Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again

sebFlyte writes "In what is described as yet another example of how patents can kill or inhibit standards, a patent has come to light that was granted to Microsoft in the year 2000 that looks surprisingly similar to IPv6 (the next-gen IP standard that is starting, slowly, to be taken up in some parts of the world). And several Microsoft engineers, named on the patent just happenned to be part of the IPv6 group for the IETF..."

This is different

[by Anonymous Coward]

This time they bought the rights to the internet from the creator, Al Gore.

Re:This is different

[Stevyn (691306)]

But it's nothing without the key to the lock box that holds the key to the bigger lock box which contains the internet.

Heh

[daveschroeder (516195)]

This time they bought the rights to the internet from the creator, Al Gore.

And that would especially funny, considering Al Gore now sits on Apple's Board of Directors [apple.com].

Re:This is different

[sh1ftay (822471)]

Defence of democrats... check Generic bash of Bush... check taking a joke too seriously... check Score:5, insightful.. check

Humor based on a falsehood

[VidEdit (703021)]

"Way to miss the point (hint: humor) and try to drag everyone into a politcal debate on GW bashing."

No, I didn't miss the point. I actually did find it amusing. However, it is a joke based on a falsehood and the joke perpetuates the falsehood.

Falsehoods and Urban Legends spread because individuals don't take the responsibility of double checking information before repeating it. Calling attention to the false premise of your joke is a first step in stopping the propagation of a falsehood. It is a small step, but even the longest journey starts with a single step.

As for GW Bashing, it is relevant because spreading the claim that Al Gore was a serial "exaggerator" was part of the Republican talking points in the 2000 election. The falsehood that Gore had claimed to have "invented" the internet was a popular refrain from Bush supporters. Now it is relevant to point out the immense irony of claiming that in a contest between Bush and Gore, Gore was the liar.

Given revelations about what the Bush administration knew about the claimed purchases of metal tubes and the yellow cake by Iraq, that Bush would seem to be the serial exaggerator, if not outright bald-faced liar.

Re:Humor based on a falsehood

[CptNerd (455084)]

No, I didn't miss the point. I actually did find it amusing. However, it is a joke based on a falsehood and the joke perpetuates the falsehood.

You mean a priest, a rabbi and a horse didn't walk into a bar one day?

Re:This is different

[mik (10986)]

He did certainly popularize the phrase "information superhighway", while pushing a whole lot of tech legislation. And do not make the mistake of equating internet with arpanet - the whole point of "inter" was the merging of many disparate network into a logical whole... Anyway, much as I dislike it, in non-geek circles "internet" is www.

Re:This is different

[yuri benjamin (222127)]

much as I dislike it, in non-geek circles "internet" is www

worse than that. Among non-geeks internet is that blue "e" icon that launches explorer.

Re:This is different

[vena (318873)]

Unfortunately you're taking a narrow and blind line of reasoning here. Gore's statement in the Blitzer interview was directly referring to Gore's 1990 education bill, which had a huge impact on taking the small government project known as ARPANET into the wider scope we call today's Internet. but then I suppose you're a better authority on the subject than Vint Cerf [politechbot.com] (who backs Gore's claim and is infinitely more important to the creation of the Internet than you or me).

I can't wait to see...

[hazah (807503)]

if one of those succeeds one day. I'm sure that when that day comes, I'll also see the general population running around aimlessly, in all directions, bumping into eachother.

What were they thinking?

[igny (716218)]

Is it really possible that such patents may be enforceable?

Re:What were they thinking?

[Sengoku666 (818137)]

These days it would seem that if you have enough money anything is enforcable.

Re:What were they thinking?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Yes. We are starting the age of Corporate Law. You will now have three types of offenses. Criminal, Civil, and unofficial Corporate (being a subset of Civil but controlled by money).

To be found guilty of a Corporate Offense, you only need to have too little money to defend yourself against a corporation than has alot of money. The actual offense is irrelevant. The punishment is relative to the pre-determined settlement contract with the corporation or the civil law of choice.

Don't believe in Corporate Offenses? How do you justify some of the actions of the RIAA, MPAA, and SCO? Some are valid, some are made up. Some people settle when they are innocent because it is cheaper than the legal fees required to defend yourself. Others fight, win, and still lose money. To be guilty of a Corporate Offense does not require a judge. It requires only getting the attention of a corporation's legal department.

Re:What were they thinking?

[Ankh (19084)]

When people get involved in developing a spec, and at the same time patent things that are necessary to implement that spec ("essential", as the patent lawyers say), and then submerge, wait until the spec is widely adopted, and then announce their patent, this is sometimes called a submarine patent attack.

It's partly to prevent these that we (W3C [w3.org]) have our patent policy, which requires all participants to sign an agreement saying (more or less) they agree to let people implement the spec without paying royalties, even if they own patents that would otherwise apply.

It's all a big mess -- and patents also don't fit well with the GPL, of course, and neither does our patent policy, although FSF participated and we did the best we could: the problem is that you might want to take, say, an HTTP server, and re-use the network code for some other server. But if someone has a patent on servers, to which they have granted royalty free use for HTTP only, you may now have to pay them a royalty for the code.

Patents are intended to encourage innovation by ensuring inventors get royalties. Unfortunately the current system seems to have some disadvantages.

Note: I have no idea whether the slashdot story is correct in this instance about this patent, nor, if the patent is essential to implementing IPv6, whether Microsoft plans to enforce royalties or forbid implementations.

Liam

Re:What were they thinking?

[by Anonymous Coward]

When people get involved in developing a spec...this is sometimes called a submarine patent attack.

I'm literally sick from this one. I was at the IPv6 summit in 1998 and 1999. I talked with Microsoft's people, who were apologetic for having such poor implimentation in their IP stack for IPv6. They explained that while Microsoft Research folks were believers in IPv6, Microsoft proper didn't think it had many merits and refused to back it. Their stack crashed repeatedly (while Linux, Cisco and BSD folks had no problems playing well on the IPv6 network operational at the summits).

And now these followers are taking credit for the work of countless great people? Pretending to have actually invented it all? WTF???

I'm going to rip out Microsoft servers at work and treat them for what they are: intellectual property parasites. Nothing but thieves. I've laughed at the "worlds best marketers of mediocre software" jokes, but now it's personal. Those jokers admitted they were behind in 98-99. At Telluride in 99, they were embarrassed at how far behind Microsoft was in the protocol.

If you work for Microsoft, pay attention! Your company increasingly comes acrossed as nothing but a poseur in the technology community. Many of us have put up with MCSE pretenders. But now it's personal. Hang your head low, Microsoft grunt. Your credentials are a black mark in these circles.

Enforcibility is not relevant

[Corpus_Callosum (617295)]

The patent system needs to be completely overhauled. In fact, for the same reason, it appears the US legal system needs an overhaul as well. To bad it is basically impossible. Here is the problem:

In patent law, all you need is the ability to claim infringement (hell, you can use a completely unrelated patent if you have a weaker opponent). Once you can get your toe in the door with the courts, it becomes about money. The more money you spend on lawyers, the longer the case will drag on and the more it will cost your opponent to defend himself (or in the case of a real patent lawsuit against a rich corporation, the more it will cost your opponent to prove his claim).

Because most individuals and corporations cannot tolerate the massive legal bill of a head-on IP conflict with a rich opponent, in the majority of cases, the weaker opponent must settle. The result? It makes no difference who is right, it only matters who is willing to spend more.

Today, it has become like that in practically every segment of the American legal system. This is nothing more than glorified corruption and all it does is serve to ensure that the wealthiest individuals and corporations are untouchable. To add insult to injury, it ties up our tax funded court system, so we end up partially financing the corrupt activities of the wealthiest individuals and corporations.

I don't know how it would be possible, but something is needed to correct this imbalance. There should be SEVERE damage recovery for defendants that are shown to be innocent to account for their time, money and suffering of being dragged through the courts. There should likewise be SEVERE amplification of damages for corporations and individuals that put up massive, expensive legal defenses and are found guilty. Perhaps there should also be some means of capping expenditures on both parties (e.g. Corporation sues individual - legal expense cap for both parties limited to spending power of individual).

The whole thing sickens me.

Re:What were they thinking?

[Ohreally_factor (593551)]

They were granted the patent, but it won't be enforceable because microsoft didn't disclose the prior art. What is particularly embarrassing and points to the fraudulence of MS is that the people who's names where on the patent were also on the IPv6 committee.

There should be a very stiff penalty for knowingly filing a fraudulent patent application. Both monetary, and being prohibited from filing for any other patents for a period of time sounds about right.

Re:What were they thinking?

[Savage650 (654684)]

They are not patenting TCP/IP v4 or 6 they are simply patenting there process of self assigned IP addresses in a network with no IP addressing server (such as a DHCP server)

Bzzt! Self-assigned addresses is one of the major advantages of IPV6.

• computer generates a (random) link-local adress
• asks the local net "is this number taken?"
• if someone answers ("yes, that's mine"): retry from start
• link-local address is assigned

• computer asks the local net "any gateways out there?"
• all gateways (a.k.a. routers) respond, including their "global address prefix"
• computer combines his local adress with each of these prefixes to get all the the "global adresses" he will be reachable under

IPv6 has been drafted that way to overcome the hassle of network setup (not to mention the risk of misconfigurations when fiddling with address, netmask, broacast, DHCP, NAT, ...

With IPv6, attaching your box to the network will be as easy as "plug in the network cable".

For M$FT to try to (submarine-)patent this functionality is unethical even by todays standards.

Slashdot and US Patent Office?

[XeroPurpose (868997)]

You see... the US Patent Office is alot like the Slashdot editors... more often than not, they get duped...

Re:Slashdot and US Patent Office?

[by Anonymous Coward]

Just ask Jack S. Kilby [invent.org], who filed the first patent for the integrated circuit, but Robert Noyce [wikipedia.org] was granted the patent, despite the fact that he filed his patent way later than Jack. Jack got his recognition later on, but it just shows how things can turn out at the patent office.

Should we patent the transistor!?

[0xdeaddead (797696)]

While there is still time! PNP & NPN!!!!

All your IP Belong...

[monopole (44023)]

...to us

Re:All your IP Belong...

[ender-iii (161623)]

I want to be able to mod things "Funny... Last year"

Re : Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again

[Frankie70 (803801)]

Can a topic title be modded as Troll?

umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 software,

[peculiarmethod (301094)]

12. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions for performing the steps recited in claim 1.

if I read this correctly, and I doubt I do (I hope I don't), they are trying to secure even CDs, floppies, usb cards.. anything that contains code that allows the negotiation of an ip address for the network running the IPv6 'like' protocol. whaaaa??!

Re:umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 softwar

[by Anonymous Coward]

You are reading this line incorrectly. It is not a claim for any sort of computing device. It is merely one of several (at least 12) points about their invention. These dozen clauses are ANDed, not ORed.

Back in the day, patents were not allowed on any sort of software at all. So, the convention arose of describing the entire process of the invention, including its realization on a general purpose computer running some software. Without this description of a concrete implementation, the patent application would get rejected. This text is essentially boilerplate for inventions that happen to be implemented with a general-purpose machine and some peripherals rather than a dedicated single-purpose machine with a hardwired "program".

Re:umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 softwar

[Macadamizer (194404)]

Back in the day, patents were not allowed on any sort of software at all. So, the convention arose of describing the entire process of the invention, including its realization on a general purpose computer running some software. Without this description of a concrete implementation, the patent application would get rejected. This text is essentially boilerplate for inventions that happen to be implemented with a general-purpose machine and some peripherals rather than a dedicated single-purpose machine with a hardwired "program".

Exactly -- this is called a "Beauregard claim," from the case in re Beauregard where someone first tried to patent software using claim language of this type.

Nowadays, since we can directly patent software via business method patents, this claim language is somewhat superfluous, but a lot of patents still use it -- who knows, if they ever overturn State Street, maybe this claim language will save some patents...

There needs to be a penalty...

[Max Threshold (540114)]

There needs to be some sort of penalty for filing fraudulent patent applications like this, and it needs to be something more than financial. Microsoft should be prohibited filing patents for a period of time. Ten years sound reasonable?

Re:There needs to be a penalty...

[bani (467531)]

prison terms sounds better.

Re:There needs to be a penalty...

[tialaramex (61643)]

This is a patent on link-local address autoconfiguration for IPv4 (not as the article misleadingly says IPv6). Many Linux, Mac OS and Windows machines use this feature, but none of them need it to use the IPv4 or IPv6 Internet, in fact it's a fallback for when Internet service is not available.

Microsoft told the IETF back in August 2000 that they had patented this and offered RAND + Royalty Free terms to anyone willing to reciprocate.

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-499.txt

Software patents are an abomination, but this just seems to be a case of mis-reporting.

Screw you guys, we're going home.

[rokzy (687636)]

Let's all make our own internet and not invite Microsoft. It'll be great. With hookers. And gambling.

In fact... screw the gambling.

Re:Screw you guys, we're going home.

[EverDense (575518)]

Let's all make our own internet and not invite Microsoft. It'll be great. With hookers. And gambling.

In fact... screw the gambling.

Okay, sounds good, you screw "the gambling".
That'll leave more hookers for me.

This is a patent on software

[Michael Hunt (585391)]

Based upon my cursory reading of the patent, it appears to be just the sort of thing that the EU keeps throwing out, again and again.

Admittedly in WIPO countries (since the patent is registered in the .us and .us patent law allows these kinds of shenanigans) royalties may have to be paid, but the EU parliament's reasonably clear stance on such things should go a long way towards making sure that this patent is a dead duck in a lot of the civilised world.

Regardless, this sort of patent tomfoolery should be illegal. WIPO should (although this will never happen) declare a patent unenforcable under the terms of the Berne Convention should said patent have been undisclosed during a supposedly 'open' working group.

Not that this sort of behavior is exactly unexpected from MS. It's what killed MARID.

Re:This is a patent on software

[Macadamizer (194404)]

Just ot be nit-picky, "Berne" covers copyrights, notpatents. There have been a number of rounds of "harmonization" of patent laws, the Uruguay rounds under GATT, TRIPs, etc., but Berne isn't one of them.

No diasagreements, just thought I would correct that one point.

Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC

[Nova Express (100383)]

I would like to say that this has no chance of suceeding, but unfotunately there's already one example of a company (Rambus) having their people attending a standards committee (JEDEC) in public while working to patent the same technologies in private. And they almost got away with it. [perkinscoie.com]

Re:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC

[Michael Hunt (585391)]

A much closer precedent for this sort of tomfoolery was the IETF's MARID working group.

For those of you who don't remember, Microsoft allied themselves (and their Sender ID standard) with Meng Weng Wong/PoBox's SPF standard, to create a supposed uber-standard known as 'Caller ID' (SPF v2). Later on, it came to light that MS owned key patents on many of the methodologies which SPF2 and Sender ID used, and their patent license was abhorrent to many of the working group's participants. The IETF then disbanded the working group.

I'm working from memory, so I don't have much in the way of sources, but googling for "Microsoft MARID" should turn over a few stones.

Re:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC

[rudy_wayne (414635)]

What do you mean Rambus *ALMOST* got away with it?

Here's a news story from 2 days ago:
"Chipmaker Infineon Technologies and memory chip designer Rambus have reached a settlement in their closely watched patent infringement case.

Under the two-year agreement, announced Monday, Infineon will pay Rambus nearly $47 million for a global license to all existing and future Rambus patents and patent applications for use in Infineon products."

Re:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC

[Macadamizer (194404)]

But part of the reason for the agreement is because each side is likely spending $1 million + per month on legal fees -- sometimes its better just to cut and run. Especially in litigation, where even if you spend the money on the lawyers, you still may lose anyway. At some point you just make a business decision.

This was a nasty case anyway -- just a couple of weeks ago a judge smacked down Rambus for spoliation of evidence (read: destroying documents), and before that, Infineon got into all sorts of trouble for the same types of shenanigans...

Can't see why it's similar to IPv6?

[Jugalator (259273)]

The patent abstract:

A method and computer product for automatically generating an IP network address that facilitates simplified network connection and administration for small-scale IP networks without IP address servers, such as those found in a small business or home network environment. First, a proposed IP address is generated by selecting a network identifying portion (sometimes known as an IP network prefix) while deterministically generating the host identifying portion based on information available to the IP host. For example, the IEEE 802 Ethernet address found in the network interface card may be used with a deterministic hashing function to generate the host identifying portion of the IP address. Next, the generated IP address is tested on the network to assure that no existing IP host is using that particular IP address. If the generated IP address already exists, then a new IP address is generated, otherwise, the IP host will use the generated IP address to communicate over the network. While using the generated IP address, if an IP address server subsequently becomes available, the host will conform to IP address server protocols for receiving an assigned IP address and gradually cease using the automatically generated IP address.

Now that bear pretty much zero similarity to IPv6, which is among others: expanding address space over IPv4 while being somewhat backwards compatible for a transition period, improved IP packet modularity for less overhead, new hierarchical infrastructure for improved routing support, built-in IPSec, improved quality-of-service (QoS) support, improved support for ad hoc networking, and improved support for extensibility.

That abstract seems to me that this is... well, something entirely different?

Is it even a protocol?? "A method and computer product for automatically generating an IP network address"... Huh??

Can someone clarify the huge similarities here to me that makes this big news?

Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6?

[Michael Hunt (585391)]

Nope. Read the IPv6 specs.

IPv6 has an autoconfiguration mechanism whereby an IPv6 autoconfiguration server will spit out a 64-bit prefix (all local networks are /64s in IPv6), and a host will create an EUI-64 address to postpend to it, as a deterministic function of the interface's layer 2 address.

I'd find the RFC but i'm too lazy. Search for 'IPv6 autoconfiguration' on rfc-editor.org or google.

Have a nice day.

Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6?

[Sampizcat (669770)]

I had a quick squiz through RFC1883 (http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1883.txt?number=1883) "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification" and all it appears to mention on the subject is:

"IPv6 increases the IP address size from 32 bits to 128 bits, to support more levels of addressing hierarchy, a much greater number of addressable nodes, and simpler auto-configuration of addresses."

Going into more detail and reading RFC1971 (http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1971.txt?number=1971) " IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" gives you the nuts and bolts of how it actually happens. Abstract says:

"This document specifies the steps a host takes in deciding how to autoconfigure its interfaces in IP version 6. The autoconfiguration process includes creating a link-local address and verifying its uniqueness on a link, determining what information should be autoconfigured (addresses, other information, or both), and in the case of addresses, whether they should be obtained through the stateless mechanism, the stateful mechanism, or both. This document defines the process for generating a link-local address, the process for generating site-local and global addresses via stateless address autoconfiguration, and the Duplicate Address Detection procedure. The details of autoconfiguration using the stateful protocol are specified elsewhere."

Two key points here: 1) Stateful autoconfiguration and 2) Stateless autoconfiguration.

1) Stateful autoconfiguration: Is where it uses a server. Ignore.

2) Stateless autoconfiguration: Does NOT require a server, but requires a router if you want more than just a link-local address. From the RFC:

" IPv6 defines both a stateful and stateless address autoconfiguration mechanism. Stateless autoconfiguration requires no manual configuration of hosts, minimal (if any) configuration of routers, and no additional servers. The stateless mechanism allows a host to generate its own addresses using a combination of locally available information and information advertised by routers. Routers advertise prefixes that identify the subnet(s) associated with a link, while hosts generate an "interface token" that uniquely identifies an interface on a subnet. An address is formed by combining the two. In the absence of routers, a host can only generate link-local addresses. However, link-local addresses are sufficient for allowing communication among nodes attached to the same link."

For the record, "link local addresses" are defined as:

"an address having link-only scope that can be used to reach neighboring nodes attached to the same link. All interfaces have a link-local unicast address."

So, essentially, it looks like MS is getting VERY close to what this RFC states, although they seem to be allowing more than just a link-local address without needing a router.

Cheers,
Sampizcat

For the lazy: patent text

[Frodo Crockett (861942)]

Inventors: Ford; Peter S. (Carnation, WA);Bahl; Pradeep (Redmond, WA);Khaki; Jawad Mohamed J. (Redmond, WA);Burns; Greg (Carnation, WA);Beeson; Frank J. (Seattle, WA)

Abstract: A method and computer product for automatically generating an IP network address that facilitates simplified network connection and administration for small-scale IP networks without IP address servers, such as those found in a small business or home network environment. First, a proposed IP address is generated by selecting a network identifying portion (sometimes known as an IP network prefix) while deterministically generating the host identifying portion based on information available to the IP host. For example, the IEEE 802 Ethernet address found in the network interface card may be used with a deterministic hashing function to generate the host identifying portion of the IP address. Next, the generated IP address is tested on the network to assure that no existing IP host is using that particular IP address. If the generated IP address already exists, then a new IP address is generated, otherwise, the IP host will use the generated IP address to communicate over the network. While using the generated IP address, if an IP address server subsequently becomes available, the host will conform to IP address server protocols for receiving an assigned IP address and gradually cease using the automatically generated IP address.

Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
Application Number: 57135
Filing Date: April 8, 1998
Publication Date: August 8, 2000

Claims:

What is claimed and desired to be secured by United States Letters Patent is:

1. In a host that has been connected to a network that does not have an IP address server and is not connected with any network having an IP address server, a method for automatically generating an IP address for the host, without another component of the network being required to transmit, to the host over the network, an IP address of said other component, the method comprising the steps of:

without the host having received over the network any IP address of another component of the network, selecting a valid network identifying value as a network identifying portion of the IP address for the host;

without the host having received over the network said any IP address of another component of the network, generating a host identifying portion of the IP address for the host based on information available to the host;

and testing the generated IP address for the host for conflicting usage by another host on the network and determining that no conflicting usage of the generated IP address exists.

2. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the network identifying portion of the generated IP address is chosen to be 10.

3. A method as recited in claim 1, further comprising the steps of: determining that an IP address server is not present prior to selecting the network identifying portion of the IP address; and ascertaining if an IP address server later becomes present over the network.

4. A method as recited in claim 3, further comprising the steps of: assigning an IP address from the IP address server to the host when an IP address server is available over the IP network; and immediately discontinuing use of the generated IP address when an assigned IP address is received from an IP address server available over the network.

5. A method as recited in claim 3, further comprising the steps of: assigning an address from the IP address server to the host when an IP address server is available over the network; and gradually discontinuing use of the generated IP address when an assigned IP address is received from an IP address server available over the network.

6. A method as recited in claim 3, further comprising the step of assigning an IP address from the IP address server to the host

Missed the boat

[pavera (320634)]

Ok, the article, the pubpat guy, the slashdot editors, everyone's missed the boat on this one.

While this patent is not quite brilliant, it's not ipv6, this is a patent on the "automatic addressing" function in windows ME, 2k, xp, etc, where if your network card has link, but can't find a dhcp server the system auto-assigns an address from like a 169 or something subnet that MS owns.

This patent has absolutely nothing to do with ipv6 further, I believe MS was the first to do anything like this, even now they are (unless maybe apple does it now too... but I don't think they do either). Anyway I've never seen the feature actually be useful, mostly it is an annoyance, but it's not ipv6

am I missing something?

[spir0 (319821)]

but upon glancing over the patent, the abstract completely contradicts the complaints that this patent has received.

It is nothing like IPv6. It sounds like a zero-config DHCP.

That's cool

[Starji (578920)]

by the time IPv6 becomes used widespread the patent will have expired.

Interesting link

[ChatHuant (801522)]

After reading TFA I read the actual patent (well, what I could get from the legalese). And, from my (admittedly limited) understanding of IPv6, I couldn't see the issue. So I went to check the fine links in the FA.

Surprise, the name of the guy that came up with the original complaint sounded familiar.

So I did a Google on it, and found the article [forbes.com] I remembered (he's mentioned somewhere close to the end).

Looks to me like a lot of FUD.

not so much IPv6 as IPv4 link-local addressing

[keithmoore (106078)]

Reading the patent claims this doesn't look so much like IPv6 (and certainly not a fundemental part of IPv6 - it resembles IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration, but only vaguely). What it looks like is IPv4 linklocal addressing, which has shipped in both MacOS and Windows for several years, and is a draft that is either just about to be approved or has already been approved as a standard. See draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-17.txt [ietf.org] The really unfortunate thing is that linklocal addresses are quite useful on isolated networks, but are really harmful to applications unless they're turned off when a computer has a "real" address assigned by manual configuration or DHCP. And from a quick reading the patent would appear to apply to any implementation that turns off linklocal addresses under such conditions.

Re:Given that ActiveDirectory uses DNS...

[XeroPurpose (868997)]

They have. Didn't you read the EULA that came with the Internet?

has done neither, yet.

[WindBourne (631190)]

The problem is that MS is taking a page from rambus. Basically, attend standards groups and then steal ideas and patent them, so that in the future they can sue. Back in 2000, MS had already figured out that they would not be able to maintain their monopoly (even illegally). So now they wish to use the legal system on their side. First thing is to change the system so that it works for them. Easy enough to do. There are plenty of politicians to be bought. Then aquire as many patents as fast as possible. Of which they are doing both.

Re:has done neither, yet.

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

In the UK, and (I believe) the EU, filing a patent must be the first disclosure of anything that is patented*. You can not submit something to a standards body, for example, and then later try to patent it. In fact, you can not tell anyone without an NDA if you expect to patent it later. The US system, on the other hand, allows you to file a patent some time after disclosure - an approach which is wide open to potential abuse.

* Note that reciprocal treaties with the US provide a loophole for this.