I sure hope I never have to take out a license to use the <B> tag anytime in the future! According to this article, the W3C may be changing the OBJECT and EMBED usage.
Options the PAG could recommend include a technical workaround or new wording in HTML and related specifications warning that authors who implement the tags in question should contact the patent holders and take out a license, if necessary. (Source: C|Net)
That would be a big change. All plugins use these tags, QuickTime, Flash, Active X, etc, etc.
This is all came to light because of a Eolas' $521 million patent victory over Microsoft and its Internet Explorer browser (Source: C|Net, One, Two, Three, Four)
So is Eolas going to go after EVERY business who has used the OBJECT and EMBED framework in their own technology? He (Eolas is a one man operation) already has won a ruling, which we all know doesn't mean anything yet, M$ is going to appeal. Is he going to go after Apple, Macromedia, Sun, etc. as well and make them pay a licensing fee? I think this is all a bit harsh. How long have people used plugins in browsers? I seem to recal Netscape as being the pioneer of the plugin architecture to enhance the Web, but that is beside the point at this point.
I am not sure if I agree with M$ or not here. There is a patent here (and how many years has it been with no word of patent infringement by Eolas?) But I get the feeling that Eolas is asking way too much for licensing, I mean, $521 million for the patent case?
But, the federal court found that plug-ins and applets in Internet Explorer infringed on patents held by Eolas Technologies and the University of California. Say that again: plug-ins and applets in Internet Explorer. So why is this suit not directed toward other browser developers such as Netscape, Apple, Omni, etc, etc? This is not something M$ did, the use of plug-ins and applets in a web browser is a standard, and ALL web browsers use the standard. That is the part I am confused about.
Article comments