Patent loss creates pro-Microsoft alliances

For others, the end of IE plug-ins could be disastrous. "Macromedia is clearly the most vulnerable," said Richard Smith, a noted computer security analyst and a participant in a W3C online discussion about the Eolas patent.

"If you look at embedded content in Web pages -- that is, plug-ins -- Flash has to be No. 1 by a mile," he said. "In my reading of the patent, the ways that Macromedia operates -- and the things that it does -- make it seem that it would fall under the patent."

Macromedia notes that it is hardly the only company with technologies that rely on plug-ins, pointing to applets that are written in Sun's Java programming language as just one example of other software that would be comparably affected by the patent issue.

As far as Doyle is concerned, none of the recently proposed workarounds would insulate companies from Eolas' patent claims. That argument has led Microsoft to return an accusation often made against itself, charging that Doyle is spreading "FUD" -- fear, uncertainty and doubt -- while he shores up support for his case.

"That's sort of a transparent and self-serving attempt by Mr Doyle to put a cloud of uncertainty over the industry with respect to the breadth and scope of the patent," Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said. "Any reasonable reading of the patent, as well as what Eolas said itself about the patent during trial, shows that the modest changes we're considering would avoid any infringement."

Whatever the scope of his patent, which is co-owned by the University of California at Berkeley, Doyle could theoretically wind up with the power to grant Macromedia, Adobe, Sun and the rest of the plug-in makers a simple alternative, which could take the form of an Eolas browser or an affordable licence.

The prospect of having such a basic necessity as running plug-ins subject to the whim of Eolas has the industry in a near panic -- not least among those organisations whose rules restrict or ban the use of patented technologies, such as open-source browser makers and the W3C.

Groups that advocate software that has open-source code say their licences prohibit them from including patented technologies. The W3C in March reaffirmed its opposition to the use of royalty-encumbered technologies, after a lengthy public battle that ended in a near-ban.

"We have experience and proof that the specter of a fee stops standards development cold," W3C representative Janet Daly said. "It doesn't even have to be a firm guarantee. All you need is a little bit of fear, uncertainty and doubt that a developer is going to be slapped with a licensing fee, and the developer will leave that technology alone."

Endgame
Ultimately, the fight between Microsoft and Eolas represents a larger battle between those who believe in patents and those who assert that these have no place in software. (Microsoft's position in this particular skirmish presents a certain irony, considering its own formidable patent portfolio.)

Doyle, who recently signaled his willingness to settle the case with Microsoft, maintains that anti-patent licences, policies and attitudes are paving the road to obsolescence.

"The standards people have to recognise that the creators of technology will continue to be able to acquire patents to protect their intellectual property, regardless of whatever standards they try to force down people's throats," he said. "They're just in denial, institutionally."

Doyle's fervent belief in the patent system may be in his genes. His grandfather used patents to protect more than 60 inventions in the papermaking industry, including a 1918 "Paper-Machine," a 1949 "Pulp Drainer" and a 1965 "Apparatus for Draining Fibrous Material."

"I'm just an inventor, and Eolas is a company whose mission is invention," Doyle said. "And we want to be able to make a living at invention, and build a business around invention. Why am I so focused on that? My grandfather was an inventor, and he made a living inventing printing processes that are still used today."