![Patents Patents](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/patents_64.png)
![Microsoft Microsoft](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/microsoft_64100.png)
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 different (Score:4, Funny)
Re:This is different (Score:4, Funny)
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
And that would especially funny, considering Al Gore now sits on Apple's Board of Directors [apple.com].
Re:This is different (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is different (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is different (Score:5, Insightful)
worse than that. Among non-geeks internet is that blue "e" icon that launches explorer.
Re:This is different (Score:3, Interesting)
I was told yesterday (by a woman who was reporting issues on a site that I develop for) that her browser is "Yahoo".
Basing you definitions of things like whtat internet means on non-geek circles is like, well (to bring this whole thing full circle) basing your definition of reality on what GB says.
Re:This is different (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This is different (Score:3, Informative)
how slashdot
and
how very sad
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, amazin
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
Re:This is different (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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:Humor based on a falsehood (Score:5, Funny)
You mean a priest, a rabbi and a horse didn't walk into a bar one day?
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
I can't wait to see... (Score:4, Funny)
What were they thinking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, 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, Informative)
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:What were they thinking? (Score:3, Interesting)
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:What were they thinking? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's partly to prevent these that we (W3C [w3.org]) have our patent policy, which requires all participants to sign an agreement saying (more or less) they agree to let people implement the spec without paying royalties, even if they own patents that would otherwise apply.
It's all a big mess -- and patents also don't fit well with the GPL, of course, and neither does our patent policy, although FSF participated and we did the best we could: the problem is that you might want to take, say, an HTTP server, and re-use the network code for some other server. But if someone has a patent on servers, to which they have granted royalty free use for HTTP only, you may now have to pay them a royalty for the code.
Patents are intended to encourage innovation by ensuring inventors get royalties. Unfortunately the current system seems to have some disadvantages.
Note: I have no idea whether the slashdot story is correct in this instance about this patent, nor, if the patent is essential to implementing IPv6, whether Microsoft plans to enforce royalties or forbid implementations.
Liam
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm literally sick from this one. I was at the IPv6 summit in 1998 and 1999. I talked with Microsoft's people, who were apologetic for having such poor implimentation in their IP stack for IPv6. They explained that while Microsoft Research folks were believers in IPv6, Microsoft proper didn't think it had many merits and refused to back it. Their stack crashed repeatedly (while Linux, Cisco and BSD folks had no problems playing well on the IPv6 network operational at the summits).
And now these followers are taking credit for the work of countless great people? Pretending to have actually invented it all? WTF???
I'm going to rip out Microsoft servers at work and treat them for what they are: intellectual property parasites. Nothing but thieves. I've laughed at the "worlds best marketers of mediocre software" jokes, but now it's personal. Those jokers admitted they were behind in 98-99. At Telluride in 99, they were embarrassed at how far behind Microsoft was in the protocol.
If you work for Microsoft, pay attention! Your company increasingly comes acrossed as nothing but a poseur in the technology community. Many of us have put up with MCSE pretenders. But now it's personal. Hang your head low, Microsoft grunt. Your credentials are a black mark in these circles.
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:3, Interesting)
They're still behind now - none of the standard windows services support v6 yet and there appears to be no way (under XPSP2) of manually configuring the IP address.
Compared to my Linux boxes, which have all but a few stubborn services running on IPv6. (I currently have to use v4 for Asterisk, Portmap and CUPS... which is stunningly bad given that CUPS is a new system but doesn't do IPv6 at all.)
Re:What were they thinking? (Score:3, Funny)
You'd better pray that nobody has a patent on understatements!
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 numbe
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.
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*.
Rambus did it first! (Score:2, Interesting)
Slashdot and US Patent Office? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slashdot and US Patent Office? (Score:5, Informative)
Should we patent the transistor!? (Score:5, Funny)
All your IP Belong... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:All your IP Belong... (Score:2)
Re:All your IP Belong... (Score:5, Funny)
Re : Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Re : Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Aga (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that ActiveDirectory uses DNS... (Score:2)
Re:Given that ActiveDirectory uses DNS... (Score:3, Funny)
umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 software, (Score:4, Interesting)
if I read this correctly, and I doubt I do (I hope I don't), they are trying to secure even CDs, floppies, usb cards.. anything that contains code that allows the negotiation of an ip address for the network running the IPv6 'like' protocol. whaaaa??!
Re:umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 softwar (Score:3, Insightful)
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".
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...
There needs to be a penalty... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There needs to be a penalty... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There needs to be a penalty... (Score:2, Insightful)
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: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.
Screw you guys, we're going home. (Score:5, Funny)
In fact... screw the gambling.
Re:Screw you guys, we're going home. (Score:5, Funny)
In fact... screw the gambling.
Okay, sounds good, you screw "the gambling".
That'll leave more hookers for me.
This is a patent on software (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.
Which TLD are you from? (Score:3, Funny)
You just referred to an entire country by its domain. Wow, just wow.
I'd like a vacation in England, but I can't seem to find the
Re:This is a patent on software (Score:4, Informative)
No diasagreements, just thought I would correct that one point.
Re:This is a patent on software (Score:3, Insightful)
Google for it.
Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC (Score:2)
'Sender ID' was the later, merged-with-SPF standard.
'Caller ID' was their own, patent-encumbered proposal.
Sorry. That is all.
Re:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
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...
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
Re:Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't be naive. You would lose your bet. In my country (The Bahamas) the government owns and runs the telco, electric, water & sewerage, airline, tv station, and radio stations. All monopolies for most of my life. Things are easing up a bit lately.
I hear figures that more than 20% of the workforce in the country is government employed. This has large economic effects sure, but also large political
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.
Hey, give them credit. (Score:3, Funny)
DHCP (Score:2)
And the award goes to... (Score:3, Funny)
Can IETF take any (Score:2)
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: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: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: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.
Oh Darn (Score:2)
Who do I make the royalty check out to for my Solaris and OpenBSD installs that have had IPv6 capability for years?
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
Sounds like automatic static addressing (Score:3, Insightful)
on unix machines.
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: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: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.
am I missing something? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is nothing like IPv6. It sounds like a zero-config DHCP.
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.
I patent... (Score:3, Funny)
Give microsoft credit for some ingenious activity (Score:3, Informative)
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: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]
That's cool (Score:4, Funny)
After I take over the world [somehow] (Score:3, Interesting)
step 2:
step 3: as listed below:
Software patents will only last eighteen months.
Only novel ideas will be patentable. Pointer comparison IsNot novel.
Any attempt to claim something that was being done before the patent was made public is patent infringement, will automatically invalidate the entire patent in question.
Any attempt to popularize a patent without disclosing the fact that it is patented, with the intention of collecting royalties later, will also result in automatic revocation.
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: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
Interesting link (Score:5, Interesting)
Surprise, the name of the guy that came up with the original complaint sounded familiar.
So I did a Google on it, and found the article [forbes.com] I remembered (he's mentioned somewhere close to the end).
Looks to me like a lot of FUD.
Slashdot has been punked (Score:3, Insightful)
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
not so much IPv6 as IPv4 link-local addressing (Score:5, Interesting)
followup: licensing terms (Score:3, Informative)
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:We win (Score:3, Interesting)
has done neither, yet. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:has done neither, yet. (Score:4, Interesting)
* Note that reciprocal treaties with the US provide a loophole for this.
Hey, look at the bright side... (Score:3, Funny)
If that happens, Internet Explorer will be 100% standards compliant!