Comments on: Eolas patent upheld: lunatics run asylum

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 02 Aug 2006 16:29:15 +0000

I agree, big time. Fuuuuuuuuck Eolas. Seriously, they are breaking my balls right now. I think those sons of bitches single-handedly cost the web development world millions of man-hours in the last few months. If the patent holder was here right now, I’d sock that mother fucker as hard as I could. And then I’d let him sue me.

By: AtariRiot

AtariRiot — Thu, 13 Apr 2006 20:59:15 +0000

fuck eolas, fuck the us patent system. how can u have a patent on an idea? the fact that there are workarounds (white papered by microsoft and adobe) show us that the only ones suffering from this decision are the ones that code the pages. of course there will be flash pages and stuff in the future, they will always exist. the fact that microsoft have javascripts (workarounds) on their own page shows how much nonsense this is. but for microsoft it turned out as good again. they can use this restriction to push up their so-called Flash killer Microsoft Interactive Designer software. so let me correct myself: fuck eolas fuck the us patent system , fuck microsoft =)

By: zztop

zztop — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:26:40 +0000

Microsoft should make a pop-up to load plugins, so every time a user say wants to watch a video in a web page, he will have to click OK button. This circumvents Eolas patent. Now, the popup should have a link to get a PAID version of Explorer with no pop-up. Below the link there should be an explanation that the fee for the paid version goes to Eolas as the license fee. Then this little spider Mike Doyle from eolas will have to deal with 500,000,000 enraged internet users!

By: Shez

Shez — Sun, 02 Oct 2005 21:50:32 +0000

I have some sympathy with Stuart’s desire to see an unadulterated HTML web world and I am generally supportive of the drive for web standards. Fuck knows I’m fed up with 90% of the non-HTML crap that plagues the web. Trouble is, there’s a helluva lot of HTML crap out there too. Much of it is as much about aesthetics as it is about standards compliant HTML code. But let’s not forget that the web is as much an entertainment tool as it is an informational tool. That means that content in Flash, Quicktime, Real, Windows Media are all equally valid forms of information/entertainment and that’s the reality of it. I realise this creates a headache for standards warriors, but you guys and girls are going to have to work round these minor annoyances because the 99% want that sort of content. I think the point about embedded video players is a matter of aesthetics more than anything else. A visit to Apple’s website demonstrates good use of embedded video (Quicktime video trailers etc.) – I don’t find it clunky in the least. The Eolas patent? Well, perhaps Microsoft et al. could come to an equitable out of court settlement – Michael Doyle obviously wants his belated share of the web boom – let him have it.

By: bruce

bruce — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 18:07:50 +0000

Agree with you, Stuart. But what about Flash in the page?

But it’s not about what we think; we’re comfortable with technology and controlling video players, and other such widgets. But what about the 99% who aren’t?

By: Stuart Langridge

Stuart Langridge — Fri, 30 Sep 2005 17:05:44 +0000

I don’t understand what’s “unusable and clunky” about not allowing plugins. To my mind, having to use a crappy embedded video player is a lot more “unusable” than getting a nice screenshot of the video with a “click to open in your proper video player”, which can be resized and stopped and used the way all your other videos are.