Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again 391
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 a patent on software (Score:5, Informative)
Admittedly in WIPO countries (since the patent is registered in the
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:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC (Score:4, Informative)
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:What were they thinking? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:There needs to be a penalty... (Score:3, Informative)
(yes not "proof" but as close as you can get without some kind of official investigation. after all, I can't proove to you right now that the Earth goes round the Sun but you know if you look you'll find it.)
Re:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC (Score:5, Informative)
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."
For the lazy: patent text (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6? (Score:5, Informative)
IPv6 has an autoconfiguration mechanism whereby an IPv6 autoconfiguration server will spit out a 64-bit prefix (all local networks are
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:umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 softwar (Score:5, Informative)
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".
Software Patents Would Not Be So Bad (Score:3, Informative)
I myself have been personally involved in the patent process for reasons I can't mention here, but I have learned through it all that more times than not companies such as Microsoft file or acquire patents for defensive reasons much more often than for the purposes of bullying the small guy with threats of litigation.
I mean, what if Microsoft or Amazon.com didn't file some of these ridiculous patents and somebody else did, then sued Microsoft or Amazon.com or [INSERT GIANT MULTINATIONAL SOFTWARE COMPANY HERE], and this company was able to extort millions, perhaps billions of dollars from these big companies by abusing the patent system. I mean, if you are a patent-squatter what is the point of wasting your time suing a small fry when you can go for the Big Kahuna.
But the worst thing about all of this is that unless you defend your patent in court, you lose it. So, whether Microsoft or Amazon.com wants to defend their patents or not against a company which may have technology that is related to their patent, they are forced to sue those companies anyways.
In addition to health care costs for businesses, high corporate taxes, weak anti-trust laws as well as poor enforcement of them, I would say our ass-backwards patent system is one of the major poisons of starting a technology business in the United States these days.
I am no fan of oursourcing myself, but as a business owner of a software company myself, you sometimes have to ask yourself how the hell are you supposed to compete in the world marketplace when the laws and regulations in your own country AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE LAWS AND REGULATIONS is rigged entirely in favor of multinational corporations which really don't even have any national loyalty to any particular nation, yet due to the weakness of democratic republics around the world where votes can easily be bought and sold, small business owners in the technology industry either have to play by the rigged rules of the big companies or not play at all.
Technology patents may seem like a huge problem when it comes to stifling innovation in the United States and around the world, but unfortunately they are just a small problem in a giant sea of problems that exist due to well-intentioned ideas such as patents being corrupted by giant amoral companies and the soulless people who run them.
Re:umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 softwar (Score:5, Informative)
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...
Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6? (Score:2, Informative)
From my understanding, it appears to be DHCP (as someone mentioned earlier), but without the DHCP server. In essence, it sounds like the perfect thing for mom & pop at home who don't know how to give their computer an "IP Address" (what the heck's that?). Instead, just have the computer assign one itself (you'll notice they mention this is for small networks only, they even specify that it would be useful for "home network environment").
What can I say (never thought I'd say this) - but nice idea Microsoft.
Cheers all,
Sampizcat
PS. I run Linux at home, worked as a sys-admin for Unix and prefer *Nix over Windows any day. However, a good idea is still a good idea, no matter who it comes from.
Give microsoft credit for some ingenious activity (Score:3, Informative)
- Sit in on many of the standards committees.
- As the committee begins to discuss ideas, patent them behind the scenes
- Dont implement standards properly (IE, Office, TransactSQL...), but do implement own proprietary protocols/specs/language correctly.
- Scare people away from standards using patents
- Profit!
I mean - these MS guys sat on the standards committee knowing that they had already attempted to patent what the standards committee was discussing. I bet they didn't disclose that to the committee! Dishonest - but brilliant.Even for Microsoft, this one reeks.
Having said that, you can understand why Microsoft are claiming patent territory - they have been smacked [eweek.com] around [eweek.com] pretty [betanews.com] badly [theregister.co.uk]by software patents in the past. I wonder how many other gems are out there waiting to be discovered in amongst the 3000 or so patent apps per year MS puts forward.
Re:This is a patent on software (Score:4, Informative)
No diasagreements, just thought I would correct that one point.
Re:Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again (Score:1, Informative)
Research the UK system. This was a state-granted monopoly rather than actually part of government, but close enough.
Unlike the US there was 100.000000% coverage, but I don't think it was any cheaper. You didn't have to mess around with calling cards or picking a provider though, so it was easier. It's privatised now, and seems a bit cheaper, though I think that's down to competition with mobiles rather than between phone companies. Also, the customer service went from poor to awful.
Re:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC (Score:4, Informative)
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...
Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6? (Score:3, Informative)
This is the similarity to IPv6, although i don't think that this patent stateless autoconfiguration to be a problem, although courts oftern seem to missunderstand computer patent claims.
Re:Slashdot and US Patent Office? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6? (Score:2, Informative)
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url
The relevant RFC for IPv6 autoconfig is
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ip
The patent's argument claims to avoid prior art using the following statement:
Re:There needs to be a penalty... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Missed the boat (Score:3, Informative)
auto-ip [potaroo.net]
Automatically assign an address on the 169.254.0.0/16 network if no DHCP server is found. Continue making DHCP requests every 2-4 minutes until DHCP server does respond...
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. The key is to understand that in the US, patents issued are assumed to be valid until they are overturned -- which costs a *lot*.
Re:Why do you always assume "kill and inhibit"? (Score:3, Informative)
35 U.S.C. 253 Disclaimer.
Whenever, without any deceptive intention, a claim of a patent is invalid the remaining claims shall not thereby be rendered invalid. A patentee, whether of the whole or any sectional interest therein, may, on payment of the fee required by law, make disclaimer of any complete claim, stating therein the extent of his interest in such patent. Such disclaimer shall be in writing and recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office, and it shall thereafter be considered as part of the original patent to the extent of the interest possessed by the disclaimant and by those claiming under him.
In like manner any patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted or to be granted.
Re:This is different (Score:2, Informative)
Natural languages have unavoidable ambiguities; you should learn to resolve them correctly.
Re:This is different (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is different (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Humor based on a falsehood (Score:3, Informative)
When I first heard people claiming he'd said to have invented it, I was thinking 'I don't know if he did that, but he sure wouldn't shut up about it before we had one.'.
I swear, this country has the attention span of a gnat sometimes.
Hey, remember when Gore had plans to send movies and TV shows on demand into people's homes using the information superhighway, and everyone who knew anything about computers thought he was crazy? Now, of course, the MPAA would come down on him so hard...
BTW, we're almost one month short of the 10 year anniversary of the private internet. April 30, 1995, NFSNet was sold and the government no longer owned the net.
Re:Except he didn't (Score:2, Informative)
Love Canal quote, when Gore was trying to inspire some kids:
A girl wrote [Gore] that her father and grandfather suffered mysterious ailments she blamed on well water that "tasted funny."
"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. I looked around the country for other places like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue," Mr. Gore said. "That was the one that started it all...We made a huge difference and it was all because one high school student got involved."
He never said he discovered anything was wrong there. He said he looked for places where something was wrong, and investigated it. Um, duh. That's part of what the government does.
He was just making the point that he started a series of congressional investigations because of a single young girl, not that he was Captain Planet and can detect pollution from hundreds of miles away. Because he was talking to a bunch of kids, trying to get them politically active. Some people would have told a lie there, or a story like the boy who stuck his finger in a dike, and no one would have thought the worse of them for that. He related an actual story of a teenager who, in essense, caused the creation of Superfund.
As for Love story:
Gore, indeed, along with his roommate Tommy Lee Jones (I've always rather expected someone to call him on that 'lie' also.), were the basis of the male characters in a Love Story. Tipper was not the basis for anyone, but Gore had read a newspaper article which had misstated the author as saying she was. This article actually exists, and it does indeed say that. (Actually, technically, he said that he'd read a newspaper article that said such, so nothing he'd said was even false.)
So the Love Story thing was mostly true, and partially repeating something he'd read in a newspaper that was false.
And can I point out that both those comments were not made to the public? Love Canal was to inspire a bunch of kids, kid who couldn't even vote. Love Story was when he swapping stories with reporters on Air Force one, and he spent like ten seconds on it. I think that shows how much 'falsehoods' had to be searched for. (I'm amazed you didn't bring up the union song joke, too.)
The internet thing, however, was made to the public, and has already been covered here.
Re:Software Patents Would Not Be So Bad (Score:1, Informative)
Anyone can prevent something from being patented by someone else simply by publishing it. This is how people shared ideas & research before software patents came into being.
Re:This is different (Score:3, Informative)
how slashdot
and
how very sad
Re:Slashdot has been punked (Score:3, Informative)
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.
And compare it to RFC1971 and RFC2462, where they define the creation and testing of link-local addresses. The patent seems to cover things outside the scope of IPv6 autoconfiguration, and IPv6 autoconfiguration goes beyond the patent to specify how to do router-based autoconfiguration, but there is a distinct area of overlap at claim 1.
Re:Missed the boat (Score:3, Informative)
No actually, I believe part of the 1997 settlement between Apple and Microsoft included cross licensing of patents. I think the deal expired after 5 years though, so I would imagine they've licensed it, as they did one-click shopping.
Re:This is different (Score:3, Informative)
He didn't create the internet anymore than Tim Berners-Lee did. One cog in the machine. Money is a very important cog.
In any event, Gore has been falsely maligned over this for years and, amazingly, it still continues today. The power of the soundbite.
followup: licensing terms (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Informative)
Bzzt! Self-assigned addresses is one of the major advantages of IPV6.
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.
Re:This is different (Score:3, Informative)
The internet was a privatisation of ARPANET. Whilst we can argue about the finer semantics of what Gore said, as a 16 word summary of what he did, it is fairly accurate. Anyone wishing to delve deeper into exactly what he did should easily be able to access the additional information. Not also that he said that he took the initiative, not that he actually created it himself directly.
He was spinning the minor part of writing legislation supporting the Internet
And this is how he took the initiative. The legislation was an important part of ensuring that the internet occured in a timely manner. It would have happened anyway, but it might have taken longer, or might have damaged US economic development if it had meant that the USA was behind the curve on using the technology.
If he had said something wildly inaccurate like "I was responsible for ARPANET funding" or "I wrote the first implementation of TCP/IP" then fair enough, jump all over him.
but fails to remark that it was large compared to any other engineering project ever developed.
In terms of funding I would be surprised if the funding in 1986 was of the level of engineering project like Apollo in real terms.
Prior art for v6 (Score:2, Informative)
The claims may be more valid for IPv4 autoconfiguration where the host chooses one an address range in the 169.254/16 range.
The prior art for v6 is very strong and obviously pre-dates this application.
OK, Kid (Score:2, Informative)
So, yeah, the computer network and the underlying technology was there, but the vision of this as a truly public infrastructure -- an "information superhighway", was his.