Microsoft Offers to License the Internet 463
NW writes "According to an eWeek story Microsoft is beginning to assert IP rights over 130 protocols including many basic Internet protocols including TCP/IP, DNS, etc. The story originates with a mailing list post to the IETF's IPR list."
Before the M$ Bashing Begins (Score:5, Insightful)
QOS (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How can I pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not scared enough -- MS has _tonnes_ of patents in the WIMP area, which several Operating Systems use.
MSR has been filing patents left right and center, in various areas such as Graphics, AI and what not. They even have people working on areas of Information Theory in Quantum Computing and what not.
A search on Delphion [delphion.com] shows that about 7,542 patents have been registered in almost every conceivable area of computer science.
I was hoping that MS would not take this stance, but I guess this was inevitable.
Re:How can I pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuck, Someone's going to be pissed (Score:5, Insightful)
I also wonder just how arrogant, dumb and just plainly disconnected from reality you have to be to start licencing protocols that Microsoft had absolutely nothing to do with, such as DNS, DHCP, TCP/IP etc.
And the microsofties on this board wonder why people refer to MS as M$ or slam the company constantly.
MS is a bunch of criminal bastards. Fuck them and may they burn in fucking hell.
Re:insane (Score:3, Insightful)
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
This is clearly, yet again, a story that is more about MSFT bashing than about anything real.
Hold your hourses! (Score:3, Insightful)
November 5, 2004
Has Microsoft been trying to retroactively claim IP (intellectual property) rights over many of the Internet's basic protocols? Larry J. Blunk, senior engineer for networking research and development at Merit Network Inc., believes that might be the case.
[...]
I am not found of M$ like the next slashdotter, but, before 'we' start bashing M$ ... lets do it after we know the _facts_ :)
I mean,
Microsoft Offers to License the Internet
- vs
Is Microsoft Ready to Assert IP Rights over the Internet?is a big difference, that awards 'caution, biased story alert'.
Re:Before the M$ Bashing Begins (Score:5, Insightful)
As might efficient packet discarding algorithms, as per their listing the Discard Protocol [ietf.org] as one of the protocols you can license from them.
That strongly suggests to me, at least, that they just enumerated protocols Microsoft implements but didn't invent solely by themselves (or didn't invent at all), and threw them into the list, perhaps on the theory that it's better that other organizations and individuals spend time figuring out what stuff might be covered by patents owned by Microsoft than that they spend time figuring out what public protocols actually are covered, in part or in whole, by some Microsoft patent.
When you sign, you give up legal control. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A wise man said (Score:2, Insightful)
One stop indemnification? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Closer look (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's very big of them, but some of these protocols don't belong to Microsoft. For example, TCP/IP was developed before Microsoft existed. You might reasonably call this "stupid". I would also call it "evil", just as I would call a burglar evil if I caught him trying to sell (sorry, "licence") property that belonged to me. I think "strange" is understating the case.
Re:Part of DOJ settlement (confusing) (Score:5, Insightful)
Of what use is this license to the ordinary Joe? If MS terminates the license after 30 days, then what? Does Joe have to re-license the use of all 130 protocols elsewhere? And is Joe aware that there may be rights that are no longer valid making him have only partial rights to documentation and protocols? And, under the terms of the license, no improvement to the protocols is allowed either even if MS has no rights in that particular protocol.
Perhaps MS should have named it a
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
This is clearly, yet again, a story that is more about MSFT bashing than about anything real.
However a follow up to TFA states:
Keep in mind that even though the core protocols haven't changed that much, actual TCP/IP deployments have drastically changed since the early 80s. Efficient packet forwarding algorithms (which are necessary in Gigabit networks and beyond) are certainly subject to patents today.
Re:Righteous Indignation (a.k.a. The US Was First) (Score:3, Insightful)
What MS is... (Score:3, Insightful)
In their marketing they lie, they mislead, they present an illusion of their being something they are not, innovators. They use the law to manipulate others in the industry thru licensings and such agreements.
Numerious times they have been found guilty in a court of law for anti-trust violations and they general response is that such fines are part of the cost of doing business, as is the case of organized crime.
So when issues such as this article refers to comes up....
Facts?...... you want what?
OK!!
MS operates on illusion and their ability to fabricated it, if even just thru insinuation. And unfortunately, the public typically falls for it.
Is that fact enough for you all?
Licensing the internet is a good summary of what the general public would preceive of this, and MS knows it, and that is why they are doing it.
DUH!
TCP/IP? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Intellectual Property Strikes Again! (Score:2, Insightful)
No they are not. With this silly triple damages if you knew about it, people will stay the hell away from doing patent research. Some people may decide to use the services of patent attornies, but these are not talented, except in ripping of people.
The (US) patent system is only good for lawyers. they will be 7861st against the wall when the revolution comes.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
How does one license that which one does not control or own? This is like a car manufacturer licensing the ability drive on the road.
Terminate your licence to use Appletalk? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not within Microsofts power to do that - so why is this document not considered fraud?
Also, MS offers no form of warranty and accepts no liability, so this licence is completely worthless in any case.
Thanks Slashdot. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not FUD -- Microsoft's Own Words... (Score:1, Insightful)
In the Halloween Document [opensource.org], Microsoft states:
"OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market."
This licensing ploy is just one of many steps that Microsoft has taken in order to achieve their goal of de-commoditizing the Internet.
Other steps include Microsoft's extended Kerberos protocols, Microsoft's patented Office XML protocols, Microsoft's secret/patented
As always, Microsoft is more akin to a crime syndicate, than to a legitimate business.
Re:FUD (Score:1, Insightful)
The only reason to put a license out for something you do not own is to subtly hint that you might attempt to claim ownership of it later. The obvious business case for doing that (while not actually claiming ownership) is to make it seem more risky for investors to invest in competitors who build their products on those protocols and necessarily do not meet the "license".
In effect, this looks like an implicit threat of barratry against their competitors.
Re:Like most other IP battles... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft would never do anything like this unless they firmly believed that they had an ace up their sleeve that they could later use to crush anyone who got in the way of their grand vision of One World, One Operating System, One Vendor.
Finally... if you actually believe that you can win in a court of law against Microsoft just because you're right... you've got another thing coming. Justice is a myth. Most court battles are won by the party who outspends their opponent... and Microsoft can outspend just about everybody.
Re:MS & TCP/IP (Score:2, Insightful)
"Licensee desires a license from Microsoft, under any applicable intellectual property rights that Microsoft may have, to implement the Protocol(s) for which the applicable box(es) are checked on Exhibit A, and to use the corresponding Technical Documentation (as defined below) for that purpose. Licensee understands and acknowledges that licenses from other third parties may also be required to use that Technical Documentation or implement those Protocols. "
As you will see, Microsoft (in this case at least) is licensing on a royalty-free basis any IP that they may have in any of these protocols. They clearly state that other licenses from 3rd parties may be required (including I would imagine GPL/BSD licenses) and even give hyperlinks to all of the relevant RFC documents and/or other vendor sites.
The only reason we are even discussing this is because the eWeek article repeats a claim that one person (Larry J. Blunk) believes that might be the case. One persons belief that something might be so is hardly justification for claiming that MS are about to patent the whole internet.
Direct attack on Apache and SAMBA (Score:2, Insightful)
SAMBA sees the threat and already given warnings about submitting patches which may contain 'offending' software.
If Microsoft begins enforcing these IP claims, (how many OpenSource projects can afford to fight a Microsoft "cease and desist" order?), they will be able to do what they couldn't do on a level playing field... defeat Apache. Do you run a Linux server at work that connects to Windows clients using SAMBA?
This license establishes a legal precedent for control of these technologies. Ask yourself, if they have no intent to later change the 'free' part of this license to require $$$, why issue the license at all? If it really doesn't matter
Don't stick your heads in the sand... It's not IF Microsoft will jam these IP claims down your throat with leagal action, only WHEN.
They have to do destroy Apache and SAMBA. Even after hundreds of 'patches' they have been unable to even reduce the number of new vulnerabilities that arise to plague Windows. It's getting so bad that Professionals are recommending folks switch from Internet Explorer to FireFox. Microsoft Word vulnerabilities are even beginning to plague OS X users. LongHorn has been emasculated and is now ShortHorn, and there is no guarantee that it will be any more secure than XP is. And it is a year or more away. Microsoft needs something to impede the success of Linux as a server in the server room and on the Internet. SCO hasn't had the desired effect. If just issuing this 'free' license which, by the way, causes the signer to give up their future rights, doesn't slow down the Linux tsunami, then a well publicized lawsuit might help. The most likely targets are, or course, Apache and SAMBA.
not so liberal (Score:4, Insightful)
License is not benign. (Score:4, Insightful)
The license contains some interesting clauses. For example:
Here we have an obligation for licensee to license their implementation of the protocol and require third parties to enforce the license as well. This obligation exists even if M$ has no right to the protocol in the first place.Another funny clause:
Yes M$ admits they might not have a patent, but they don't tell you if they have one or not. So read clause a). It says you can distribute the licensed protocol only as a Licensed Implementation. Do you take the chance and distribute an open source implementation? If M$ happens to have a patent afterall, you are in violation. You may have good chance to challenge the patent and invalidate it, but then you are up for a trial and the contract may be found enforceable for the time period before the patent is invaludated. What would the company lawyer advice? What a PHB will decide? This is called chilling effect.Now look at clause b). As a licensee you are required to tell the world that M$ has rights to the protocol, even if it might not be the case.
Re:insane (Score:3, Insightful)
" Lawrence Rosen, a partner in the law firm Rosenlaw & Einschlag and author..."
and
"Glenn Peterson, an IP attorney and shareholder with Sacramento-based law firm McDonough Holland & Allen..."
which I'ld say is more than one, more than just "this guy's opinion" and pretty good research for a short magazine article. Since it seems you didn't RTA, these two experts disagree with your assessment.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
"So what?", you may say.
Well...
The Recitals (which is the part of a license agreement that amongst other things lays out what property the licenser owns and is willing to license) declares that the licensee wants to license these protocols "under any applicable intellectual property rights that Microsoft may have"
But...
There is no conceivable scenario in which Microsoft could have any rights to TCP/IP whatsoever.
So why is it included in the agreement?
This would be like my company, whose products use XML parsers, licensing the XML standard to our users. It would be bizzare on the face of it, and such a contract would be in my view very poorly written. Good contracts contain just what they need to contain, and nothing more. Microsoft's lawyers probably know this.
So why exactly did they invest the effort into creating such an extensive list?
This story is not about Microsoft bashing. It is about a very strange license from a very powerful company, which should give us all pause.
--Tom
Re:One stop indemnification? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One stop indemnification? (Score:2, Insightful)
Some of us pay to have an account (early access to stories, no ads blah blah), everyone else gets ads (unless they're using an adblocking hosts file). In exchanged for our money/ad viewing, we also submit the stories. The editors don't even proofread half the time. And to top it all off, all the weird errors that keep poping up. Not to mention everyone's hate of most of the color schemes.
So really, isn't Slashdot one of the most succesful scams in the history of the internet? WE pay THEM to do the work of running a news site, and they just collect the money.
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Signing your soul (well, protocol-soul) over is probably the only supported way to get your software to work with Microsoft's.
This might be another fear-of-free-software; if they can change how all Windows developers and other commercial developers implement protocols, free software will break unless free software developers sign up with Microsoft (and, I haven't read the whole license, but it's quite likely that the license is designed to be non-GPL-compatible in some way).
Re:Like most other IP battles... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL! You appear to have the peculiar notion that Microsoft's "ROYALTY FREE LICENCES" mean you are free to use them. No. They say you may use them at no cost under certain restrictive conditions. And Microsoft oftent specifically tailors those conditions to prohibit many uses - and in particular to prohibit GPL use.
You can get your ass sued off for using something which Microsoft has under a "royalty free licence".
-
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there is some reasonable assumption that if you are selling something that you have something to sell, that if you are licensing something that you have something to license.
That would imply that MSFT owns or controls what it is licencing.
I think that is the normal assumption that whoever is licensing something owns or controls what they are licensing. Licensing something that belongs to somebody else seems rather fraudulent and is certainly not respecting the Intellectual Property of those others.
Re:How is this possible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second is that most small company would just settle and avoid the legal battle.
That's the threat. Not that Microsoft has a claim on TCP/IP protocol, but the threat that they actually have a claim.
I really wish US could adopt a IP (intellectual, not internet one) system that gives an enforcement expiration date. Basically, if you didn't enforce a patent after a period of time, the patent automatically expires (I think a country does this, not sure which).
Re:FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
How exactly do you nuke a corporation, without revoking its charters of doing business and seizing its assets?
Re:TCP/IP Term (Score:3, Insightful)
You are arguing with Stephens over the defintion of the term TCP/IP... this is like watching a guy walk up to John Glenn and say, "you sir, have no idea how hard it is to get into space."
Please, just stop. We've all been through the TCP/IP thing. Yeah, it sounds wrong when you know how the protocols are structured. Yeah, it's convention. Whatever.
What they own is you (Score:3, Insightful)
100% dead wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
And of course the shallow thinkers in the audience will think "so what?" Here's what: the law says innocent until proven guilty, but Real Life says that if you get sued, you're going down whether innocent or not because you simply don't have the money to adequately defend yourself in court.
Think about that for a while. You contribute a GUI frontend to nmap and also sign their protocols licence. They sue you for using your knowledge of their parts of the protocols to contribute to a GPLed project. Sure, the code you wrote knows diddly squat about the protocols - only nmap needs to do that - but proving it in court before a judge who barely knows a PCMCIA card from a memory stick ain't gunna be so easy.
While you're busy doing that, they're also suing forty other GPL developers and another 40,000 have become too terrified by all of this to continue with their projects.
Then someone signs up for the licence who once contributed to SaMBa, KDE, GNOME, KOffice, OpenOffice, Mozilla, name it and suddenly Microsoft have a much bigger, meatier target in their corporate crosshairs than a lone developer.
Remember, they don't really care whether they win or lose the court battle, the end goal is to do as much damage to their competitors as possible, and everyone is Microsoft's competitor, even their own customers.
If they lose a court battle but shut down the OpenOffice project and permanently taint the codebase doing that, it's a big win from their corporate competitive perspective. The price of MS-Office would double within the year in most places, and they'd be constantly going over the code for KOffice, AbiWord and even Pathetic Writer after that, in the hope of finding a tainted author that they can bludgeon each project with.
Are we clear on this point now?
This has less to do with... (Score:3, Insightful)