everyone should pay up.

The new lawsuit has been filed against Adobe, Amazon, Apple, Blockbuster, Citigroup, eBay, Frito-Lay, Go Daddy, Google, J.C. Penney, JPMorgan Chase, Office Depot, Perot Systems, Playboy Enterprises, Staples, Sun, Texas Instruments, Yahoo, and YouTube. Apparently, starting small isn't part of the plan. Not surprisingly, Eolas filed in Eastern Texas using McKool Smith -- one of the most popular law firms representing patent holding firms in East Texas.

I am honestly curious how patent system defenders, who are also programmers, can defend this. I'm sure non-programmers will claim that the patent is valid, but I can't imagine how anyone who has any knowledge of basic programming principles can claim that such a patent is valid. In the meantime, tons of companies doing an incredibly basic thing on the web will now have to waste millions of dollars fighting a ridiculous patent lawsuit. How is this promoting innovation in any way shape or form?

51 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Content Owners Force Hulu To Block Mobile Browsers As Well

from the seriously? dept

I still can't figure out the reasons why content owners allowed Hulu to offer up TV shows in a browser... but then absolutely flipped out when they realized that the very same content can be seen on browsers on other devices as well. In the past, we've noted that Hulu was pressured to block the Boxee browser (which lets you view content on your TV) and the PS3's browser (also for TVs). Now, via hamill8152, we learn that Hulu is also blocking content on Skyfire, a mobile browser for Windows Mobile phones. The reasoning is the same as always (and, at the very least, kudos to Hulu for being upfront about the idiotic pressure it comes under from clueless content owners). Hulu explains the whole "windowing" thought process of the folks in Hollywood, and suggests that these windows will eventually go away. Of course, it's worth pointing out that Hollywood so disagrees with this that the MPAA has been pushing for ways to add more windows. Either way, the whole thing is silly. If you're putting your content on the internet, you're putting it on the internet. Pretending that televisions or mobile phones can't also view content on the internet makes no sense. One day, people in charge will understand this. Until then...

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Google, Too, Chooses Lobbying Over Competing

from the is-that-so-googley? dept

Microsoft's increasing regulatory headache from the European Commission concerns its Internet Explorer browser that comes standard with Windows. We've said before that this investigation is prima facie silly given the vibrant and increasing competition in the browser market, but it looks like things are just going to get worse for Microsoft. First, it was Mozilla deciding to complain that Microsoft was creating an unhealthy browser market by bundling IE with Windows. Now, Google is jumping onto the bandwagon and arguing that Microsoft's policy limits competition and harms innovation.

This is primarily problematic because the browser market is anything but uncompetitive. Firefox has created what is widely considered a better product, and, wouldn't you know it, gained considerable market share around the world (as high as 30% in some regions). More recently, Google introduced its own browser, Chrome, that launched to accolades and much user adoption. By introducing regulators into the browser market, these companies will all be distracted from providing users with the best possible product.

But what's even more confounding is Google's involvement. Obviously the company desires control of most browsers so it can set the defaults in its favor, but it is increasingly obvious that Google should not be bringing regulatory attention to the Internet -- especially when it comes to antitrust questions. Although claims of Google's "monopoly" are as specious as Internet Explorer's, making noise about antitrust is likely to come back and bite Google, especially given the rising number of political enemies they have.

Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Disappointing: Mozilla Siding With Bogus EU Antitrust Action Against Microsoft

from the just-go-out-and-compete dept

Last month, it seemed silly that EU regulators were pursuing Microsoft for antitrust violations in the browser market for bundling IE. It was clear that some of the initial complaints had come from Opera -- an also-ran in the browser market. However, it seemed silly because there is vibrant and growing competition in the marketplace. Firefox has continued to grow its market share, and in the past few years we've seen new entrants in the browser market from Apple and Google -- both of whom have established small, but significant footholds.

So, it's especially disappointing to read that the Mozilla Foundation appears to be siding with the regulators, complaining about Microsoft's actions. Obviously, Mozilla is competing with Microsoft in this space, so at a first pass it may seem in their best interests to lobby the EU to punish Microsoft. But it's disingenuous to say the least. Mozilla got where it did because it competed effectively. It built a better, more secure browser that many people made the choice to support over IE. In fact, Firefox's chief architect, apparently unaware of what his "bosses" were cooking up, seems to have recently contradicted the Mozilla Foundation's new position, where he admitted that he couldn't see how anyone with a straight face could claim that Microsoft's ability to bundle created a monopoly, noting that Firefox's success in growing marketshare showed that making yourself "demonstrably better" worked. Oops.

79 Comments | Leave a Comment..

EU Regulators Can't Resist: Go After Microsoft For Antitrust Yet Again

from the punching-bag dept

Microsoft is becoming quite the antitrust punching bag over in Europe. After a years long fight concerning antitrust charges in Europe, Microsoft finally gave in and agreed to pay up. So, now the matter is over with, right? No, of course not. EU regulators are back at it, telling Microsoft that the company is probably violating antitrust laws by bundling Microsoft Internet Explorer with Windows. This seems like an odd issue to bring up now as there is increasing competition in the browser market. Firefox's marketshare has continued to climb. Google has entered the market with Chrome. Safari is gaining increasing life (in part due to the iPhone) and there are numerous other upstarts as well. The idea that Microsoft is somehow exerting undue influence on the browser market (a market that, for the most part, involves free software) seems rather odd. It seems to confirm the initial opinion that many had of the original antitrust lawsuit in the EU against Microsoft. It's more about a simple dislike for Microsoft than any actual antitrust violation.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is Apple Finally Realizing That Competition Is A Good Thing

from the Perestroika? dept

For months, we've been arguing that an open, free market is the best way to operate a mobile phone application service. Yet, the leader in the industry, Apple, has continued to operate a Byzantine system of opaque and arbitrary rules. This is confusing to developers and limits competition.

Luckily, there are some signs that Apple may be loosening their anti-competitive restrictions. Since the beginning, Apple has asserted a right to ban applications that "compete" with existing functionality, even if those offer an improvement. In essence, this was nothing more than Apple disallowing competition with its built-in applications. Now, it seems they are changing their stance, albeit quietly, by letting in a number of mobile browsers that compete with Apple's own mobile browser. While it isn't official, and I'm not holding my breath, this hopefully signals a positive move for iPhone users and developers (not to mention Apple, whose product will get a lot more valuable).

Kevin Donovan is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Kevin Donovan and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

13 Comments | Leave a Comment..

People Gave Chrome A Shot, But They're Going Back To Their Original Browser

from the no-reason-to-switch dept

As we had mentioned, the original numbers that were coming out about people switching to Google's Chrome browser seemed a little difficult to believe. And, in fact, it appears they were. New reports are suggesting that while a bunch of folks may have kicked the tires on Chrome, the shine came off pretty quickly, and plenty of people have simply gone back to their original browsers. This really shouldn't be a surprise. While some people found Chrome to be clean and relatively fast, it didn't really offer much beyond that. That doesn't mean that it won't eventually make inroads into the market, but simply throwing up yet another browser with the Google brand on it isn't enough to convince people to switch. It needs to actually offer a significant and noticeable difference -- and so far that hasn't happened.

46 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Are IE Users Really Jumping To Chrome?

from the seems-hard-to-believe dept

On the day that Google's Chrome browser launched I saw a few reports claiming that it already had jumped to somewhere between 2 and 3% of the market. Those numbers seemed ridiculously high for a first day launch of a new piece of software -- especially in a market where the majority of people still use the browser that came included with their operating system, and have not chosen to download and use an alternative like Firefox. While some more recent stats suggest both lower penetration, and that Chrome got a first day bump that seems to now be going away, another study suggests that most of the Chrome marketshare actually came from Internet Explorer users, rather than Firefox or Opera. In fact, the report found that all of the market share difference came from IE. That seems hard to believe. I would imagine that the folks most likely to download and use Chrome are those who are already comfortable with downloading and using an alternative browser. So, can anyone explain these results?

85 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Web Browsers' 'Visited' Feature Creates Privacy Concerns

from the just-visiting dept

Ben Adida points to an interesting hack that takes advantage of a bug/feature (depending on your perspective) of modern browsers. When a webpage is rendered, the browser will typically display links that have been previously visited in a different color. Under the hood, this is implemented by setting the link's style to "visited." A website can use JavaScript to detect this information and report it back to the server -- and could even do something sneaky like adding "hidden" links not actually visible to users just to find out if you had visited certain sites. This behavior was noticed by the Mozilla community way back in 2002, but because of the way the spec was written, there wasn't any easy solution. Now somebody has figured out at least one useful purpose for this particular data leak: reducing the number of links some websites provide to social networking sites. As Digg, Reddit, and dozens of social news competitors have proliferated, blogs and news sites have increasingly faced the challenge of supporting ways to submit stories to those sites without unnecessarily cluttering up their pages. But this guy has developed some JavaScript code that will use the "visited" data leak to determine which social networking sites the user has visited and display badges only for those sites. It's a clever hack, albeit one that will make privacy sticklers' skin crawl. Browser vendors ought to fix the underlying privacy issue, which will break this little hack in the process, but in the meantime it doesn't hurt to put it to a useful purpose.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

27 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Browser Is The New Operating System

from the local-storage dept

A couple of weeks ago TechCrunch had a good write-up of the move toward open local storage APIs in web browsers. As websites have come to look more and more like applications rather than static pages, they've begun to bump up against the limits of what today's web browsers can do. Developers have responded by using a variety of proprietary plug-ins and workarounds to expand the browser's functionality. One example of this is local storage. There aren't a lot of good options for applications that want to store significant amounts of data client-side in a way that will continue to be available if the Internet connection goes away. Google has Google Gears, while Adobe has Flash. Each offers local storage, but neither is compatible with the other, nor are their APIs likely to be adopted by other browser vendors in the future.

Luckily, as part of the HTML 5 effort, it looks like the major browser vendors are moving toward a set of open APIs for local storage that will (theoretically, at least) enable developers to write an application targeting this functionality and have it work on any modern browser. It appears that the latest versions of Firefox largely already support the API, and support has been added to recent builds of WebKit, the foundation of Apple's Safari browser. The big laggard is Internet Explorer, which has some but not all of the functionality. But even IE users have the option of installing Google Gears, which has promised to add HTML 5-compliant local storage APIs. The broad support of these APIs by other browsers, along with the fear of giving the edge to its arch-rival Google, will put a lot of pressure on Microsoft to jump on the bandwagon.

What's really interesting about this is that browsers are starting to resemble operating systems in their own right. One of the most fundamental features of operating systems is to provide a consistent interface for data storage. OS developers call it a file system, rather than "local storage," but the concept is the same. And as websites come to increasingly resemble full-blown operating systems, I think browser vendors are increasingly going to have to solve the same kinds of problems that operating system vendors do.

For example, it has become increasingly common for my browser to slow to a crawl because one poorly-written, JavaScript-heavy website is sucking up all the CPU. Just as operating systems have preemptive multitasking to prevent one application from bringing the whole system to a crawl, browsers should have mechanisms to prevent one misbehaving website from bringing my browser grinding to a halt. Safari has an extremely primitive version of this - I'll sometimes get a dialog box informing me that a particular website's Javascript is creating problems and asking if I want to stop it - but there's a lot of room for improvement. The browser should automatically limit the amount of CPU one website can use when others are waiting. And I should be able to call up a "task manager" that shows me all the websites I've got open and gives their CPU and memory usage. When websites begin to resemble full-fledged applications, browsers are going to start behaving like full-fledged operating systems.

In a sense, this is the belated fulfillment of Netscape's "middleware" strategy to make the web browser the new operating system. As detailed in the Microsoft antitrust saga, Netscape's hope (and Microsoft's fear) was that the browser would supplant the operating system as the default platform for user applications. That's now starting to happen, although it didn't happen fast enough to save Netscape.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Apple's Conquest Of Mobile Browsing Continues With Google Phone Platform

from the open-source-browser dept

Google's GPhone (non-)announcement wasn't a big surprise, but some of the tidbits that are now emerging about the Android mobile OS are intriguing. For example, in a new video, Google's Steve Horowitz mentions that the default Android web browser will be based on Webkit, which he says is "the industry standard these days." Webkit is the open source package of web browser libraries that's at the heart of Apple's Safari web browser, and was originally based on the Linux Konquerer browser. Nokia gave the libraries a big boost last year when it announced a WebKit-based browser for its own mobile phones. And this year, Apple used WebKit as the foundation for the iPhone's web browser. The Google announcement further consolidates WebKit's status as a leading platform for mobile web browsers. The choice of WebKit for mobile browsing makes sense. Mobile browsers need to be fast and have a small footprint, and Apple originally chose the Konquerer codebase because it found it to be much leaner than Mozilla's codebase. The growing popularity of WebKit is good news for Mac Safari users (like me), who are less likely to see those annoying "your browser is not supported" messages when they visit websites. It's also good for the broader web-browsing public, as it represents the rise of a third major competitor in the browser market. As WebKit continues to grow in popularity, it will make more sense for website developers to focus on conforming to standards rather than customizing a site to the quirks of a particular browser. That, in turn, will force Microsoft (and Mozilla, but mostly Microsoft) to focus on conforming to the standards themselves, contributing to a virtuous circle of standards compliance that ultimately makes everyone's lives easier.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

16 Comments | Leave a Comment..