But Microsoft's yearslong assault on the browser market reduced Netscape from a standard-bearer (with more than 80 percent of the market) to a neglected unit of AOL Time Warner, which recently spun off its browser division as a nonprofit foundation. Industry veterans say there is every reason to believe that Microsoft will survive this challenge as well.
Given the daunting odds in any challenge to Microsoft, Doyle believes that his struggle exceeds biblical proportions. He said the often-cited comparisons to David and Goliath don't go far enough in conveying the ambition and travails of his quest, which he believes could reverse Microsoft's victory in the so-called browser war and break its control over much of the digital world.
"'David versus Goliath' minimises what we're doing," Doyle said. "Microsoft's use of our technology has been to put others out of business and to restrict much of the potential of the Web. And that is limiting our ability to get the full value for things that we created."
Many software makers might have supported Eolas when Microsoft was more vulnerable to browser competition years ago, but they now say Doyle's efforts have come too late. Since IE rose to market dominance, many software companies have come to rely on the browser's plug-ins for their businesses.
"We're no big fan of Microsoft, but I'm a big fan of the Web," said Dougherty, who is in charge of online publishing at O'Reilly and testified on behalf of Microsoft in its recent patent trial. "What worries people is that this is the first successful patent offence on the Web, and lots of other things could be coming."
Some browser application makers look likely to come up with relatively easy workaround solutions. Adobe, for example, already offers two methods for reading a PDF (Portable Document Format) file that is posted on a Web page: one requires the IE technology to open a document within the Web browser, but the other shows the document in its Acrobat reader and therefore probably steers clear of the patent issue.
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.