During a recent meeting held at Macromedia's San Francisco headquarters, Silicon Valley companies asked a familiar question: what to do about Microsoft?
But the strategy event, sponsored by the World Wide Web Consortium, differed significantly from so many others, at which participants have typically gathered to oppose the software giant's power. This time, Microsoft was the guest of honour.
"There's no doubt that there are some people who are happy to see Microsoft get nailed for anything," said Dale Dougherty, a vice president at computer media company O'Reilly & Associates. "But for those of us who are part of the Web, we wanted the browser to be on every desktop. And if it has to be a Microsoft browser, OK."
What a difference a patent suit makes. With one staggering loss at the hands of a federal court jury in Chicago, Microsoft has won the support -- if not the sympathy -- of nearly the entire software industry, from standards organisations to corporate rivals that are rushing to defend the company's Internet Explorer browser.
To some competitors and partners who have long been chafed by Microsoft's dominance, the verdict in the patent infringement lawsuit by one-man software company Eolas may initially have seemed an overdue victory -- and one that achieved what the US Department of Justice and the courts had failed to accomplish in regulating Microsoft under federal antitrust laws.
Instead, the verdict is increasingly interpreted as a potentially crushing burden on the Web, threatening to force significant changes to its fundamental language, HTML. Microsoft's competitors fear that Eolas' lawyers will target them next, and its partners -- such as Macromedia and Sun Microsystems -- worry that an enjoined IE browser would be prohibited from running their software plug-ins without awkward technology alternatives.
The result has been a complex shift of industry dynamics that has turned many traditional alliances and rivalries upside down, prompting long-suffering competitors in the browser market to side with archrival Microsoft. At the same time, as the Eolas case has progressed, critics have portrayed company founder and sole employee Mike Doyle as an opportunist, despite his claims to be acting on behalf of the Web against a rapacious captor.
Talkback
Although I see this as a tradegy for the web the truth of the matter is that if MS could have had that patent first they would have.
Also, after all the wranglings of MS's patent-everything we-can strategy interfering with innovation such as web services it serves them a good strong lesson IMHO
Give the patent to the W3C.
In my honest opinion, Doyle should give up the lawsuit and GIVE the patent to the W3C.
The reality is that he's not just hurting Microsoft - he's hurting all the companies that develop rich interactive content, and therefore all the users of the internet.
As for his claim that he is righting the wrongs against Netscape... sorry, but I have no sympathy there.
As a user of the internet, I really don't want to have to buy a browser to go surf (and just think of all the costs that would have been necessary to buy browser upgrades each time a new innovation in the technology came along).
And as a web developer, I really don't like having to jump through the hoops of developing content that works properly on all browsers. The fact that IE has more or less become a standard makes my life easier.
The truth is that Netscape missed one very basic important fact. The business model that works in this case shows that the 'cash cow' isn't the browser - the money is in the tools that are used to develop the content, and also in some cases, the content itself.
Other examples can be cited to demonstrate this model in action: Microsoft Word is used to create rich word-processed documents, and as such you have to pay for it, BUT, you can get (for free) the MS Word Viewer to look at documents. And I'm sure that everyone can think of other examples.
As for the patent itself - I'm actually amazed that it was granted in the first place; after all, displaying the output of an application in a viewport of another application is not a new idea (and wasn't then). Here's a thought - what about when you embed a browser window in a Word Document :-)
So come on Doyle... give us a break and don't hurt the innovation and development of the Internet. Undo your unjust action and give the patent to the W3C.