Death of Flash?

"Dale" <spam.spam.tiddly.spam.ade20510.DeleteThis@port.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19cd24dc2feefc1b98975a@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
 > We can but hope*
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://zeldman.com/daily/0903b.shtml#patentnonsense</font" target="_blank">http://zeldman.com/daily/0903b.shtml#patentnonsense</font</a>>
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > *Unless Flash is used for daft animations and CDs.

flash will never die...long live flash, i'm behind M$ (never thought i'd say
that)
---------------------------------------------
Hung Diep
New Media Designer
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.intro-spect.co.uk" target="_blank">www.intro-spect.co.uk</a>
0795 6576 319<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

Richard wrote:

 > Then what is the purpose of having a browser to begin with? If every
 > bloomin accesory has to be shown in it's own original viewer, how is one
 > supposed to view websites which employ these technologies? Apparently,
 > the judge in the case never surfed the web.

I personally can't see how it is possible to police such a ruling. The
prolificness of older software that will allow plugins just doesn't allow
for this control! It isn't just IE that used plugins either, every other
graphical browser and a good deal of file managers also have plugins that
work in exactly the same way.

What are they going to do? Come round to my house and uninstall Konqueror
because it has embedded file previewers? I think not.

--
Dylan Parry - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.DylanParry.com" target="_blank">http://www.DylanParry.com</a>
 
Now playing: Bach, Sleepers Awake from Classic Commercials<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

"Dylan Parry" <dylan.RemoveThis@webpageworkshop.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.13.17.02.35.810432@webpageworkshop.co.uk...
 > Richard wrote:
 >
  > > Then what is the purpose of having a browser to begin with? If every
  > > bloomin accesory has to be shown in it's own original viewer, how is one
  > > supposed to view websites which employ these technologies? Apparently,
  > > the judge in the case never surfed the web.
 >
 > I personally can't see how it is possible to police such a ruling. The
 > prolificness of older software that will allow plugins just doesn't allow
 > for this control! It isn't just IE that used plugins either, every other
 > graphical browser and a good deal of file managers also have plugins that
 > work in exactly the same way.
 >
 > What are they going to do? Come round to my house and uninstall Konqueror
 > because it has embedded file previewers? I think not.

<OBJECT classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"
codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.ca
b#version=6,0,40,0"
WIDTH="550" HEIGHT="400" id="myMovieName">

If Macromedia were forced to remove or change that file it might have some
effect.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

Dylan Parry wrote:

[Browser plugins infringing patents]
 > I personally can't see how it is possible to police such a ruling.

If the ruling sustains the appeals process, Microsoft will _have_ to change
how it handles plugins, including Flash. At the moment they are considering
two options - use DHTML to load up any data that the plugin requires, or
insert an alert box saying a plugin needs to run.

The first option effectively breaks all current usage of embedded Flash on
the web. They won't work. Web sites delivering Flash will be forced to make
changes to work with the new browser, and lots of people will be using the
patent-infringing browser for quite a long time.

Plus the patent ruling can only be enforced on browsers manufactured within
the US, so Opera is in the clear here (and possible Konqueror too).

So Flash usage on the web will be broken. Will it survive? Well, that's up
to the Flash designers to decide whether its worth the effort. So
effectively the decision will police itself.

 > What are they going to do? Come round to my house and uninstall Konqueror
 > because it has embedded file previewers? I think not.

Well considering RIAA's action against the users of P2P, I wouldn't rule it
out yet (at least for individuals living in the US).

Microsoft have vigourously defended the practice of "intellectual property"
patents, and have effectively been snared by it. Hoisted by their own
petard, I think the saying goes.


--
Iso.
FAQs: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://html-faq.com" target="_blank">http://html-faq.com</a> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://alt-html.org" target="_blank">http://alt-html.org</a> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://allmyfaqs.com/" target="_blank">http://allmyfaqs.com/</a>
Recommended Hosting: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.affordablehost.com/" target="_blank">http://www.affordablehost.com/</a>
Web Design Tutorial: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010" target="_blank">http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

Isofarro wrote:

 > If the ruling sustains the appeals process, Microsoft will _have_ to
 > change how it handles plugins, including Flash. At the moment they are
 > considering two options - use DHTML to load up any data that the plugin
 > requires, or insert an alert box saying a plugin needs to run.

I think that the second plan sound the more sensible of the two, then at
least nothing needs to be done about the way that plugin actually does its
stuff.

 > The first option effectively breaks all current usage of embedded Flash
 > on the web. They won't work. Web sites delivering Flash will be forced
 > to make changes to work with the new browser, and lots of people will be
 > using the patent-infringing browser for quite a long time.

Yes, that would be a problem, and if MS were to go down this route they
would effectively be supplying the rope to hang themselves with. I mean,
if they did change the way that plugins work then how many webmasters are
going to change their code straight away so that the newer browsers work?
How many of us would devise methods of writing code so that both the old
and new browsers work?

Who would suffer? The user. Their favourite (plugin laden) sites would
either work in the new browser or in the old, most likely not both. This
solution would only make it a more appealing solution to switch to a
browser where all your favourite sites work already!

 > Plus the patent ruling can only be enforced on browsers manufactured
 > within the US, so Opera is in the clear here (and possible Konqueror
 > too).

Doesn't bode too well for Mozilla and derivatives though does it?

 > Microsoft have vigourously defended the practice of "intellectual
 > property" patents, and have effectively been snared by it. Hoisted by
 > their own petard, I think the saying goes.

Well for once I am with MS on this one, it won't just be screwing them
over if this all goes awry.

--
Dylan Parry

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.webpageworkshop.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.webpageworkshop.co.uk</a> - FREE Web tutorials and references

Now playing: Beethoven, Symphony No. 3 in E flat major, Op. 55
"Eroica" from Complete Symphonies<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

"Dylan Parry" <dylan.TakeThisOut@webpageworkshop.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.09.13.17.49.48.394296@webpageworkshop.co.uk...
 >
 > I think that the second plan sound the more sensible of the two, then at
 > least nothing needs to be done about the way that plugin actually does its
 > stuff.
 >
  > > The first option effectively breaks all current usage of embedded Flash
  > > on the web. They won't work. Web sites delivering Flash will be forced
  > > to make changes to work with the new browser, and lots of people will be
  > > using the patent-infringing browser for quite a long time.
 >
 > How many of us would devise methods of writing code so that both the old
 > and new browsers work?

<!--#if expr="${HTTP_USER_AGENT} = /MSIE 7/" -->
<!--#set var="brtype" value="msie7" -->
<!--#if expr="${HTTP_USER_AGENT} = /MSIE 6/" -->
<!--#set var="brtype" value="msie6" -->
<!--#else -->
<!--#set var="brtype" value="unknown" -->
<!--#endif -->
<!--#include file="$brtype.txt"-->

And you have an msie6.txt, msie7.txt and an unknown.txt file with the
appropriate plugin info. Although, I'm sure the next bugfix that would come
out after such a court ruling would have the change to the plugin handling
for IE6 built in. So either any users of IE6 never update their browser
again, or when they do it will stop handling plugins the same way.

 >
 > Who would suffer? The user. Their favourite (plugin laden) sites would
 > either work in the new browser or in the old, most likely not both. This
 > solution would only make it a more appealing solution to switch to a
 > browser where all your favourite sites work already!

I don't know where you would be able to download such a browser. I would
guess even Netscape's archive of old browsers, if they infringe the patent,
would have to be removed.

 > Doesn't bode too well for Mozilla and derivatives though does it?

Maybe they'll come up with some kind of simple license for non-commercial
use, or after they get a huge cash settlement from MS they'll open source
it.

 >
 > Well for once I am with MS on this one, it won't just be screwing them
 > over if this all goes awry.
 >

See above. It might just screw MS.

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

Isofarro wrote:
 > Dylan Parry wrote:
 >
 > [Browser plugins infringing patents]
  >> I personally can't see how it is possible to police such a ruling.
 >
 > If the ruling sustains the appeals process, Microsoft will _have_ to
 > change how it handles plugins, including Flash. At the moment they
 > are considering two options - use DHTML to load up any data that the
 > plugin requires, or insert an alert box saying a plugin needs to run.

Unless I missed something, that's default behaviour (now) in my
implementation of ie6 - always get a prompt for flash etc.

 > The first option effectively breaks all current usage of embedded
 > Flash on the web. They won't work. Web sites delivering Flash will be
 > forced to make changes to work with the new browser, and lots of
 > people will be using the patent-infringing browser for quite a long
 > time.
 >
 > Plus the patent ruling can only be enforced on browsers manufactured
 > within the US, so Opera is in the clear here (and possible Konqueror
 > too).

'manufactured', 'owned by a manufacturer based in' or 'used'?

 > So Flash usage on the web will be broken. Will it survive? Well,
 > that's up to the Flash designers to decide whether its worth the
 > effort. So effectively the decision will police itself.
 >
  >> What are they going to do? Come round to my house and uninstall
  >> Konqueror because it has embedded file previewers? I think not.

surely they're just after a penny a shot or somesuch. I can't imagine the
motivation for "it's our ball and we're taking it home" - what would be the
point? or did I miss something else?

--
William Tasso - <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://WilliamTasso.com" target="_blank">http://WilliamTasso.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

Dylan Parry wrote:

 > Isofarro wrote:
  >> The first option effectively breaks all current usage of embedded Flash
  >> on the web. They won't work. Web sites delivering Flash will be forced
  >> to make changes to work with the new browser, and lots of people will be
  >> using the patent-infringing browser for quite a long time.
 >
 > Yes, that would be a problem, and if MS were to go down this route they
 > would effectively be supplying the rope to hang themselves with.

I think they already did that with their "intellectual property" antics.

 > I mean,
 > if they did change the way that plugins work then how many webmasters are
 > going to change their code straight away so that the newer browsers work?

Only those that believe they offer something of value to the visitor -
hopefully. It'll be a good weeding out exercise.

But then, had they focused on accessibility, the sudden disapperance of
Flash would still leave a perfectly accessible and useful site for the
visitor.

 > This
 > solution would only make it a more appealing solution to switch to a
 > browser where all your favourite sites work already!

This is the ironic bit. People use browsers installed in their operating
systems - and that reason is constantly used to reinforce the benefits
either of browser-specific authoring, or the use of Flash.

That reliance and the assumptions based on top of it is now coming back to
frighten them. Will significant numbers of visitors suddenly switch
browsers because a website using Flash doesn't work - I doubt it. This
eventuality will probably prove one way or another whether websites are
seen as one part of a whole (hence Nielsen's "Visitors spend more time on
other people's websites") or whether the web is seen as collections of
independantly unique websites (The Flash designer philosophy).

Its the uncovering of which view has more weight, thus obsoleting of certain
myths, is intruiging, and part of the reason why I think this patent action
may either be a positive thing for the internet, or largely irrelevant.

  >> Plus the patent ruling can only be enforced on browsers manufactured
  >> within the US, so Opera is in the clear here (and possible Konqueror
  >> too).
 >
 > Doesn't bode too well for Mozilla and derivatives though does it?

Mozilla's solution is quite simple:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.texturizer.net/firebird/extensions.html#Flash%20Click%20To%20View" target="_blank">http://www.texturizer.net/firebird/extensions.html#Flash%20Click%20To%20View</a>

Now that's a great feature!

  >> Microsoft have vigourously defended the practice of "intellectual
  >> property" patents, and have effectively been snared by it. Hoisted by
  >> their own petard, I think the saying goes.
 >
 > Well for once I am with MS on this one, it won't just be screwing them
 > over if this all goes awry.

What's there to lose? A few Flash websites - no great loss. More like the
fizzle of the LHZ patent that affected the GIF format - hardly bothered any
of us.


--
Iso.
FAQs: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://html-faq.com" target="_blank">http://html-faq.com</a> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://alt-html.org" target="_blank">http://alt-html.org</a> <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://allmyfaqs.com/" target="_blank">http://allmyfaqs.com/</a>
Recommended Hosting: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.affordablehost.com/" target="_blank">http://www.affordablehost.com/</a>
Web Design Tutorial: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010" target="_blank">http://www.sitepoint.com/article/1010</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

"Dale" <spam.spam.tiddly.spam.ade20510.RemoveThis@port.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19cd24dc2feefc1b98975a@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
 > We can but hope*
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://zeldman.com/daily/0903b.shtml#patentnonsense</font" target="_blank">http://zeldman.com/daily/0903b.shtml#patentnonsense</font</a>>
 >
 >
Dont see a problem. Simple solution is to view any such sites in existing
browsers.

A return to the good ol days when it was ok to say if you want to view this
site use this browser
<site best viewed in><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

"Bill" <bildanet.DeleteThis@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3f636c13$1@clear.net.nz...
  > >
<font color=green>  > > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://zeldman.com/daily/0903b.shtml#patentnonsense</font" target="_blank">http://zeldman.com/daily/0903b.shtml#patentnonsense</font</a>>
  > >
  > >
 > Dont see a problem. Simple solution is to view any such sites in existing
 > browsers.
 >

And when the next security issue comes out and the patch disables the patent
infringing behavior?

 > A return to the good ol days when it was ok to say if you want to view
this
 > site use this browser

Those were good days?

--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

Bill wrote:
 > "Dale" <spam.spam.tiddly.spam.ade20510.TakeThisOut@port.ac.uk> wrote in message
 > news:MPG.19cd24dc2feefc1b98975a@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
 >
  >>We can but hope*
  >>
  >>http://zeldman.com/daily/0903b.shtml#patentnonsense
  >>
  >>
 >
 > Dont see a problem. Simple solution is to view any such sites in existing
 > browsers.

But at the moment you can only have one version of IE on your system and
most people only know IE.

It's still going to take a lot of marketing for Opera or somesuch to
make capital through this.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash? 

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:58:38 +0100 Dale
<spam.spam.tiddly.spam.ade20510.DeleteThis@port.ac.uk> broke off from drinking a
cup of tea at All The World's Squirrels to write:

 >We can but hope*
 >
 >http://zeldman.com/daily/0903b.shtml#patentnonsense
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >*Unless Flash is used for daft animations and CDs.
 >

Don't!

I went to the biography channel's web site the other day......

No access without Flash!

Matt

--
The Probert Encyclopaedia - Beyond Britannica
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.probertencycloapedia.com" target="_blank">http://www.probertencycloapedia.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Death of Flash?