Microsoft Patents Writing Windows Apps Using HTML
from the prior-art? dept
theodp writes “If you think coding around that Eolas patent might be tough, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. The USPTO awarded a patent to Microsoft Tuesday for Writing Windows Applications Using HTML, which covers the authoring and execution of HTML that runs in its own window outside of the browser. Ironically, Microsoft occupies two seats on the W3C HTML Patent Advisory Group that’s fighting the Eolas patent.” Certainly seems like something that is pretty damn obvious, and not quite patentable. There must be prior art examples of people writing HTML applications outside the browser window? If this patent stands, though, it certainly sounds like Google’s new desktop toolbar is in violation.
Comments on “Microsoft Patents Writing Windows Apps Using HTML”
I don't get it
Here’s the patent 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.
So if Internet Explorer gets one of these magical ‘application files’ it’ll run it in a separate window without security restrictions?
So now all a hacker has to do to get around browser security restrictions is name his web page using the ‘application’ file extension or MIME type?
I say let them have this patent. I wouldn’t want rights to it. It’s patently stupid.
No Subject Given
It’s incredibly obvious.
I’ve had ideas like this a hundred times. It’s a very very very bad idea. But it does mean that virus writers will likely have safe haven in this new world of long horn.
Re: No Subject Given
been done a while ago search for browserless window extension at macromedia.com
sound like the patent office didn’t do any research before handing out the patent