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..."
What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re : Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again (Score:4, Insightful)
There needs to be a penalty... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There needs to be a penalty... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again (Score:2, Insightful)
There are some things that only the public, aka government can do, that we can't trust private companies with.
I bet if government ran the phone companies and telecom, we could get service for pennies on the dollar. How much cost does it take to lay down the infrastructure? How much does it take to pay executives rediculous bonuses? Lets cut out the greed. And at the same time there will be public review.
In the old days, Corporations were disbanded (Score:2, Insightful)
Their charters were revoked.
Nowadays, this no longer happens, sadly.
However, considering that IPv6 is by virtue of creation a Government-owned (and hence Public) Patent, it would only be possible for MSFT to have an enforceable patent on a particular application or device that uses IPv6. Naturally, all this assumes (incorrectly) that the government will take action to enforce its rights and patents, which appears not to be the case in the USA.
IANAL, but I think Linux would be a good example (Score:2, Insightful)
Wouldn't Microsoft like that? People who choose Free Software still have to pay Microsoft for the right to use it...
Re:This is different (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 softwar (Score:3, Insightful)
Can't see why it's similar to IPv6? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that bear pretty much zero similarity to IPv6, which is among others: expanding address space over IPv4 while being somewhat backwards compatible for a transition period, improved IP packet modularity for less overhead, new hierarchical infrastructure for improved routing support, built-in IPSec, improved quality-of-service (QoS) support, improved support for ad hoc networking, and improved support for extensibility.
That abstract seems to me that this is... well, something entirely different?
Is it even a protocol?? "A method and computer product for automatically generating an IP network address"... Huh??
Can someone clarify the huge similarities here to me that makes this big news?
Re:This is a patent on software (Score:3, Insightful)
Google for it.
Sounds like automatic static addressing (Score:3, Insightful)
on unix machines.
am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is nothing like IPv6. It sounds like a zero-config DHCP.
Re:This is different (Score:3, Insightful)
Humor based on a falsehood (Score:4, Insightful)
No, I didn't miss the point. I actually did find it amusing. However, it is a joke based on a falsehood and the joke perpetuates the falsehood.
Falsehoods and Urban Legends spread because individuals don't take the responsibility of double checking information before repeating it. Calling attention to the false premise of your joke is a first step in stopping the propagation of a falsehood. It is a small step, but even the longest journey starts with a single step.
As for GW Bashing, it is relevant because spreading the claim that Al Gore was a serial "exaggerator" was part of the Republican talking points in the 2000 election. The falsehood that Gore had claimed to have "invented" the internet was a popular refrain from Bush supporters. Now it is relevant to point out the immense irony of claiming that in a contest between Bush and Gore, Gore was the liar.
Given revelations about what the Bush administration knew about the claimed purchases of metal tubes and the yellow cake by Iraq, that Bush would seem to be the serial exaggerator, if not outright bald-faced liar.
has done neither, yet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Re : Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Aga (Score:3, Insightful)
Chill out (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounded like he, like most politicians, was trying to take credit for it. We all know the urban legend behind this, but no matter how many times people post the snopes.com entry on it, it doesn't mean that is wasn't a poorly worded phrase and funny to cite.
Re:Give microsoft credit for some ingenious activi (Score:3, Insightful)
Keep in mind that there has already been shown to be *signficant* revenue in licensing patents - its an awesome business model.
Create the patent (this does involve research and work and inventiveness). Then let other people productise it, take the risk, sell it and pay royalties to you. (Profit!!!)For example: [ffii.org]
Thats chickenfeed to what MS has paid out in patent licensing in the last couple of years.My prediction: When the MS bottom line starts drooping, the patent suits will begin.
Enforcibility is not relevant (Score:5, Insightful)
In patent law, all you need is the ability to claim infringement (hell, you can use a completely unrelated patent if you have a weaker opponent). Once you can get your toe in the door with the courts, it becomes about money. The more money you spend on lawyers, the longer the case will drag on and the more it will cost your opponent to defend himself (or in the case of a real patent lawsuit against a rich corporation, the more it will cost your opponent to prove his claim).
Because most individuals and corporations cannot tolerate the massive legal bill of a head-on IP conflict with a rich opponent, in the majority of cases, the weaker opponent must settle. The result? It makes no difference who is right, it only matters who is willing to spend more.
Today, it has become like that in practically every segment of the American legal system. This is nothing more than glorified corruption and all it does is serve to ensure that the wealthiest individuals and corporations are untouchable. To add insult to injury, it ties up our tax funded court system, so we end up partially financing the corrupt activities of the wealthiest individuals and corporations.
I don't know how it would be possible, but something is needed to correct this imbalance. There should be SEVERE damage recovery for defendants that are shown to be innocent to account for their time, money and suffering of being dragged through the courts. There should likewise be SEVERE amplification of damages for corporations and individuals that put up massive, expensive legal defenses and are found guilty. Perhaps there should also be some means of capping expenditures on both parties (e.g. Corporation sues individual - legal expense cap for both parties limited to spending power of individual).
The whole thing sickens me.
Why do you always assume "kill and inhibit"? (Score:3, Insightful)
The flaws in the software patent system have spawned a whole new kind of patent
filing; that with which to PROTECT things so that OTHER unscrupulous assholes
don't patent them instead.
Imagine if a fairly original idea was had, but it was SO obviously done. Patent
it. Patent it NOW. Otherwise when someone has the same idea in the same week
and they patent it, they will f**k you in the ass in 9 years when you finally
finish your software.
Case in point;
Apple, IBM and Motorola have patented many algorithms using AltiVec units in order
to protect the vector unit from unscrupulous "inventors". If the vectorisation of
an algorithm is patented by someone else, they may choose to charge extortionate
fees for the licensing, at which point to effectively use a processor you first
have to buy it and then pay some unrelated company a fee. This is obviously
unacceptable.
IBM and Novell have been doing exactly the same for Linux in the past years too.
SGI have patented a few things in OpenGL in order to protect the API.
These uses of software patent law IMPROVE matters, not "kill and inhibit" software
and progress.
Microsoft here have basically repatented their own "AutoNet" idea (the use of a certain range of IP addresses to give to network cards if DHCP isn't there, no
other address protocol can be found, and an ARP check tells it's not already in
use). It's defined in prior-art style in RFC1971 for IPv6 (1995/1996) so the patent isn't "enforcable" per se by any company (Microsoft couldn't hope to use
it to extort money).
This is so obviously a cheap legal protection tactic, which any IP lawyer worth
is salt would suggest to the engineers defining the standard. Patent it now before
some prick does it for us.
Neko
Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6? (Score:4, Insightful)
"IPv6 increases the IP address size from 32 bits to 128 bits, to support more levels of addressing hierarchy, a much greater number of addressable nodes, and simpler auto-configuration of addresses."
Going into more detail and reading RFC1971 (http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1971.txt?number=1971) " IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" gives you the nuts and bolts of how it actually happens. Abstract says:
"This document specifies the steps a host takes in deciding how to autoconfigure its interfaces in IP version 6. The autoconfiguration process includes creating a link-local address and verifying its uniqueness on a link, determining what information should be autoconfigured (addresses, other information, or both), and in the case of addresses, whether they should be obtained through the stateless mechanism, the stateful mechanism, or both. This document defines the process for generating a link-local address, the process for generating site-local and global addresses via stateless address autoconfiguration, and the Duplicate Address Detection procedure. The details of autoconfiguration using the stateful protocol are specified elsewhere."
Two key points here: 1) Stateful autoconfiguration and 2) Stateless autoconfiguration.
1) Stateful autoconfiguration: Is where it uses a server. Ignore.
2) Stateless autoconfiguration: Does NOT require a server, but requires a router if you want more than just a link-local address. From the RFC:
" IPv6 defines both a stateful and stateless address autoconfiguration mechanism. Stateless autoconfiguration requires no manual configuration of hosts, minimal (if any) configuration of routers, and no additional servers. The stateless mechanism allows a host to generate its own addresses using a combination of locally available information and information advertised by routers. Routers advertise prefixes that identify the subnet(s) associated with a link, while hosts generate an "interface token" that uniquely identifies an interface on a subnet. An address is formed by combining the two. In the absence of routers, a host can only generate link-local addresses. However, link-local addresses are sufficient for allowing communication among nodes attached to the same link."
For the record, "link local addresses" are defined as:
"an address having link-only scope that can be used to reach neighboring nodes attached to the same link. All interfaces have a link-local unicast address."
So, essentially, it looks like MS is getting VERY close to what this RFC states, although they seem to be allowing more than just a link-local address without needing a router.
Cheers,
Sampizcat
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
There should be a very stiff penalty for knowingly filing a fraudulent patent application. Both monetary, and being prohibited from filing for any other patents for a period of time sounds about right.
Re:There needs to be a penalty... (Score:2, Insightful)
Tim
Slashdot has been punked (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
To be found guilty of a Corporate Offense, you only need to have too little money to defend yourself against a corporation than has alot of money. The actual offense is irrelevant. The punishment is relative to the pre-determined settlement contract with the corporation or the civil law of choice.
Don't believe in Corporate Offenses? How do you justify some of the actions of the RIAA, MPAA, and SCO? Some are valid, some are made up. Some people settle when they are innocent because it is cheaper than the legal fees required to defend yourself. Others fight, win, and still lose money. To be guilty of a Corporate Offense does not require a judge. It requires only getting the attention of a corporation's legal department.
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:3, Insightful)
The patent policy is only effective if the major patent holders in any given area participate in the development of the specification. So the patent policy is a compromise, a sort of uneasy truce, so that we can try to keep the Web free. If we ask too much of patent holders, they simply walk away. We lost some even with the policy we have.
It's not like there aren't a large number of strong computer scientists that couldn't create other viable protocols.
Success of a specification isn't just about elegance of design. If it was, I don't know that SGML, HTML and XML would have got very far. It's about widespread adoption. For that to happen, you have to have buy-in of the major players. Otherwise they go off and do something on their own and impose it on people, which they vastly prefer doing.
So you end up putting in features to support legacy systems (pretty much everyone does this -- remember GECOS constants in C?) and you end up trying hard to get the big players involved.
IBM makes over $4bn, as I recall, from licensing patents to other firms. It's hard to persuade them to give patents away. They're the largest in our business, but most other big organizations have large patent portfolios. They use them to fend off attacks: Oh, you want to charge us a royalty on our Gizmo because it uses X? Well, your gizmo uses Y, Z, W and P, and those are just as expensive!
The people bickering are lawyers with (generally) no interest in or knowledge of the technical details, so arguments go beyond technical details. The argument taht they get early experience is a good one, and it's a lot of why some of our (W3C) Working Groups have to be member-confidential: because some significant players wouldn't participate otherwise.
It'd be great to live in a world where everyone was honest and trustworthy and friendly and didn't wear shoes, but, unfortunately, we don't live in such a world. We can (and do) try to change the world,but until it changes, or while it changes, we also have to live with it as it is today.
That's a bit of a general answer, but I hope it makes things clearer!
Liam
Re:This is different (Score:5, Insightful)
worse than that. Among non-geeks internet is that blue "e" icon that launches explorer.
Lesson Learned (Score:1, Insightful)
1. File Patent on ABC
2. Submit 'Black Box' Prototype with ??? innards
3. Steal details from XYZ
4. Profit!