Attention IE users!

[kengr]

Microsoft's most recent security update will "break" some websites...

http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=185300378

Comments

One more reason...

[morgan-gw.livejournal.com]

...why Internet Exploder is my Browser Of Last Resort. Opera most of the time, Firefox when a site isn't willing to play nice with Opera, and IE when nothing else will work (almost always because of some proprietary Microsoft stuff).

OTOH, maybe this change will mean that more sites will run on other browsers.... Nah, MS wouldn't do something that would benefit users of other browsers.

Re: One more reason...

[kengr]

It's actually not MS's fault this time. They had to make the change because someone patented the "autostart" of embedded content, and they didn't feel like paying the licensing fees.

The patent holders just haven't gone after the other browsers yet.

Read the linked article.

Basically, it's another (likely) unjustified software patent being used to hold companies (and users) up to extortion.

It's been known about for a couple of years. Web site designers are going to have to rework a lot of pages. Many haven't.

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

*Shakes head sadly* They should do a little espionage on what Firefox is doing... that way they could fix the problem without breaking websites...

...she said as she was on IE.

[kengr]

Since it's a matter of patent licensing, unless Firefox licenses the patents MS was unwilling to, they'll have to break Firefox (and Mozilla) the exact same way if the patent holder goes after them.

This is one of those things where the only workaround is to get the web pages re-written, because the patent is on the "process", not the details. In other words, auto-starting embedded content violates the patent.

The workarounds on the web page end involve javascript and even uglier things.

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

I thought Firefox was open source? How can they patent something that's open source?

[kengr]

Patents cover *how* something is done. And are often more than a bit vague & general about the details.

If someone patents a method or process, it doesn't matter if you discover it independently.

This patent is likely another one of the many *bad* software patents the patent office has issued in the last ten years or so.

Many of them are getting challenged by several groups. Either on the grounds that they were "obvious to one familar with the field" or because someone else did it before the outfit that filed the patent.

It's hard to track down that last ("prior art"), but it's unshakeable if you do. Proving "obvious" in court is a lot harder.

[fayanora.livejournal.com]

Ah.