Re: Eolas vs. <object>

IANAL, but, <object> is, as far as I know, only a problem if it’s an 
actual plugin. That is, if e.g. images or video is supported natively by 
the browser, it is no problem for the browser with regard to the Eolas 
patent to hook into that and show them.

Also, the patent only applies if the plugin is interactive. So, if a 
video plugin only takes care of the video and doesn’t provide a user 
interface but instead only a DOM API for JavaScript and maybe some 
parameters for autoplay etc, it isn’t affected by the Eolas patent either.

Additionally, I think if the browser would provide a UI which hooks in 
to the DOM API that the plugin provides, it still isn’t affected by 
Eolas. But again, IANAL.


~Grauw

Jeff Schiller schreef:
>
> I haven't heard this discussed yet here, but will <object> in the
> markup ever actually be feasible now that Microsoft lost the Eolas
> case?  I mean using <object> for "plugin" type material of course and
> not stuff most browsers can handle natively.
>
> Workarounds right now force people to use script to add an <object>
> element directly into the DOM.
>
> Out of curiosity, did Microsoft invent the <object> element in the
> first place?  If not, why was Microsoft sued and not W3C or other
> browser makers?  I guess the reality is they got a free pass because
> they don't have Microsoft's deep pockets?
>
> Seems like the Eolas patent definitely has some implications for
> future versions of HTML (in terms of plugin support), but IANAL
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>


-- 
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.