ms REALLY sucks

> well not really.
>
> not sure if they suck, or the bastards who sued 'em suck; but it
> looks like it's on the way.
>
> fun, oh, fun.
>
> (first time i've ever found myself siding with MS on an issue.)
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/ieupdate/

Here's a page for those who have created pages using Macromedia
Flash/Shockwave affected by this thing:

http://macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/

ja

Hi Jim,

I can't believe that this is all you have to say on the matter.

Is it simply not that big of a deal to you? You're being forced to recode every page that uses shockwave because of someone's greed. The web is about to become much more user unfriendly because of someone's greed.

Doesn't that piss you off?

It pisses me off, it pisses me off a lot.

Everyone seems to be rolling over for this. There isn't much discussion at all except Dominey (http://whatdoiknow.org/archives/001254.shtml).

Where's the outrage?!




Jim Andrews wrote:

>
> > well not really.
> >
> > not sure if they suck, or the bastards who sued 'em suck; but it
> > looks like it's on the way.
> >
> > fun, oh, fun.
> >
> > (first time i've ever found myself siding with MS on an issue.)
> >
> > http://msdn.microsoft.com/ieupdate/
>
> Here's a page for those who have created pages using Macromedia
> Flash/Shockwave affected by this thing:
>
> http://macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/
>
> ja
>
>

If it's any consolation, I share your rage and encourage you to bring
it to diverse locations. It's hard to find the catharsis though when MS
is so everywhere even if I try to keep it out of my modus operandi. By
the way, I was freaked out though when I saw the subject line of your
post cuz I thought you were referring to Ms. magazine. We should change
it so there isn't a weird association with female nomenclature/feminist
rags! – Rachel


On Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 10:21 AM, t.whid wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> I can't believe that this is all you have to say on the matter.
>
> Is it simply not that big of a deal to you? You're being forced to
> recode every page that uses shockwave because of someone's greed. The
> web is about to become much more user unfriendly because of someone's
> greed.
>
> Doesn't that piss you off?
>
> It pisses me off, it pisses me off a lot.
>
> Everyone seems to be rolling over for this. There isn't much
> discussion at all except Dominey
> (http://whatdoiknow.org/archives/001254.shtml).
>
> Where's the outrage?!
>
>
>
>
> Jim Andrews wrote:
>
>>
>>> well not really.
>>>
>>> not sure if they suck, or the bastards who sued 'em suck; but it
>>> looks like it's on the way.
>>>
>>> fun, oh, fun.
>>>
>>> (first time i've ever found myself siding with MS on an issue.)
>>>
>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/ieupdate/
>>
>> Here's a page for those who have created pages using Macromedia
>> Flash/Shockwave affected by this thing:
>>
>> http://macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/
>>
>> ja
>>
>>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

A friend of mine, Dan Ravicher has recently created a non-profit
organization called The Public Patent Foundation to defend civil liberties
and free markets from illegitimate patents (http://www.pubpat.org). He
comes from big law firm background but has been heavily involved in Open
Source issues. His says that these big corporations very seldom try to
dispute the legitamacy of patents because that helps their competitors as
well as them, instead they just try to prove they are not infringing. He is
planning to go after the validity of bad patents. One of the ones he is
considering is the EULA one.

He gots some funding but not a lot, so if anyone is interested in helping
him out (especially re: prior art or resources), here is the contact info:

Public Patent Foundation

404 W 51st St., Suite 3A

New York, NY 10019

(212) 977-9677

[email protected]

www.pubpat.org




joseph the barbarian

—– Original Message —–
From: "Rachel Greene" <[email protected]>
To: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: ms REALLY sucks


> If it's any consolation, I share your rage and encourage you to bring
> it to diverse locations. It's hard to find the catharsis though when MS
> is so everywhere even if I try to keep it out of my modus operandi. By
> the way, I was freaked out though when I saw the subject line of your
> post cuz I thought you were referring to Ms. magazine. We should change
> it so there isn't a weird association with female nomenclature/feminist
> rags! – Rachel
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 8, 2003, at 10:21 AM, t.whid wrote:
>
> > Hi Jim,
> >
> > I can't believe that this is all you have to say on the matter.
> >
> > Is it simply not that big of a deal to you? You're being forced to
> > recode every page that uses shockwave because of someone's greed. The
> > web is about to become much more user unfriendly because of someone's
> > greed.
> >
> > Doesn't that piss you off?
> >
> > It pisses me off, it pisses me off a lot.
> >
> > Everyone seems to be rolling over for this. There isn't much
> > discussion at all except Dominey
> > (http://whatdoiknow.org/archives/001254.shtml).
> >
> > Where's the outrage?!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Jim Andrews wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> well not really.
> >>>
> >>> not sure if they suck, or the bastards who sued 'em suck; but it
> >>> looks like it's on the way.
> >>>
> >>> fun, oh, fun.
> >>>
> >>> (first time i've ever found myself siding with MS on an issue.)
> >>>
> >>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/ieupdate/
> >>
> >> Here's a page for those who have created pages using Macromedia
> >> Flash/Shockwave affected by this thing:
> >>
> >> http://macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent/
> >>
> >> ja
> >>
> >>
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

Looks like Zeldman isn't sure the proposed fixes will be sufficient:
<http://www.zeldman.com/daily/0903c.shtml#eolasfallout>

> Hi Jim,
>
> I can't believe that this is all you have to say on the matter.
>
> Is it simply not that big of a deal to you? You're being forced
> to recode every page that uses shockwave because of someone's
> greed. The web is about to become much more user unfriendly
> because of someone's greed.
>
> Doesn't that piss you off?
>
> It pisses me off, it pisses me off a lot.
>
> Everyone seems to be rolling over for this. There isn't much
> discussion at all except Dominey
> (http://whatdoiknow.org/archives/001254.shtml).
>
> Where's the outrage?!

The Terminator being elected is outrageous and hallucinatory, like someone
laced reality with stricknine. And his being in bed with big electrical
business is outrageous. Why he was chosen by big business to be elected is
outrageous. How he could be elected is outrageous. Bush's actions are
outrageous. No weapons of mass destruction. Throw the bastard out. These
sorts of things are outrageous. The <object> issue, to me, is not outrageous
but, um, annoying.

The people who sued Microsoft had to sue to make any money from their
research. Microsoft was aware of their patent and so must have W3C been
aware of the patent so they should have thought about it in 1998 when the
patent was granted. Either they didn't take it seriously, which doesn't seem
likely, or they felt that the proper place to work it out was in the court
room. I don't know. Of course it affects not just IE but Netscape and Java
applets and most other stuff that implements or uses the <object> tag in a
fully automated way, whatever that means. Put in a dumb little window
requiring a human decision and the patent doesn't apply anymore. There's
patent law for you.

They got $500 million in that suit and about 4/5 of it goes to legal costs.

The gist of the page info I sent
(http://macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent ) seems to be that macromedia is
developing some tools to automate the conversion process so that you don't
get that stupid window introduced for legal purposes coming up each time you
load a shockwave or flash piece. hopefully the tools will be available well
before the new IE comes out. not sure about the story concerning, say,
applets. i have quite a few of those on my site too. and off site. I trust
that macromedia will make it as painless as possible.

I got this from macromedia today in response to a question I asked:

**************

> Having looked at the http://macromedia.com/devnet/activecontent
> page, the message seems basically to be
> 'do it now the hard way or wait till we have some tools for
> you which will soon be in beta'. Correct? I realize the IE
> change will not happen for some months.

The "message" is that due to Microsoft's announced changes, we've taken some
steps to (a) educate our customers on what changes will be required to their
content pages, and (b) alert folks to the fact that we're creating some
tools to help automate the content update process. And yes, the new version
of Internet Explorer is going to take a few months before being released.

If you get started on preparing for this ASAP you'll have less of a hiccup
when the new I.E. does hit the streets.

Cheers,
Tom Higgins
Product Specialist - Director Team
Macromedia

**************

I remember when Netscape abandoned the <layer> tag. I never used the <layer>
tag in my DHTML work, but knew lots of folks who did, and they were
definitely outraged. Not only because the tag was abandoned and didn't work
in later Netscapes, but because the conversion process was pretty mysterious
and convoluted; nobody understood how to do the conversion except the pros.
The result was that DHTML was more or less abandoned by most, given also the
superiority of Flash or Director for most (not all) things artists typically
want to do with DHTML.

I suspect macromedia will work hard to make sure a similar thing doesn't
happen with Flash and Shockwave.

It's probably going to cost me a week of (silly) work.

Patent law is strange and screwy. You can patent an algorithm. But what's
the alternative? The nub of the matter is here. We are into an age in which
many industrial machines are virtual.

ja

hi all,

> Patent law is strange and screwy. You can patent an algorithm. But
> what's
> the alternative? The nub of the matter is here. We are into an age in
> which
> many industrial machines are virtual.

no doubt… and this makes for interesting legal philosophy considering the Creative Commons concept. how will the "non-commercial" license hold up? What if, for example, UC's research had been licensed in such a manner and MS utilized it for profitable gain in such a way that snuffed out competition?
but for some reason, i'm less concerned about MS being sued by a small company and a university than large companies using the "legal" system to dominate the Web (based on the wording of the complaint, it seems the lawsuit had more to do with MS's bundling of the browser and operating system to monopolize (sounds familiar…), than the actual use of the <embed> technology)
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108903,00.asp
best,
ryan

> > Patent law is strange and screwy. You can patent an algorithm. But
> > what's
> > the alternative? The nub of the matter is here. We are into an age in
> > which
> > many industrial machines are virtual.
>
> no doubt… and this makes for interesting legal philosophy
> considering the Creative Commons concept. how will the
> "non-commercial" license hold up? What if, for example, UC's
> research had been licensed in such a manner and MS utilized it
> for profitable gain in such a way that snuffed out competition?
> but for some reason, i'm less concerned about MS being sued by a
> small company and a university than large companies using the
> "legal" system to dominate the Web

Agreed.

It's appropriate that the MS suit revolves around the <object> tag (or is it
the <embed> tag?). A question of the legal status of the <object> process.
If you make <objects> that do not require any decisions by the 'user' appear
out of 'thin air', then yer violatin 'me magic patent buster pony up'.

Read the article you (s)cite on the junk frame patent. it does indeed sound
pretty junky.

i agree also with you that the nub of these matters seems a matter for
philosophical analysis, mainly.

there does need to be some way of patenting ideas so that research can be
carried out with some prospect of recompense. do you agree? even this might
be problematical. but ideas of what kinds? it isn't sufficient to just be
able to patent working code or working machines. the nub of the innovation
seems to be conceptual rather than material. like if one has an idea that
really merits a patent, then the patent description should be general enough
that, oh, changing a few lines of the code superficially or, if it is not a
virtual machine but a 'real' machine, making it out of titanium rather than
iron shouldn't matter. you have somehow to isolate the structure and nub of
the matter in an abstract way. and then, once that has been done, decide
whether the idea is really patentable according to some pretty wise and
experienced checklist with just history behind it.

if there's a loophole in an OS, hackers exploit it. if there's a loophole in
patent law, lawyers exploit it. people bang hard on the systems day and
night. does this give us better systems? lots of little bandaids and then
eventually changes at a higher level.

I don't understand your hypothetical scenario above, Ryan, of UC
hypothetically licensing their research via a 'non commercial' license. What
sort of crucial terms in the 'non commercial' license were you thinking of?

> (based on the wording of the
> complaint, it seems the lawsuit had more to do with MS's bundling
> of the browser and operating system to monopolize (sounds
> familiar…), than the actual use of the <embed> technology)
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108903,00.asp

I would have thought that UC went after Microsoft because they had a very
good case against Microsoft. They had made MS aware of their work and patent
quite early, if that counts, and also demonstrated that MS is in violation
of the patent. I suspect they went after Microsoft not for any other reason
than they figured they had their best case against Microsoft, as opposed to
other companies. And I suspect that the main reason they decided to sue was
to get some recompense from their research. And because the law permits it.
They wouldn't have chosen MS because it was the biggest challenge, but
because it was the duck. Ducks first in that game, I'll bet.

ja

if Microsoft is so smart than why is it spending billions protecting itself from every hacker freak on the planet (and holding up pretty well)?


Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Patent law is strange and screwy. You can patent an algorithm. But
> > what's
> > the alternative? The nub of the matter is here. We are into an age in
> > which
> > many industrial machines are virtual.
>
> no doubt… and this makes for interesting legal philosophy
> considering the Creative Commons concept. how will the
> "non-commercial" license hold up? What if, for example, UC's
> research had been licensed in such a manner and MS utilized it
> for profitable gain in such a way that snuffed out competition?
> but for some reason, i'm less concerned about MS being sued by a
> small company and a university than large companies using the
> "legal" system to dominate the Web

Agreed.

It's appropriate that the MS suit revolves around the tag (or is it
the tag?). A question of the legal status of the process.
If you make that do not require any decisions by the 'user' appear
out of 'thin air', then yer violatin 'me magic patent buster pony up'.

Read the article you (s)cite on the junk frame patent. it does indeed sound
pretty junky.

i agree also with you that the nub of these matters seems a matter for
philosophical analysis, mainly.

there does need to be some way of patenting ideas so that research can be
carried out with some prospect of recompense. do you agree? even this might
be problematical. but ideas of what kinds? it isn't sufficient to just be
able to patent working code or working machines. the nub of the innovation
seems to be conceptual rather than material. like if one has an idea that
really merits a patent, then the patent description should be general enough
that, oh, changing a few lines of the code superficially or, if it is not a
virtual machine but a 'real' machine, making it out of titanium rather than
iron shouldn't matter. you have somehow to isolate the structure and nub of
the matter in an abstract way. and then, once that has been done, decide
whether the idea is really patentable according to some pretty wise and
experienced checklist with just history behind it.

if there's a loophole in an OS, hackers exploit it. if there's a loophole in
patent law, lawyers exploit it. people bang hard on the systems day and
night. does this give us better systems? lots of little bandaids and then
eventually changes at a higher level.

I don't understand your hypothetical scenario above, Ryan, of UC
hypothetically licensing their research via a 'non commercial' license. What
sort of crucial terms in the 'non commercial' license were you thinking of?

> (based on the wording of the
> complaint, it seems the lawsuit had more to do with MS's bundling
> of the browser and operating system to monopolize (sounds
> familiar…), than the actual use of the technology)
> http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,108903,00.asp

I would have thought that UC went after Microsoft because they had a very
good case against Microsoft. They had made MS aware of their work and patent
quite early, if that counts, and also demonstrated that MS is in violation
of the patent. I suspect they went after Microsoft not for any other reason
than they figured they had their best case against Microsoft, as opposed to
other companies. And I suspect that the main reason they decided to sue was
to get some recompense from their research. And because the law permits it.
They wouldn't have chosen MS because it was the biggest challenge, but
because it was the duck. Ducks first in that game, I'll bet.

ja


+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

> if Microsoft is so smart than why is it spending billions protecting
itself from every hacker freak on the planet (and holding up pretty well)?

hackers are the unacknowleged legislators of the OS systems.

ja

There is an ActiveX control attached to the message you sent to Rhizome
(which I didn't run of course). What is it? If you don't know, it's probably
a virus.

ja

—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Michael Watson
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:02 PM
To: Jim Andrews; [email protected]
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: ms REALLY sucks


if Microsoft is so smart than why is it spending billions protecting itself
from every hacker freak on the planet (and holding up pretty well)?

hi Jim et. al,

>
> I don't understand your hypothetical scenario above, Ryan, of UC
> hypothetically licensing their research via a 'non commercial'
> license. What
> sort of crucial terms in the 'non commercial' license were you
> thinking of?

honestly, i'm not all that sure. but, say the technology in dispute had been licensed under the Creative Commons non-commercial license http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/ that stipulates that the technology can be used, changed, shared, etc as long as it is not done for commercial gain. The technology would then be considered essentially public domain, and could be used by anyone, including commercial browser creators (that are "given" away). but, in the MS case, it's being argued that somehow, they aquired an uncompetetive advantage. This, it is said is how the eolas case was determined:
"Microsoft's browser came out in 1995. The jury found that Microsoft began using the technology after the patent was filed and continued to use it after the patent was issued. The damage award is based on the sale of the Windows operating system as Microsoft has long bundled its browser with its operating system. More than 300 million copies of Internet Explorer, mostly as part of Windows, have been sold."
http://www.forbes.com/execpicks/2003/08/12/cx_da_0812topnews.html
(this makes me think that they probably won't be going after Mozilla)
but to get to the point, how would one "punish" MS in this case had the license been something like the "non-commercial" one? would it be criminal? it obviously wouldn't be civil reparations as the creator wasn't seeking money in the first place. anyway, i'm just curious as to how we will enforce alternatives to the current IP system if/when they become more widely practiced.
i don't know, but it seems silly to criticize eloas and UC for being greedy, making us recode pages (the horror!). what do we expect? MS was offered the chance to license this "technology" (whether it actually is technology, i don't know) prior to 1999, when the suit was filed. greed is the game it seems, and we're just pawns in it. i think i'll revisit ruth catlow's idea about pawns again…
like Jim, i'm more annoyed/scared by the gubernator at the moment than greedy tech corporations (which are hardly new developments).
best,
ryan

which inadvertantly goes to my point that ms/yahoo/google/the whole industry is struggling right now and people are getting fed up – not because they are too smart. the problem is not just with ms os either.

I doubt it is a virus. If you think I should feel stupid I don't. I don't know how to tweak my car computer to get better mileage or not miss firing cylinders once in awhile either

Michael

Jim Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
There is an ActiveX control attached to the message you sent to Rhizome
(which I didn't run of course). What is it? If you don't know, it's probably
a virus.

ja

—–Original Message—–
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
Michael Watson
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 2:02 PM
To: Jim Andrews; [email protected]
Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: ms REALLY sucks


if Microsoft is so smart than why is it spending billions protecting itself
from every hacker freak on the planet (and holding up pretty well)?


+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
-> post: [email protected]
-> questions: [email protected]
-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
+
Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php