Re: Eolas patent suit
PLEASE move this off topic discussion off of CF-Talk and onto CF-OT or CF-Community. Thank you [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Eolas patent suit
... back to directly CF related, what is the workaround already put forward, I don't seem to be able to find it. We use dynamically generated PDF's a lot Bryan Stevenson wrote: > > Why would you not be able to use the workaround already put forward? I haven't paid a huge amount of attention as it doesn't effect any of my past of near future work. > > Thanks > - Original Message - > From: Jeff Beer > To: CF-Talk > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:03 AM > Subject: Eolas patent suit > > I'm more than a little worried about this change. My livelihood comes > from developing and delivering flash-based newsletters and promotions in > e-mail. When this change goes into effect, we're either out of business > or facing the loss of our primary product. > > I've seen no workarounds that will allow us to embed flash in an HTML > e-mail message - scripting is out. This is a huge bummer. > > (Please don't start a dialogue about Flash in e-mail messages. It's not > spam, and it's desired by our clients and the recipients. I just wanted > to show that this patent issue definitely affects some of us in major > ways.) > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Eolas patent suit
On the other hand, it seems that automatically downloading images, and I guess by extension other 'rich' content is disabled by default in outlook 2003, which will be a major headeache for everyone sending out newsletters. - Original Message - From: Christian Cantrell To: CF-Talk Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 9:12 PM Subject: Re: Eolas patent suit On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Jeff Beer wrote: > My livelihood comes > from developing and delivering flash-based newsletters and promotions > in > e-mail. When this change goes into effect, we're either out of > business > or facing the loss of our primary product. You don't have anything to worry about, Jeff. Users who have enabled ActiveX controls in Outlook will not be prompted before the Flash player and other ActiveX controls are loaded. Microsoft confirmed that since Outlook is not considered a browser, the upcoming changes to Internet Explorer will not affect it. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Eolas patent suit
> Sure! > > Lots of folks do: Crazy people, masochists, people who believe that > "There's enough distrust in the world", Pirates (they like the "X"), > Rerun from TV's "What's Happing!". um, Goofy (despite Micky and Donald's > warnings), and, um. well - I think that's about it. > Well, I'm not sure Rerun is doing a whole lot of anything now that he's dead. But the others, maybe. ;) http://www.msnbc.com/news/983864.asp Regards, Dave. [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: OT is OT (was Re: Eolas patent suit)
-Original Message- From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 2:42 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: OT is OT (was Re: Eolas patent suit) Thank you. There is a CF-OT list just for this discussion. CF-Talk is for CF technical talk only. I'd have jumped on this earlier if I wasn't dealing with just having my wisdom teeth out and a dead box (another site). Please move the Eolas, MM sock and related threads either to the MM-Talk list or the CF-OT list. Thanks And no, putting OT in the subject is not enough. If it was, then I would not have created another list for OT (usually non-technical) talk. Technical OT stuff may fit here, but these threads are not technical. > Shouldn't this Eolas stuff be OT? > > I know Flash and CF are nicely integrated, but this is CF-Talk. It's hard > enough to filter through the amount of mail on this list - OT posts should > be marked as such to help us find the CF stuff, at least. I don't use > Flash, or anything affected by the Eolas patent suit (even though I > obviously recognise it's important to web development in general, if not to > CF in particular). > > Just a thought, > > Gyrus > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://norlonto.net/gyrus/dev/ > PGP key available > > _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Eolas patent suit
Sure! Lots of folks do: Crazy people, masochists, people who believe that "There's enough distrust in the world", Pirates (they like the "X"), Rerun from TV's "What's Happing!". um, Goofy (despite Micky and Donald's warnings), and, um. well - I think that's about it. Jim Davis -Original Message- From: Nick de Voil [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 4:22 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: Eolas patent suit > You don't have anything to worry about, Jeff. Users who have enabled > ActiveX controls in Outlook will not be prompted before the Flash > player and other ActiveX controls are loaded. Does anyone in their right mind enable ActiveX controls in Outlook? Nick _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Eolas patent suit
On Saturday, October 25, 2003, at 04:22 PM, Nick de Voil wrote: > Does anyone in their right mind enable ActiveX controls in Outlook? That's a good question. ActiveX controls are disabled in Outlook by default. Of course, that is not a result of the upcoming changes to Internet Explorer. The point that I want to get across is that nothing is changing with respect to Outlook. Whether it is a good idea to embed Flash in emails is a different question altogether. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Eolas patent suit
> You don't have anything to worry about, Jeff. Users who have enabled > ActiveX controls in Outlook will not be prompted before the Flash > player and other ActiveX controls are loaded. Does anyone in their right mind enable ActiveX controls in Outlook? Nick [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Eolas patent suit
On Friday, October 24, 2003, at 12:03 PM, Jeff Beer wrote: > My livelihood comes > from developing and delivering flash-based newsletters and promotions > in > e-mail. When this change goes into effect, we're either out of > business > or facing the loss of our primary product. You don't have anything to worry about, Jeff. Users who have enabled ActiveX controls in Outlook will not be prompted before the Flash player and other ActiveX controls are loaded. Microsoft confirmed that since Outlook is not considered a browser, the upcoming changes to Internet Explorer will not affect it. Christian [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Eolas patent suit
I think when it comes to viewing HTML email, Outlook is in essence, a browser. Haggerty, Mike wrote: > I guess I need to ask the question, how much are these Eolas patent > changes going to affect email. > > > What is going to happen in IE is a pop-up box will prompt users as to > whether or not they want to see 'Active Content' in the browser, unless > you use scripting. I haven't seen anything about this affecting HTML > enabled email. > > > 1) Is this really going to affect HTML email, or is this a browser > specific issue? As I understand it, this patent is specific to using Web > browsers to automatically load dynamic content through a plug-in, and > has nothing to do with HTML email. It it possible Outlook et al will not > be affected. > > > 2) Is the pop-up box that intrusive? I realize it would be a pain to > have to hit a button each time one receives a Flash email, but I can > also imagine, and have seen, far worse. > > > Either way, I think this problem can be dealt with and you will not be > put out of business. Or you could possibly sue Eolas, I can't say why > but people have made cases against companies for far less and been > successful. > > > In the worst case, you can switch your business model to deploying > dynamic content using pure and pleasing ASCII art (which a large number > of people actually prefer). I am preparing to release a custom tag > expressly for the purpose of converting raster images into high-res > ASCII, if you want in on the beta please let me know. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message- > From: Jeff Beer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:20 PM > To: CF-Talk > Subject: RE: Eolas patent suit > > > Dave is correct - scripting is out for e-mail messages - way too > many > variables to test for and manage, assuming you can even test. > We've > developed a way to allow the code to 'gracefully degrade' from > fully > scripted embedding of the OBJECT tag, to showing a standard jpg > image, > that works on almost all platforms. But, if I can't get remote > data, > none of this matters any more. > > Matt is also right - there's no way we can embed the flash > content in > the e-mail. I can't send a 400k e-mail to 50k people. The > users don't > mind some load time as there is a lot of static info that goes > with it. > However, people would (literally?) kill me if it took 30+ > seconds to > download the message itself. > > Even using base64 for the URI values, it's still external data, > and > won't load. I don't currently see any way to do this, so I'm > hoping > that either MS gives in and buys a license, or, Eolas gets beat > down in > court, before the new browser versions come out. Either way is > fine > with me :) > > > > > > _ > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT is OT (was Re: Eolas patent suit)
Thank you. There is a CF-OT list just for this discussion. CF-Talk is for CF technical talk only. I'd have jumped on this earlier if I wasn't dealing with just having my wisdom teeth out and a dead box (another site). Please move the Eolas, MM sock and related threads either to the MM-Talk list or the CF-OT list. Thanks And no, putting OT in the subject is not enough. If it was, then I would not have created another list for OT (usually non-technical) talk. Technical OT stuff may fit here, but these threads are not technical. > Shouldn't this Eolas stuff be OT? > > I know Flash and CF are nicely integrated, but this is CF-Talk. It's hard > enough to filter through the amount of mail on this list - OT posts should > be marked as such to help us find the CF stuff, at least. I don't use > Flash, or anything affected by the Eolas patent suit (even though I > obviously recognise it's important to web development in general, if not to > CF in particular). > > Just a thought, > > Gyrus > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://norlonto.net/gyrus/dev/ > PGP key available > > [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Eolas patent suit
I guess I need to ask the question, how much are these Eolas patent changes going to affect email. What is going to happen in IE is a pop-up box will prompt users as to whether or not they want to see 'Active Content' in the browser, unless you use scripting. I haven't seen anything about this affecting HTML enabled email. 1) Is this really going to affect HTML email, or is this a browser specific issue? As I understand it, this patent is specific to using Web browsers to automatically load dynamic content through a plug-in, and has nothing to do with HTML email. It it possible Outlook et al will not be affected. 2) Is the pop-up box that intrusive? I realize it would be a pain to have to hit a button each time one receives a Flash email, but I can also imagine, and have seen, far worse. Either way, I think this problem can be dealt with and you will not be put out of business. Or you could possibly sue Eolas, I can't say why but people have made cases against companies for far less and been successful. In the worst case, you can switch your business model to deploying dynamic content using pure and pleasing ASCII art (which a large number of people actually prefer). I am preparing to release a custom tag expressly for the purpose of converting raster images into high-res ASCII, if you want in on the beta please let me know. -Original Message- From: Jeff Beer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 1:20 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: RE: Eolas patent suit Dave is correct - scripting is out for e-mail messages - way too many variables to test for and manage, assuming you can even test. We've developed a way to allow the code to 'gracefully degrade' from fully scripted embedding of the OBJECT tag, to showing a standard jpg image, that works on almost all platforms. But, if I can't get remote data, none of this matters any more. Matt is also right - there's no way we can embed the flash content in the e-mail. I can't send a 400k e-mail to 50k people. The users don't mind some load time as there is a lot of static info that goes with it. However, people would (literally?) kill me if it took 30+ seconds to download the message itself. Even using base64 for the URI values, it's still external data, and won't load. I don't currently see any way to do this, so I'm hoping that either MS gives in and buys a license, or, Eolas gets beat down in court, before the new browser versions come out. Either way is fine with me :) _ [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: OT is OT (was Re: Eolas patent suit)
> I know Flash and CF are nicely integrated, but this is CF-Talk. It's > hard > enough to filter through the amount of mail on this list - OT posts > should > be marked as such to help us find the CF stuff, at least. I don't use > Flash, or anything affected by the Eolas patent suit (even though I > obviously recognise it's important to web development in general, if > not to > CF in particular). > Hence why I put OT in the topic. Matt Liotta President & CEO Montara Software, Inc. http://www.MontaraSoftware.com (888) 408-0900 x901 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
OT is OT (was Re: Eolas patent suit)
Shouldn't this Eolas stuff be OT? I know Flash and CF are nicely integrated, but this is CF-Talk. It's hard enough to filter through the amount of mail on this list - OT posts should be marked as such to help us find the CF stuff, at least. I don't use Flash, or anything affected by the Eolas patent suit (even though I obviously recognise it's important to web development in general, if not to CF in particular). Just a thought, Gyrus [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://norlonto.net/gyrus/dev/ PGP key available [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Eolas patent suit
Dave is correct - scripting is out for e-mail messages - way too many variables to test for and manage, assuming you can even test. We've developed a way to allow the code to 'gracefully degrade' from fully scripted embedding of the OBJECT tag, to showing a standard jpg image, that works on almost all platforms. But, if I can't get remote data, none of this matters any more. Matt is also right - there's no way we can embed the flash content in the e-mail. I can't send a 400k e-mail to 50k people. The users don't mind some load time as there is a lot of static info that goes with it. However, people would (literally?) kill me if it took 30+ seconds to download the message itself. Even using base64 for the URI values, it's still external data, and won't load. I don't currently see any way to do this, so I'm hoping that either MS gives in and buys a license, or, Eolas gets beat down in court, before the new browser versions come out. Either way is fine with me :) [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
RE: Eolas patent suit
> > I've seen no workarounds that will allow us to embed flash > > in an HTML e-mail message - scripting is out. This is a > > huge bummer. > > Why would you not be able to use the workaround already put > forward? I haven't paid a huge amount of attention as it > doesn't effect any of my past of near future work. If I understand correctly, the current workaround requires client-side scripting, which is certainly undesirable in email and disallowed by many for obvious reasons. Dave Watts, CTO, Fig Leaf Software http://www.figleaf.com/ voice: (202) 797-5496 fax: (202) 797-5444 [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Eolas patent suit
Why would you not be able to use the workaround already put forward? I haven't paid a huge amount of attention as it doesn't effect any of my past of near future work. Thanks - Original Message - From: Jeff Beer To: CF-Talk Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 9:03 AM Subject: Eolas patent suit I'm more than a little worried about this change. My livelihood comes from developing and delivering flash-based newsletters and promotions in e-mail. When this change goes into effect, we're either out of business or facing the loss of our primary product. I've seen no workarounds that will allow us to embed flash in an HTML e-mail message - scripting is out. This is a huge bummer. (Please don't start a dialogue about Flash in e-mail messages. It's not spam, and it's desired by our clients and the recipients. I just wanted to show that this patent issue definitely affects some of us in major ways.) [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Re: Eolas patent suit
Jeff Beer wrote: > I'm more than a little worried about this change. My livelihood comes > from developing and delivering flash-based newsletters and promotions in > e-mail. When this change goes into effect, we're either out of business > or facing the loss of our primary product. > > I've seen no workarounds that will allow us to embed flash in an HTML > e-mail message - scripting is out. This is a huge bummer. If you embed your Flash in the email message, does that still qualify as "an object external to the first distributed hypermedia document"? I thought al the Base64 techniques were also based on including the movie in the original request, so that would be allowed in email too. Jochem [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
Eolas patent suit
I'm more than a little worried about this change. My livelihood comes from developing and delivering flash-based newsletters and promotions in e-mail. When this change goes into effect, we're either out of business or facing the loss of our primary product. I've seen no workarounds that will allow us to embed flash in an HTML e-mail message - scripting is out. This is a huge bummer. (Please don't start a dialogue about Flash in e-mail messages. It's not spam, and it's desired by our clients and the recipients. I just wanted to show that this patent issue definitely affects some of us in major ways.) [Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
