Microsoft Assembles Patent Arsenal for Longhorn 571
stock writes "The heat is on. Inside eweek.com are some remarkable articles: 'You see, Microsoft is busy patenting everything it can lay its hands on with
all three. In fact, Microsoft is now building up its patent arsenal, applying
for a rather amazing 10 patents a day. The idea isn't to ensure that
Microsoft makes a fair profit from its patents; it's to make sure that no one
else can write fully compatible software.' An older article mentions some other patents."
And this is new how? (Score:5, Insightful)
sin
Well that proves it. (Score:2, Insightful)
If its on Slashdot, it MUST be true. No other evidence is needed.
If you can't win in the marketplace... (Score:5, Insightful)
...use the courts. Admittedly, the government is responsible for laying out and enforcing the underlying rules of the market, but abuses can occur. I think it is not to much of a stretch to say that standards available to everyone -- starting with ASCII and progressing forward to HTML, XML, SVG, and others -- are what have made it possible for computers to be successful. You think we'd have the Internet if it weren't for the various RFCs being made available to everyone? Hell no.
This is an act of desparation, but that doesn't mean it won't have deleterious effects upon the market as a whole. And you KNOW that the overburdened patent office won't be able to properly check all these for the existence of prior art, which I'd bet would cause 99% of these patents to be rejected.
It could just be to protect themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Move along... (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, IMO, this is a sure sign of the problems with software patents. In normal due process you should not be able to patent as much as that in that sort of time, unless something is up with the system.
this is the only way they can compete (Score:2, Insightful)
I can think for myself... (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you slashdot, but I can think for myself. I'd rather have the bare facts (which speak for themselves) than a link with some anti-MS spin.
Re:Well that proves it. (Score:4, Insightful)
People *need* to share files. People used to need to pay MSFT big money to have a file server and licenses for computers to connect to that server.
Samba changed all that. Now everything works seemlessly (and at times much faster than the Windows servers).
You think that MSFT doesn't want to stop that by changing the way things work and making sure no one can start up their own competing stuff?
Woohoo! (Score:2, Insightful)
I see this as good news for the future, since the repercussions on MS should be more severe than last time.
For the short term, everyone keep an eye on their applications, and look for prior art!
Anti-trust? (Score:2, Insightful)
Did they learn _nothing_ from Thomas Penfield Jackson? At all?
Bush and others like him won't be in the Whitehouse for ever. As soon as there's a DoJ who are actually prepared to enforce anti-trust laws rather than mistakenly believing that monopolies are good for innovation and the economy, any company that has amassed a portfolio that simply stops anyone interoperating with their systems will get taken down, quickly.
It's rather frustrating to see continued blatant monopoly abuse from MS. Hopefully, a sensible DoJ will eventually have so much ammunition from the last few years that MS' break-up becomes utterly inevitable.
Patents and Monopolies (Score:2, Insightful)
Defense against patent infringement lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell ya what... (Score:3, Insightful)
i say it's akin to the myriad of "crap laws" still on the books: you *will* get fucked if you piss off the wrong person with enough money for you are *always* violating some moronic law. So it will go with this, write most any software and, "i'll be damned, who'd have patented that?!" It'll be interesting to see where this leads in the next few years.
Re:Patent to apply for (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:3, Insightful)
This, to me, looks like irrefutable evidence of anticompetitive behavior. For the next antitrust trial.
(Why do I feel so optimistic all of a sudden?)
FUD from another perspective (Score:2, Insightful)
Unlike what most here probably believe, patents are not the problem. Microsoft will not be able to patent Linux out of existence.
Re:Well that proves it. (Score:3, Insightful)
or? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many reasons companies patent things, ranging from the defensive to the offensive. Unfortunately it's hard to tell a priori what the actual reasons are.
Re:I can think for myself... (Score:3, Insightful)
Off course, knowing this would require reading the article and what fun is that?
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:2, Insightful)
This could backfire (Score:3, Insightful)
This approach could backfire on Microsoft.
Large users of MS software now understand Microsoft's game. Go back five years or so and many didn't get it, or didn't care. But they've seen how lock-in allows MS to turn the screws on the when it comes to licencing.
It wouldn't suprise me if a lot of organisations decide to stop at Windows XP for as long as possible, rather than go to Longhorn, to avoid the tighter MS handcuffs of Longhorn.
Re:Have monopoly will abuse (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm fixing a hole, where the rain gets in... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Bill's finally lost that grasp. And I don't think anyone here should let this be a concern - in fact, it's an ultimately good thing.
Longhorn is still two years away. Linux is getting better and better and the endless virus plagues are beginning to get to mom and joe user. If Longhorn comes on the market with an entirely new, relatively backwards incompatible system (like XP was - the XP "emulation" engine doesn't even work as well as WINE on, for example, Am. McGee's "Alice") all this lockdown is going to come back to haunt them. Does no one remember the early PC wars and two little computer companies named Apple and IBM? Yeah, they're both still around - but I don't think I need to tell you which one became the standard bearer. Does no one remember why?
Microsoft is making the exact same mistakes IBM made twenty five years ago. So just shut up with the complaints lest you reopen that crack uncle bill is fixing in his door...
10 per day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Tim
One day (Score:4, Insightful)
Shooting themself in the foot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems like a big mistake to me to do this.
Microsoft's situation (Score:4, Insightful)
I really think Microsoft is making a bad call here. But then again, they have known how to secure sales in the past, more than anyone else. Time will tell whether they will be able to continue to charge ridiculous amounts of money for Windoze and Office.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:2, Insightful)
"Interesting...so what's the plan for that other bastion of patents-out-the-wazoo, IBM?"
Well at the moment they are about to bend SCO over a court bench. Also they seem to have been behaveing themselfs recently...
And by all means let the times you visit get fewer and fewer
The fewer M$ fan boys here the better.....
Oh, come now... (Score:5, Insightful)
What utter FUD this is. This is nonsense of the highest degree, it suggests that Microsoft will not only shut out every independent developer on the planet (i.e. nobody who isn't "blessed by" Microsoft can write software for this thing) but also prevent users from accessing their network infrastructure. What gobshite. People will still be able to write software for Windows, people who use Windows will still be able to use the Internet, FTP to and from Linux boxes, and communicate with Samba servers. I am no authority on this, but if Microsoft prevented people from doing said things then:
1. Nobody would use Windows.
2. Windows Longhorn would not be able to access shares and resources on Windows 2000/NT/XP hosts.
Also, people like Mozilla and Open Source are frightened, according to this article. They're building up defenses! Hah. Many companies who are NOT open source use portable windowing toolkits for cross platform compatability. Look at Adobe -- all its products that run on Windows do NOT use the standard Windows widget set, or look at Macromedia -- same there.
So Microsoft's covering it's ass with patents. Plenty of people have done this in the past. Perhaps Linux and the Open Source community should be doing it first.
Patent all of these (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.nist.gov/dads/
and patented everything in there? At the time the algorithm or data structure was created, it was a novel invention. Hell any algorithm is novel otherwise it wouldn't be worth learning in school right?
I think I'm gonna patent calculus and see how far I can get with it.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:5, Insightful)
Since these companies don't produce actual products they can't be caught out for infringing any of your patents.
It's only really useful against other large companies (e.g. IBM) since it gives you better bargaining power for cross-licensing. And for locking out new competitors, of course
Re:MS can't win (Score:5, Insightful)
Functionality is not locking out competitors and forcing your customers to buy more of your product (complete with all the security holes and vulnerabilities) just so they can get some work done.
Not to pick on just Microsoft... (Score:5, Insightful)
Progress will move away from the US and EU, and into India and China.
Both may be signatories to WIPO treaties, but IIUC they're not leading the charge. Both run rampant with piracy, though at the moment that seems to be passed off as an 'enforcement difficulty.' By the time we quit pussy-footing around, I expect both economies to have grown enough, and be busy enough modernizing their own nations that they'll be able to just chuck ^H^H^H^H^H withdraw regrettfully from the IP treaties, or renegotiate them. In any event, THEY'LL have the innovative lead, at that point.
Others have mentioned the IP-restrictive environment of New York being responsible for the rise of Hollywood.
IP laws, they way they're being misused today, circumscribe the pie so IP owners can own bigger chunks of it. Growth in the pie itself will happen elsewhere.
Oh yes, IMHO patents and copyrights were meant to compensate inventors and artists for their creative effort, and keep them in the creative business. For far too many copyrights and patents, the main expense is in filing, and the creative effort was trivial. The competitive roadblock is the reason. IMHO, this is abusive and retards progress in the US.
Re:Move along... (Score:3, Insightful)
that's a bad attitude (Score:3, Insightful)
The guy that runs the VA Holocaust Museum in Richmond, VA, spent like, a year as a child living in a potatoe cellar dug into a field in eastern europe to escape the SS and certain death. When he asks tour groups "do you think that the holocaust could ever happen again?" they say no. Predicibly, they answer the same when he asks "do you think it could ever happen in the USA?"
He then gets rather livid. You would think that people who hear stories from previous visiters would have figured it out. He insists, and rightly so, that as soon as you write it off as a possibility, and say "it'll never happen here," or "never again, anywhere," that is exactly when it will. There are evil people and there are stupid people. Evil people prey on stupid people, and that is how they get away with it.
Don't let yourself be caught unaware. Don't let your guard down. Otherwise, Nazism can rise again, Communism can rise again, Islam could conqure Europe again, or Microsoft could take away our ability to exercise freedom of speach and press by controlling the only medium available with a still-low-enough barrier to entry. The death camps wouldn't have been possible without IBM. Who knows where we are being forced to goto today?
Re:Tell ya what... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Have a massive legal staff with nothing else to do.
- Have a portfolio of patents to cross-license.
The idea is that everybody is infringing on something, so the best defense is to just cross-license the stuff. This means that the more patents you have, the easier it is to defend against any potential infringement.Of course, this also means that if you don't have several million dollars to invest in patenting everything in sight, you are going to lose in developing any sort of commercial software product. Sooner or later someone will come along with the patent that they got last week that covers something you've been doing for three years. And then, since you don't have the portfolio of patents that they are infringing on, you have to either try to defend yourself in court or just fold up.
Folding up isn't nice, but it is by far the more realistic of the two options.
I do not see anything changing anytime soon here - it is considered just a cost of doing business to build a patent portfolio for defense purposes.
This is Microsoft's new competitive strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
This really worries me because if blatant fraud and deceit become accepted business practices that are allowed to succeed, what does that say about the state of our civilization?
Lee
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM is a guardian of open systems and the free exchange of ideas.
If IBM had its way, your PC would be a glorified 3270 emulator connecting to some AS/400 or Mainframe.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, having read the article, it seems to me that the author's comments about Microsoft only doing it to scupper OSS is only his opinion, not _fact_.
Wasn't it Red Hat that patented and then explained that they were only doing it so others couldn't snap up the 'goods' ? I can't see why MS would not want to do the same. That's the idea of patents, to protect ones ideas so that others cannot capitalise from them.
And as MS is a company that owes it's shareholders the best chance of a return, surely it is obliged to patent key technologies ?
Bought and paided for. (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, but you would think that even ten a week would be a problem. After all, time-consuming research is needed to ensure nothing non-novel pass into the patent pool.
However, Microsoft solved that by buying their own patent examiners. Much faster and smoother that way.
Re:Microsoft's situation (Score:3, Insightful)
about time for patent reform (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is why there needs to be "Defensive Patent (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no need to register such patents. Just publish the information. If there's a dispute having a patent isn't better than having prior art. The debate is still about what infringes what. Of course Microsoft doesn't contribute much to the state of the art by publish. Some, but not very much.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, when exactly has any company been prevented from filing for patents. I know the grandparent's post is making an ingornant comment, but how does an idiotic comment on
Personally, I think any and all software patents should be eliminated. Software is the only "thing" that can be both patentable and copyrightable. I agree with the copyright part, but patenting software just doesn't make sense. To me, it's like patenting a book. Software is nothing but an instruction manual, written in a computer language, that is used by a (multiple) computer(s).
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:4, Insightful)
This will also be to make sure that DRM can succeed.
And the continuing raft of viruses and worms will be used to help usher in the DRM age.
But I have to question whether it will really succeed.
DRM is being driven not by demand from consumers but from owners of copyrights. That's not exactly a recipe for success. It sounds to me like it will be as much a rousing success as DAT and for the same reasons.
Despite a deployment of DRM with euphemisms that most consumers aren't expected to understand and possibly low introductory prices on DRM-protected content, I foresee a lot of folks annoyed with the restrictions more than they are joyed by the content.
I still advocate calling the technology for the dog it is Content Use Restriction or CUR. It's designed to bite the unwitting.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:5, Insightful)
There are many reasons companies patent things, ranging from the defensive to the offensive. Unfortunately it's hard to tell a priori what the actual reasons are.
Unfortunately Microsoft has already told us exactly what they plan to do. I forget which one of the "Haloween" documents it was, but in one of them they clearly made the point that the most effective tool to combat against Open Source software, including Linux, was through intellectual property, and specifically patents.
In that light, the article makes perfect sense, including the reasons why Microsoft is patenting everything they can. It's just part of the war plan they have to battle Linux and Open Source software. What better way than to "innovate" in such a way that is incompatible with previous releases, and then patent the methodology so that it becomes difficult to impossible to create a competing method without violating a patent of some kind or another.
Re:I can think for myself... (Score:3, Insightful)
The article is pretty out of line. If you read to the second page you'll see the author seems to think that turning WinFS into a database instead of a hierarchical filesystem is only to fuck with us linuxers. Just because he can't see the benefits doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.
ensure people don't switch (Score:2, Insightful)
I do my best to recommend OS upgrades ONLY when they're necessary, and honestly, most times they are not needed.
When Windows 2000 came out, several of my friends/family wanted to switch to it, and I told them that if they switched, I could no longer support them. I don't have the time/engery to hassle with a "new" os, with "new" innovations. (I help them with XP, because I use it at times, and am at least familiar with it, and it comes on all new boxes... I have yet to sit in front of a Win2k box)
This tactic worked. you'll see in the list, above, that there are no friends or family running 2k.
I'll simply say the same thing when "longhorn" comes around (love the "mess with the bull" garbage). "I'm sorry, but if you choose to upgrade/install "longhorn", I cannot help you.
Since I get at least 2-3 calls for help a month, I know that my services are needed. Since I'm not charging money to help them, the least they can do is *help me* to help them.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree. In addition to all the anti-trust issues pointed out by others here, if we ever needed ammo to convince users that single-vendor lockin was bad, HERE IT IS.
No company can do anything without income, and I think Longhorn will drive users away in droves toward simpler and more robust alternatives. There's no way the market is going to select Microsoft's plan for the future because it will be appalled at what Longhorn WON'T let them do. (heh, heh).
I know I'm not going to upgrade -- I've purchased my last copy of Windows because the price of future versions will be too high, even if they give it away.
BTW, Why is Microsoft's solution to design problems "more code" instead of "less complexity"? They must have skipped that day in design school.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps, perhaps not. In the department of Beneficial Unintended Consequences, the matter of them barricading themselves so securely that suddenly they discover that everyone has moved on to Something Else [linux.org] is not to be discounted.
Is Longhorn the Itanium of the OS World (Score:2, Insightful)
Shuffling the technology deck in the middle of the game to ward of competitors does not seem to work in some cases -- just ask Intel.
And Microsoft will win. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, it will be expensive. But it will also be affordable. If it is too expensive Microsoft won't make any money at all. So they will find the pricing structure that allows them to suck just as much money as possible from everybody, without driving the masses to relatively unworkable alternatives.
And people will purchase music online, watch DVD's, play computer games, and accomplish work for their employers....all on very tightly controlled computers.
Its not the end of the world. Its just the end of the freedom that computers used to represent. Your computer won't do everything you would like it to do anymore, but it will do enough to keep you upgrading it.
I will resist it tooth and nail, of course, as will other geeks. But the masses won't even see it comming, and they will ruin everything for us. It sucks, but its life, and there isn't much we can do about it.
Re:This is why there needs to be "Defensive Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately that's not how defensive patents work. It's more like: "You want to stop us doing business with your stoopid patent? Fine, we'll wipe your face across the floor using our stoopid patents!"
Patents can only be defensive in the same sense that nukes are defensive: as a threat for retaliation.
If all you're looking for is a recognition of your prior art, just publish in a well read journal, as other posters have pointed out.
"Legitimate business practice" (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that Microsoft is tacitly acknowledging that they can't keep up with the F/OSS communities any more. Even without being hit by Sasser at work, I'm hard pushed to think of anything that XP does better than the SUSE 9.0 distro I use at home, except interoperating with closed Microsoft products. The only advantage Windows has is in things that are opaque to F/OSS developers, so effectively making some key elements of Longhorn opaque is the only way they can hope to compete in the future.
Of course they are patenting! (Score:5, Insightful)
The hardest, most expensive part of development is the creation of the overall formula / mix of technologies that will make a successful product. Tremendous energies are spent debating the rights and wrongs of various approaches on technical, strategic technical (long term evolutionary goals), business and business technical grounds. The energies are spent both in informal and formal ways. Microsoft spends many millions just getting 100s of people to come in and use different interfaces so that they can determine scientifically which approaches are best for which populations. That is their investment and the overall look and feel and selection of technologies to employ is the result. And, they probably make that investment 20 times over before they actually have one product that really hits the right formula. Coding is the easy part.
Then people come along and copy the formula, many times under more relaxed less demanding conditions and implement something better (though years later), top it off with openly speaking of stealing the show, and actually have the GAUL to CRITICIZE when the company realizes that maybe they need to start patenting the results of their investments?
Anybody can code. Anybody can code even better when they don't have to make money on it. But few can architect. Architects are only about 1% of our population and architects with business sense and a true sense of the average joe non-geek user are far fewer. Regrettably, we, as a society in general, do not give them their due. We look at what they did and just dismiss it with "that's obvious" or "anyone could do that" or "its all been done before", all of which may be true, but if it hasn't been put together in that combination and the combination does show greater value, then they did it first, they deserve their due, others shouldn't copy it without paying their respects and dues and that's that.
Most people spend their whole life and don't come up with a single marketable idea. Some companies spend billions and only come up with a few. I admire both the people that succeed and the companies that succeed and only hope to get my turn just once.
And yes I'm a hypocrite who has made copies of all of their CDs and multiple family members listen to those copies in different places at the same time. But that's different isn't it? :o)
Re:It could just be to protect themselves (Score:1, Insightful)
But in the case of Eolas or some other entity that only has a patent portfolio and creates nothing, defensive patents are no more useful that effectively documenting your work as prior art.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't believe me? Think Pocket PC, where virtually any PPC is the same as any other. The next logical step in all this is Xbox, where Microsoft sells the hardware and everyone else is a supplier to Microsoft. Indeed, Xbox is a learning platform for how to marry the OS with the hardware such that one won't work without the other.
When you tie the OS so tightly to the hardware the anti-trust issue goes away. Of course only Xbox plays Xbox games -- and only PS2 plays PS2 games. So what? Of course only Longhorn PCs run Longhorn applications -- and only Macintoshes run Macintosh apps. So what?
Oh, sure, someone will get Linux to run on Longhorn PCs, but it will be just like trying to get Linux running on an Xbox. It can be done, but it's klugy and possible illegal and really not worth the hassle.
Re:Backwards compatibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
It makes perfect sense.
Longhorn moves into the den, XP into the kids' room upstairs, Win98 down into the basement playroom. You network the lot and pretty soon you will have invested ten years in Windows software, hardware and peripherals.
You never migrate to Linux.
Another reason? (Score:3, Insightful)
Zealotry in action (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft says this aims to give users a way to search for information content independent of format. I say that's a job for search engines, and Google's doing just fine, thank you very much.
So this guy wants people to use Google to search for stuff on their hard drive?
This is an example of anti-MS zealotry in action:
Phase 1: denounce any radical ideas Microsoft plans on implementing as stupid, better done by (X), pointless, etc.
Phase 2: after a couple years of this "pointless" MS tech being used, find out that it's actually not that bad and perhaps even better than a competing "kosher" technology (see SAMBA vs NFS), and start making a Linux implementation.
Phase 3: bash Microsoft for not innovating.
I don't see any real need to deconstruct something as basic as a file system and replace it with such a complex infrastructure except to make it harder for anyone else--say, the open-source community--to make WinFS-compatible programs and servers.
Maybe, just maybe MS is trying something different for a change. Of course it's going to require big changes to the filesystem. I have a feeling that their interests lie in making a better FS first and an incompatible one second, not the other way around, as many would speculate. The author seems very intent on being able to access Windows disks over the network -- Longhorn won't really change that. If SAMBA doesn't work with Longhorn, there's always FTP. Somehow I don't think it's going to be as dire as the author makes it out to be.
Re:This is why there needs to be "Defensive Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
And why is there a "bar" for publication? Why is there not a dedicated journal, printed on cheap paper in black and white to keep costs easily covered by low fees?
Impressive FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
First, Microsoft isn't trying to compete with Linux. If they were, Linux would need a similar desktop market share. Linux isn't even close. That's why you bitch about Microsoft having a monopoly. If they were roughly equal in market share, you would call it an oligopoly or a cartel, depending on their level of cooperation.
Second, Microsoft wouldn't be stupid enough to purposely break compatibility with everything. Obviously, the author of the article is merely trying to spread FUD. Longhorn is going to be delayed while they add new features, reduce loopholes, and make sure their software is as user-friendly(read: built for those who don't know what they're doing) as possible.
Third, they've had trouble with patents recently. People are suing them for trivial shit that would appear to be common sense or common use. Therefore, they want to cover their asses by patenting anything they consider necessary, useful, or at the very least something someone like SCO would consider suing them over.
All that said, this article was written to do two things: whip Linux users into a frenzy, and show non-Linux users that Linux users don't think like the rest of the world. The article is so slanted, that it makes Linux users look like paranoid fools. All the author does is throw a few wild conspiracy theories out there, and hope that someone will publish him because of his love for an operating system.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll still need a key for the hardware to accept the kernel as a trusted piece of software, but that can be accomplished by a third party providing a compiled binary optimized for your system, along with a key and the source code.
From that point on, it's the user's responsibility to keep that key safe, and not allow anyone else to have access to it! Media will likely be encrypted and watermarked using your key, and you'll get accused of copyright violation if a copy of that watermark is found outside of your computer.
The compiled binary+key+source concept would also have to apply to playback software.
You need a compiled binary because software will need to be somehow certified safe. And the only way to do that is to have a "trusted" (by the copyright holders, that is) entity perform the auditing and compilation of the software.
It does raise barriers to software development, though, the tearing down of which is part of what free software has been all about. So it's not an ideal solution, but it's workable.
Re:Well that proves it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not only guessing, you're wrong.
If we go back to the 80s, you MIGHT be right, but since then, MS has been using market dominance in one area to strong-arm their way into market dominance in another. This includes using DOS to overpower the filesystem add-ons companies and DOS compatible software; using Windows to push Lotus out of the spreadsheet market; using Windows to push Corel out of the word processing market; using the Windows API to push Borland out of the compiler market; using Win32 to push Netscape out of the browser market; and the list goes on in many specialized market niches.
Microsoft has done hundreds of companies wrong by abusing their products in other markets to put companies out of business in their own markets. In some cases, Microsoft took to just announcing a "new product" to force companies out of business, even if they had no intention of releasing such a product.
If, by "maintain their dominant position" you mean "expand their sphere of dominance into more and more markets and sectors", then you are correct, except insofar as the "legal" part goes.
Re:that's a bad attitude (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:5, Insightful)
It is NOT workable. Why I the admin/developer/end-user should need some third party to say what software I can and cannot run? Why I should need some entity to tell me that I have to pay them to sign my own code so I would be allowed to run it? Why shouldn't I be able to design my own media player, or to take a FPGA and a couple DACs and making my own sound card? What is the purpose of the computers - being a tool for the people, or making sure some rich suit'n'tie bastards can become even more rich without having to do any real work?
If this system takes off, it becomes just another disincentive for being legal and law-obedient citizen.
The solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is why there needs to be "Defensive Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
However, remember that in the U.S. you can file for a patent as long as the material hasn't been publically known for a year, so there is still some danger involved. In the rest of the world, however, publication before submitting an application for a patent absolutely bars a patent being issueds.
Re:Oh, come now... (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not so certain. Notice how the settlement with Microsoft doesn't favor anyone but Microsoft wrt patents and copyright. Also notice how long the anti-trust trial took to complete-- several years. During that time, Microsoft did not curb their predatory practices one whit.
And as Cringely pointed out, they would be fools to bother worrying about antitrust issues. So what if they are fined a billion dollars every year-- to them, that'd just be the cost of doing business. As long as they controlled the market, they'd pass the savings on to their customers.
This is a much bigger threat than anything we have ever faced. This has the potential not only of locking us out of interoperability, but of any development whatsoever. Remember the GIF and JPG patents, and their chilling effect on the web-- that's right, there wasn't one. People will use Microsoft-patented methods on the web, effectively locking out F/OSS.
This is truly a big deal, one we have expected since even before the first Halloween memo. It's been a long time coming, and I don't think we're any more prepared than we were before, and we face an opponent with significantly greater resources in the arena that matters: marketting, and politics.
This is yet another case of Microsoft setting the industry back many, many years. We should be much further along than we are now.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't resist... (Score:4, Insightful)
Replace Microsoft with Apple.
This has been Apple's business model for years yet few complain. Apple does innovate (I love my iPod). The only problem I have with Apple is the tight relationship between hardware and software. Yes I know this allows the computer to be much more stable.
I think Apple could make some serious cash if they created an x86 based OS. Their computer sales would take a hit.
Ok, I will stop ranting now. I just (hits self in head) clicks submit Feels better
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Impressive FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone seriously think that MS is going to break compatibility with the entire installed base just to piss off open source coders?
If WinFS, Avalon, or any other "new" system in LH doesn't have some sort of compatibility mode, or a way to turn it off, then MS will essentially block most all upgrades. There's no way major customers are going to bring down their entire network to upgrade every machine at once. The upgrade would potentially take hours to days if all existing data/formats and old applications must be converted/upgraded to the new formats/interfaces/etc.
This article is 100% FUD, fresh from the fudmucker's farm to your door; now in convenient concentrate powder form for your convenience.
The younger generation is the answer... (Score:3, Insightful)
What does it have to do with all of this ? - Well... if MS does what everyone else here is predicting, then the younger generation will find ways around it or replace it (and move to Linux or Mac, etc). They will convey this information to others and it will slowly spread.
In my view, the best you can do is to teach others about alternatives. I use Linux solely at home, except for my wife's Win 98 machine. She has clearly stated that she has no reason to upgrade to the latest and greatest, since all she does is read emails, browse the web and write Word documents. She has also specifically stated that rather than upgrade she'd switch to Linux, since the later versions of Windows appear too complex to her and she has no desire to spend that kind of money. It was simply a matter of education, and it's only a matter of time before my whole household is on Linux.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:2, Insightful)
Plus, looking at the results of the previous anti-trust trial (at least in the US), I'm not so optimistic.
Magical wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris Pratley gives us a small bit of insight:
"One of the methods for protecting intellectual property is the patent system. Now, everybody hates the patent system. After all, it is pretty broken. The original idea of patents (I gather) was to promote the spread of ideas and inventions. With no protection for ideas, inventors resorted to secrecy. e.g. the exact method by which a chemical was made was kept secret and locked up in a factory vault, so that society could not benefit from the idea except to the extent that the inventor used it himself. The patent system offered what seemed a reasonable proposition. In return for explaining the idea in great detail so that others could understand and use it, the inventor was protected for a period of years where they had exclusive rights to use the idea, or to license it to others. If someone stole the idea, the inventor had legal recourse.
Well, fast forward to "now", and the patent system is used almost entirely differently. At Microsoft, we used to pay little attention to patents - we would just make new things, and that would be it. Then we started getting worried - other big competitors (much bigger than we were at the time) had been patenting their inventions for some years, and it made us vulnerable. One of these big companies could dig through their patent portfolio, find something close to what we had done, then sue us, and we would have to go through an elaborate defense and possibly lose. So Microsoft did what most big companies do, which is start to build what is called a "defensive" patent portfolio. So if a big company tried to sue us, we could find something in our portfolio they were afoul of, and counter-sue. In the cold war days, this strategy was called "mutual assured destruction", and since it was intolerable for all parties to engage, it resulted in a state called "détente", or "standoff". This is what you see today for the most part in lots of industries.
There are lots of other problems with the patent system. For example, Microsoft gets "submarined" quite often. A small company or individual has an idea, which they patent as quietly as possible. Then they sit back and wait (years if necessary), until some big company develops something (independently of course) that is sufficiently similar to their idea that they can surface and sue us. I have been involved in a couple of these, so I can speak from experience. The people involved often never had any intent of developing their idea, and they also make sure to wait until we have been shipping a product for several years before informing us they think they have a patent on something related, so that "damages" can be assessed as high as possible. This simply makes innovating the equivalent of walking into a minefield. This doesn't seem to be helping the process of moving humanity forward.
Another view is that big companies patent lots of things, and then by the implicit threat of suing the "small guy", prevent innovation from moving forward. In practice this is harder than it sounds, since the damage to the image of the company can be considerable if it tried to sue a small target - that's why you rarely see it happen. I think this works both ways of course as I described in the last paragraph. Basically whoever has the patent has the power.
Another complete perversion of the original patent system is that because there are triple damages if the plaintiff can show the infringer knowingly infringed on a patent, there is a huge disincentive to look at the patents on file at the patent office. If you do a "patent search" to see if what you want to do is patented already, and you find nothing, you are still liable for triple damages if someone sues you and can show that you looked at their patent. This matters because even if you think their idea is irrelevant, a court may not agree with you. So the only safe thing to do is not loo
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
But Microsoft didn't do that. They created false error messages when you tried to run MSware on DR-DOS. They made vendors pay more if they didn't bundle 100% MSware if it competed against their products. They Made Compaq include IE though IE resulted in 10-15% more support calls than Netscape.
They didn't become a monopoly because their products are great. They got to be a monopoly by working over the suppliers to that MSware became ubiquious. It's smart, but illegal when you start penalizing them for putting Netscape icons on the desktop.
The government has a responsibilty to restore competition. Ways to do this are:
Force MS to have Linux Products. (Office)
Deny all patents
And those of you that believe in defensicve patents, here's a joke for you:
What's the difference between an offensive patent and a defensive patent? Give up? The difference is that a defensive patent doesn't name you in a a lawsuit over it. Really. There's no such thing as a defensive patent because you have to "protect" your patent.
A real "defensive patent" is an open standard. Or just publish it, so that prior art is documented.
Its not about 'compatible software' prevention (Score:3, Insightful)
Compatibility is just a side issue along the path to total domination.
I'm still waiting for the government to pull a fast one on us, and mandate only 'approved' software can be used due to 'security issues'. Then require rather large budgets ( and proper DRM components ) to get on the approved list..
Sun's settlement shines more brightly.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Sun has an agreement to be on the 'inside' and is guaranteed access to MS protocols, formats and APIs in the future they stand to profit nicely from Microsoft's anti-competitive behavior. Meanwhile, other server/UNIX vendors might be locked out.
Sun will be able to share files, directory services, access Exchange and all
Of course, this doens't help open-source, but Sun has never seemed very comfortable with OSS anyway.
Re:This is why there needs to be "Defensive Patent (Score:3, Insightful)
To read the sarcasm in this correctly, one must remember that corporations can't be put in jail, and thier officers are largely immune to prosecution for the misdeeds of the corporation.
Your reply is in violation of my patant (Score:2, Insightful)
Patenting a slightly different way of doing things is innovation, not invention. Patents were devised to protect NEW ideas, not 1 click shopping, or a variation of virtual desktops.
An architect does not patent his building. The tools used to design it are not patented. The concept of building from drawn plans and not a scale model is not patented. So, why should the tools and ideas behind software be locked away, but architects can use their tools and ideals freely?
If Rockefeller had patented the concept of a gasoline filling station would the governmet and general public have allowed it? What if Carnegie patented modern steel production? This what we are up against and of an equal or greater scale since the rest of the world would not have respected thoughs claims, but now the US is in a position to force the world to obey this stupidity.
Remember, all M$ products are based on STOLEN ideas,concepts, and code. They are not in a position to claim originality on any derivative products. (To borrow some SCO legal logic which M$ seems to agree with)
this is evolution of the software industry (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If you can't win in the marketplace... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. I've been through the patent application process quite a few times. In many cases our corporate lawyers had to drum into the engineers' heads that the patent office has a much lower standard of "novelty" and "obviousness" than what any reasonable person would think. Few if any of the applications that I was involved with were rejected.
Don't forget that there's a difference between the poorly functioning USPTO and the more stringent tests applied in infringements.
You seem to admit that large number of invalid patents are currently being issued. Like I said, they don't have to be inventive to be issued.
Maybe the courts are somewhat more prudent, but most parties won't be able to afford getting to that point. The market barrier works just fine through intimidation without the patent ever getting tested in court. In particular, Microsoft knows that their current top worry, Linux, will have a particularly hard time dealing with patents, valid or not. It's pretty easy to see that the large number of patents they are filing are intended to create a minefield to ensnare anybody trying to compete with them using distributed development model.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:3, Insightful)
Software I can see trying to be restrictive, but people just will not accept their computer hardware becoming like X-box hardware, where you can't upgrade, you can't add any printer or scanner or sound card or whatever. The masses are pretty apathetic, but they have shown time and again that because of that they will ditch en masse a product that makes them care about what they get to use with it for one that doesn't make them care.
Re:Magical wonder (Score:3, Insightful)
Well...If this were true and MS REALLY DID WANT IP law reform, where are the keynote speeches from Bill G. and Stevie B. crying out to congress for reform?
Where is the multi-million dollar ad campaign to educate John Q. Sixpack about the looming IP Economy gridlock and failure?
Where are those pictures of Bill G. sharing this epiphany with the President in the White House rose garden?
What a bunch of disingenuous tripe.
Conviction without action is cowardice.
Re:Not to pick on just Microsoft... (Score:3, Insightful)
Check out what happened to Brazil when they tried to manufacture generic AZT without paying license fees to Glaxo. Here's a snippet from this doc [un.org]:
So, a developing country that came to the attention of a sufficiently-powerful US corporation in ignoring specific IP-related trade treaties, got slapped down with threats of unilateral trade sanctions.For a developing country, sanctions are no small deal. Hell, even for the US, they're no small deal ;) I'd say the local software industry would quickly find out that TRIPS was back on the menu....
Re:"convicted monopolist" (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft have been convicted of abusing their monopoly.
The accurate description is therefore "convicted abusive monopolist". "Abusive monopolist" doesn't capture the fact that they have been convicted of it, "monopolist" doesn't even contain the information that they're doing anything wrong.
Since "convicted abusive monopolist" is too long to type more than absolutely necessary, people try to shorten it. They do that by cutting out the least significant information. In this case, the least significant fact is that their monopoly was abusive: that goes without saying, because they wouldn't have been convicted of anything if it hadn't been.
Therefore, "convicted monopolist" is not meaningless or redundant. Please shut up and fuck off now.
It's time for serious change (Score:2, Insightful)
Patents were never designed for software, and it is becoming more clear by the day that they are ill-suited to the task. They are stifling the very thing they are supposed to promote: innovation.
What we really need here is a new form of IP protection specific to software, or perhaps simply a modified version of Patent protect without the far reaching gasp of the currently model. Maybe Patents for software should only last a few short years, or perhaps they should be solidly rooted in an implementation rather than a protocal.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that the "corporate person" fiction dosn't apply to companies who break the law. Whereas a real person might get hauled off to a jail or subject to restrictive bail conditions if they are simply accused of breaking the law a company can typically carry on "business as usual" even through their "trial".
Speculation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Pity the "three strikes and you're out" principle dosn't apply to corporate crooks.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:3, Insightful)
steamed, the US gov has a dismal.... (Score:4, Insightful)
In my state, three felonies, buh bye,(might be 2 actually) automatic LIFE in prison. By my count, gates has been convicted of three now, his recent personal "gosh, I musta fergot, aw shucks" stock trading, and the fed anti trust suit, and in the EU similar, him being head schmoo over to redmond. I think other states have similar, 2 or 3 times, adios, have fun in jail. But, if you are REALLYBIGCO, it don't matter, because something you can't put in jail the legalised 'person' called a corporation, can't be locked up.
It's not time to bust up microsoft,that's way long past as far as I am concerned, it's time to get rid of the federal law (santa clara versus union pacific railroad) [google.com]allowing *legal* "personhood" to a piece of paper with a stamp on it called a corporation, and put it back to NAMED human beings are always responsibile for their decisions. All incorporation does is give these goons a free skate and a legal shield to HIDE behind for crimes and to hide behind for taxes and to hide behind for campaign briberies, something joe sixpack never has. WHY is this considered "fair" and legal anyway?
It's disgusting. Not just MS, several bigcos out there are deserving of being dissolved, their stockholders left with useless paper and digits, then MAYBE it might sink in to companies and "investors" to not invest in being crooks.
man, this stuff gets me steamed....... and software patents? puh leeze, that was a big mistake a long time ago.... if they want to make it closed source to "make money" give them at most a 5 year copyright when they can keep it secret, then it opens up to the public. This forever and a day noise is too much too with copyrights.
Re:It could just be to protect themselves (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason the original poster said these are useless for Eolas style attacks is that Eolas makes nothing except lawsuits. Thus they cannot be violating any of your other patents. I agree with the original poster that documenting your invention is just as useful as patenting it.
I also agree that Microsoft has avoided using patents for evil purposes. It would be nice if they actually said that all their patents will be used only for defensive purposes.
Re:the evidence that the day is coming is mounting (Score:2, Insightful)
Recompile the kernel, it wont work, not signed.
They don't just want all the money, they arent interested in money...
Its the power. No coders outside microsoft. only the corporate equiv. of script-kiddies allowed, and once moores cranks up so that decent apps can be coded in scripting languages, even that will be taken away.
Microsoft does not make all these apis soo big and clunky because they are a large corporate that cannot make something elegant and easy to use.
This is a mindgame designed to keep external programmers tearing there hair out with frustation battling the API and system.
Why do you think microsoft changes the core of every major subsystem every 2-3 years...
Cant have people getting to know the interface enough to engineer a decent management layer over it so that decent productivity can be achieved.
That abrogates too much control.
Keep the system fluid, force developers to restart their learning curves every couple of years.
Look at X, it has had the same underlying model for decades.
Ok there are layers of abstraction layed on top, but the basic core of static.
lock everyone else out of the "real" bare metal coding, keep the core to themselves. make everyone else subservient to the whim of microsoft.
DRM is the prize, a legal mandate to lock away our own systems away from us. To lock out all competition. whats next? Using the DMCA to force the uptake of MS DRM so as to lock out everyone else.
DRM ONLY works when the DRM scheme is locked away from external developers by a partitioning of the system into TRUSTED and untrusted...
By this, read "THEIRS" and ours.
Don't give away your machine along with your freedom.
Ahhhh.... I sound like a ranting lunatic, and I probably am, but lunacy is a blessed thing.
Final words...
In the end DRM is a trick being pulled on everyone to make them think that systems can have meaning embodied in them... "This bitpattern is an artifact with an owner, so can only be used in certain ways"
Rubbish, a bit pattern is nothing more than that and needs something to interpret it for us into some meaningful set of actions.
If any part of the system is free (as in speech), nothing is safe as everything is just a Turing machine.
Meaning free.
I read some guff today about MS DRM being able to lock down content even unto the analogue output.
Now I ask you, who are they kidding?
At some point the bitpattern of that top 10 hit is rendered into an analogue electrical signal that has to be pumped into some speakers, how can this signal be so altered as to leave it secure from re-sampling?
THERE IS NO MAGIC in computing.
No amount of pigopolist flagwaving will make computer systems into anything they are not.
What is bill going to do when computers are soo fast that an excel spreadsheet can be used to playback fullscreen video by changing the colour of the cell backgrounds to generate pixels.
Ranting off. Tired. Sickened.
the day is coming, but joe-consumer wont notice. (Score:2, Insightful)
Who says you can stop it? It looks like its going to happen, the uninformed WILL continue to support their HP,DELL, etc. DRM supported hardware, and the informed will probably purchase non-DRM boards from ebay,Soyo, Asus, etc. I think besides contacting your congressman, you should spend more time informing joe-consumer about this. This would work for spam too, see, if noone buys DRM enabled sw/hw, or rather the non-drm sw/hw sells like hotcakes, then there is no demand to keep selling the DRM stuff....but these people are so insidious they'll try to bury DRM lock-in mechanisms everywhere....we'll see.
Although, I think its going to backfire. What if the system were "accidently" set to play "unauthorized media" at startup, how much of longhorn would break? Or what about a new plague of viruses that create DoS attacks on your own machine by using an authorized program to manipulate files and make your system believe that all the data on your hardrive is copyrighted and you were unauthorized to view it? Oops, cant view user32.dll. Has MS/HP/Intel considered these issues, or will they just wait until their support lines get "slashdotted" by joe-consumers? Like:
Joe: "Hello, I keep getting 'copyright error: unauthorized access' messages on my screen when my son tries to open his word document, and he has to finish typing his book report by tomorrow morning, how can I turn this damn thing off?"
drone: have you tried restarting the machine?
Joe: yes, several times.
drone: Ok...have you tried reinstalling windows?
Joe: WHAT?!!
drone: Oh sorry, wrong script....Lets see here...Oh ok, you have to contact the IP owner of the data you are trying to access."
Joe: "WTF? He IS the owner"
Drone: "I am sorry sir, computers do not lie so clearly he must be plagerizing. I cannot help you any further. Thank you for calling, have a nice day."