- From: Ed Millard <emillard@direcway.com>
- Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:33:01 -0700
- To: W3C Public Web Plugins List <public-web-plugins@w3.org>
On Sunday 31 August 2003 02:32 pm, Ryan A. Missman - RSM wrote: > Ed, > The more I think about this problem, the more I completely agree with > your prediction. Though I would bet Microsoft would deploy a short > series of 'updates' to baby step us all blindly into it, ultimately the > majority of Internet users will be expected to update to an IE thread > based browser or miss out. Your prediction is as creepy as it is > possible. > > It may be irksome to intranet developers to recode legacy solutions, but > the prediction of forcing .Net and possibly a new MS-kluge Java package > to be used would roll all the marbles back into their court. Much the > same way MSN is already collecting their marbles for MSN Messenger, > Microsoft is making it apparent that they love competition and new > rules. > I wouldn't jump to the conclusion yet that my previous post is valid at least as far as .NET goes. There is a key assumption in it that isn't proven. It could be even if a Java or .NET VM is built in to the browser the patent still encumbers the Java or CLR applets that it runs. If it does then Microsoft will be very unhappy since .NET is inherently infringing. Of course so is Java, Actionscript and every data format that has control information built in to it. You would think, since Microsoft's known about this patent all during .NET's design, that they would have a loophole to keep it in the clear though. I would have thought they designed .NET primarily for the day when ActiveX plugins might be disallowed by this patent. Whatever happens with .NET, I'm sure Microsoft is cool with switching things like media players to builtins though. If my conjectures are correct I'm sure hoping Eolas will collect their half billion dollar check from Microsoft, sign over their patent to W3C and retire to a nice island someplace before Microsoft uses it as a tool to eliminate competing plugins. -- Ed
Received on Sunday, 31 August 2003 18:36:07 UTC