Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts News Your Rights Online

Microsoft Can't DRM Docs Fast Enough 353

Posted by timothy from the lock-in-now-to-avoid-lock-in dept.
grcumb writes "As part of the DoJ Anti-trust settlement, Microsoft was ordered to provide freely available documentation for its communications protocols. InfoWorld is reporting that not only are they late in delivering the required APIs, but it's because they want to convert everything to the read-only Web Archive (MHT) format, which can only be viewed in MSIE. InfoWorld reports that, "In July, Microsoft said it would complete revisions of the documentation required by the court in the autumn, a season generally reckoned to include the months of September, October and November in North America, but may now have to extend work on a beta or test version of the new documentation into December...." So we have to wait longer for a format that makes the content harder for developers (developers! developers!) to use. Maybe they didn't read the documentation ..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Can't DRM Docs Fast Enough More

Microsoft Can't DRM Docs Fast Enough

Comments Filter:

  • MHTML is RFC 2557 (Score:5, Informative)

    by RupW ( 515653 ) * on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:20AM (#10502566)
    RFC 2557: MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML) [faqs.org]

    There's a Mozilla KB entry [mozillazine.org] about MHTML support and open bugs for load and save (IDs 18764 and 40873; bugzilla won't accept links from Slashdot). Plus the maf extension [mozdev.org] to support MHTML.
    • Also, in a relevant note (from the article):

      Microsoft said that it has published the specification for MHT and that it offers a free software development toolkit for the digital rights management system, enabling anyone to develop a new software application to decode and read the files using another browser
      .

      • Re:MHTML is RFC 2557 (Score:5, Informative)

        by FuzzyDaddy ( 584528 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:37AM (#10503695) Journal
        If the SDK is binary library files compiled against an MS operating system, with licensing which is incompatible with the Mozilla Public License, then it is far from free or open.

        Just because you don't pay money, doesn't mean it's free.

        • Wha? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by soloport ( 312487 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @01:23PM (#10505480) Homepage
          Just because you don't pay money, doesn't mean it's free.

          That's the dumbest thing I've ever read... ...oh, wait.

          Reminds me: My dad was a missionary to various countries in South America -- he spoke fluent Spanish. One day a fellow preacher came by, from the US (Estados Unidos), to give a grand Protestant sermon to the mostly Catholic-born natives. The title of his sermon (in English): "The Difference Between Righteousness by Faith and Justification by Faith". (Yes, humans often quibble over the finest of details.)

          He had to take a seat, aghast and flabbergasted, after just ten minutes into his 90-minute sermon, when his translator (mi papa) explained to him that, in Spanish, there is only one word (Justicia) for his two words, Justification and Righteousness.

          Freedom, sir... I'll take Freedom over Free, any day.

    • Re:MHTML is RFC 2557 (Score:5, Informative)

      by acvh ( 120205 ) <geek@msci[ ]s.com ['gar' in gap]> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:30AM (#10502644) Homepage
      Using compound documents isn't the problem here, it's what the compound documents ARE; one is the documentation, the other is a "publishing license" which is used to encrypt the documentation, and is only usable by the IE Rights Management add-on.

    • Not MHT ... *RMH* (Score:5, Insightful)

      by frankie ( 91710 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:02AM (#10503407) Journal
      Rights-Managed HTML [google.com], yet another MS proprietary method to "embrace and extend" a known open standard.

      RMH is a subformat of Microsoft's Rights Management System (tm). Yes, that's right, it's called RMS [google.com]. How's that for doublespeak?

      • If I only had mod points today... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fizbin ( 2046 ) <martin@snoFORTRA ... g minus language> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:34AM (#10503677) Homepage
        Come on, mods. Up this one - the parent of it is at 5, but this (or the other reply that clarifies that Microsoft is proposing DRM-encumbered documentation) needs to be visible too. It's not plain MHT format that Microsoft is trying to use.

        It has almost nothing to do with the format being one that (for the moment) only internet explorer can read. It has everything to do with the fact that the documentation is in a format designed to lock out free software. (I can't imagine that the license for Microsoft's DRM developers toolkit would allow one to release implementing code in source form)

    • Re:MHTML is RFC 2557 (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Microsoft apparently has complete control of the Toronto District School Board already, and this will just add more fuel to their idiotic fire...(about 40,000 desktops). I run one of the very few linux labs, and have been told that internet access will be cut to my lab, because it is not Microsoft windows!?! They are doing this 'to increase security'...I kid you not. My linux lab is quite possibly the only lab of computers that has been running continuously for 3 years without any problems, yet they are

  • Obviously! (Score:5, Funny)

    by haskins_sam ( 653585 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:21AM (#10502573)
    Duh! Being Microsoft, they had to make things harder for developers to use. After all, if they made it easy, it would be a Macintosh.

  • Microsoft Not Complying? (Score:5, Funny)

    by grunt107 ( 739510 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:22AM (#10502579)
    I am shocked

    • In other news: Benchmarking (Score:3, Interesting)

      by PCM2 ( 4486 )
      From the article:

      Contracts for Microsoft's .Net Framework require that licensees ask Microsoft for permission before publishing benchmark testing results for the framework. Since this information could be key to effectively comparing Microsoft products with those of its competition, and the license provision could be used to prevent such comparison, the plaintiffs asked Microsoft to change it. Microsoft agreed to modify it to require only prior notice from licensees of their intent to publish, so that it

  • What's wrong with PDFs? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by baldass_newbie ( 136609 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:23AM (#10502581) Homepage Journal
    Or are they just trying to look slick?

    • Re:What's wrong with PDFs? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Karzz1 ( 306015 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:47AM (#10502776) Homepage
      Well, Microsoft does not own the PDF format and thus cannot lock you into using their DRM crap with PDF. They needed to create a whole new buggy piece of crap format in order to force you to use IE; at least initially. Not to mention this is typical of Microsoft. Yes, technically they did comply, but they made it as difficult as possible for everyone involved. Reminds me of kindergarten.

      • "Reminds me of kindergarten."

        What does, Microsoft's childish actions or the whining that Microsoft's not sharing?

        • Re:What's wrong with PDFs? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Karzz1 ( 306015 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:20AM (#10503060) Homepage
          What does, Microsoft's childish actions or the whining that Microsoft's not sharing?

          I was simply referring to Microsoft having to have the last word. The DOJ has ordered them to share this documnetation -- that is not up for discussion; however, Microsoft has intentionally made it as difficult as possible for someone who needs this documentation to not only get it, but then to be able to use it. So, to answer your question, I would say it is Microsoft's childish actions that remind me of kindergarten.

      • Re:What's wrong with PDFs? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by NaugaHunter ( 639364 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:46AM (#10503282)
        Yes, technically they did comply, but they made it as difficult as possible for everyone involved.

        Isn't this contempt of court? Like showing up to pay a fine with pennies in a jar?
    • Or are they just trying to look slick?

      I think you mispelled ``sick''.

    • Re:What's wrong with PDFs? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PeanutGallery ( 807880 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:35AM (#10503181)
      No, they're just testing their boundries. They wanna see if the DoJ has the guts to back up what they say. My advice to the Dept. is they need to come down hard and fast on this as contept of court, or M$ is gonna walk all over them. "If you give a mouse a cookie..."

  • It could be worse... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dorward ( 129628 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:24AM (#10502590) Homepage Journal
    The might make them available only in printed form, and only to people who pay an admin fee of a few hundred dollars.
    • Preview is all very well, but it doesn't do much against the D'Oh! issue (AKA "David misses the point").

      Oh well, hopefully WINE can let us view them.

    • Re:It could be worse... (Score:5, Funny)

      by isorox ( 205688 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:33AM (#10502665) Homepage Journal
      It could be worse, they might make them available only in a satanic text, and only to people who pledge their first born to Lord Gates

    • Re:It could be worse... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by GQuon ( 643387 )
      available only in printed form, and only to people who pay an admin fee of a few hundred dollars.

      And that's the way that many "open" standards are available. Sure, using the standard is free (if there are no related patents), but the documents are copyrighted and could cost as much as $500. Unless you're a member of the standardisation organisation and have paid thousands of dollars in dues.
      Then there's the standards containing patented alorithms (MP3, MPEG4 etc.) Bleh.
      I'm all for the freedom to keep your
      • Yes, and it's one of the few things that irritates me most about e.g. ISO. Look at the implications:

        - no digital format (so no copying of example code, or even test vectors)
        - no way of knowing what is exactly in the standard beforehand (yes, there are excerpts, but they are not always that usefull)
        - difficult and expensive to obtain, so for the DIY people, like open source developers, it's a pain in the butt
        - it takes time to even get the standards, lovely if you need them asap
        - thank you for even more adm

  • Freely Available? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Xetrov ( 267777 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:24AM (#10502593)
    Ermmm yeah. What part of "freely available" means available only in MSIE?

    The (Developers! Developers!) reference is about the Steve Ballmer Monkey Boy Dance [ntk.net].

  • manpages, baby! (Score:5, Funny)

    by dubdays ( 410710 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:24AM (#10502598)
    The DoJ should make 'em turn the docs into manpages. You know, just to piss Billy off.

  • leave it to Mcrosoft (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MrRuslan ( 767128 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:25AM (#10502600)
    to slither itself out of something they don't want to do but are ordered to b delays and tactics like this...they are supposed to make things freely avalable thats something they dont want to do but tey have to so they make it as much of a pain in the ass as posible for everyone...too bad the system is more bueracracy and less common sense...

  • DRM? (Score:5, Funny)

    by blowdart ( 31458 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:26AM (#10502613) Homepage
    Microsoft said that it has published the specification for MHT and that it offers a free software development toolkit for the digital rights management system, enabling anyone to develop a new software application to decode and read the files using another browser.

    Well thats ok then. Now where's that format? Oh www.microsoft.com/download/mht-fileformat.mht .....

  • Why do they bother? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by n54 ( 807502 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:27AM (#10502616) Homepage Journal
    It's mostly text and can be printed right? And then later (if anyone cares enough to do it) scanned into non-DRM documents...

    So much for DRM lol

  • Fall Season (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:27AM (#10502624)
    Microsoft said it would complete revisions of the documentation required by the court in the autumn, a season generally reckoned to include the months of September, October and November in North America, but may now have to extend work on a beta or test version of the new documentation into December..

    Actually winter normally does not officially commence until around December 22nd. So they are quite within a reasonable timeframe to complete it in early December and still be done in autumn.

    • Maybe they're doing the work at their Australian subsidiary...

  • Seasonal deadlines? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dema ( 103780 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:28AM (#10502631) Homepage
    ...Microsoft said it would complete revisions of the documentation required by the court in the autumn...

    How can a company tell a court that they will finish something in a season? Shouldn't a deadline from a court ruling have a specific date attached to it?
    • Please, this is Microsoft we're talking about here.

      At one point, they thought 'When hell freezes over' or 'When the cubs win the world series' was a specific enough deadline for when they'd explain the inner workings of Windows.

    • Re:Seasonal deadlines? (Score:5, Funny)

      by MadFarmAnimalz ( 460972 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:01AM (#10502887) Homepage
      You can tell what kind of attitude people have by the units of time they use with deadlines. A rough translation guide:

      "I'll have it done in a second": means "you have me by my balls; if I don't get my paycheck, I'm getting evicted, my girlfriend will leave me for Stu, and I'll suffer from erectile dysfunction. Oh, and Stu is the neighborhood stray."

      "Give me a couple of hours" means "It'll really take a couple of minutes, but I found some great pr0n which, quite frankly, is higher on my priorities list. And you see, my entire family died in a horrible sewing accident and I've inherited a few hundred bucks so I'm not scheduled to become desparate for my paycheck for another few weeks."

      "Sure. Next week okay?" means "Boy, aren't I glad I went freelance and can now charge by the hour! I _did_ bookmark that new ferris wheel pr0n site, didn't I..."

      "You'll have it in a month and a half" means the same as the last one, but the person delivering the promise has now been freelancing for some time and is well aware of the outlandish deadlines one can deliver. Typically this kind of deadline is delivered in a falsetto faux-latin-lover accent.

      "Can you wait till Autumn?" translates as "Go fuck yourselves - No wait, let us assist you in the process of your getting fucked."

      Finally, "Some time in 20[07-99]" is reserved for Longhorn-specific press releases.

      I sincerely hope this helps you.

  • DRM, What?! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by digerata ( 516939 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:34AM (#10502673) Homepage
    I'm not sure what the article is talking about. As far as I know, there is no DRM in MHT files. If there is, MS is retrofitting some scheme to it.


    MHT and MHTML files are actually really cool and its too bad other browsers don't support it. (Or in Mozilla's case, support it outside of the mail client.) I wonder if its just because MS came up with the idea? (AFAIK)


    The format is *extremely* useful for things like demo'ing a web site or portions of a website on a frequent basis to different people. I work for a company where we are constantly updating our demo server with new accounts, constantly creating new subdomains, etc, just to allow a client to view the site in their browser securely. We need to be able to take premission away from them after the demo period is over, as well as, make sure unprivledged users don't see the content.


    This could all be solved by storing the mhtml archive of the web content in our digital asset management system. Administering that is much easier that setting up new domains/users/etc.


    But alas, nobody supports it.

    • Re:DRM, What?! (Score:5, Informative)

      by acvh ( 120205 ) <geek@msci[ ]s.com ['gar' in gap]> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:50AM (#10502803) Homepage
      " I'm not sure what the article is talking about" - then READ it. You would find the following:

      from Microsoft: "The Web application puts both the encrypted .mht file and the signed publishing license into a file called a compound file. This file, which has an .rmh file extension, is used by the Rights Management Add-on for Internet Explorer to permit viewing of RMS-protected content in Internet Explorer. For more information, see Compound Files. You can use your own format if you are not using the add-on."
    • Whhaaaaa?

      You have to be kidding me. Automate the process... modify the system to time out or hell... create a dmz version with less thrills.

      There are lots of clever things to do in regards to something that is horrendous amounts of flux.

      Really, "This could all be solved by".... better admins.
    • MHT will be about as popular as passport.net, or whatever the hell they're calling it now. Nobody wants a web format that is totally proprietary, and no doubt will introduce some major new security hole. Not only will other browsers not support it, but MS will either not let them or charge insane royalties. This format is dead in the water as far as anyone outside of Redmond is concerned.

  • Why accept document in MHT? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zangief ( 461457 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:37AM (#10502690) Homepage Journal
    If the judge demands that the documentation for Microsoft APIs is open an available for everyone, how is delivering said documentation in a form that only IE can read, meeting the judge demands?

    • Why Microsoft is above the law (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 0x0d0a ( 568518 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:41AM (#10502730) Journal
      The current government is a

      1) Republican administration

      2) To which Microsoft was the third largest corporate donor.

      This means that things like Department of Justice orders from *previous* administrations don't count.
      • The current government is a

        1) Republican administration
        2) To which Microsoft was the third largest corporate donor.

        This means that things like Department of Justice orders from *previous* administrations don't count.

        I don't like the DoJ's soft-on-microsoft attitude either.

        But would you prefer it if a Democratic administration couldn't decide to soft-pedal decisions made by, say, the appointees of Bush's administration?

        You know they will. They always have.

        Sauce for the goose IS sauce for the gander.
        • But would you prefer it if a Democratic administration couldn't decide to soft-pedal decisions made by, say, the appointees of Bush's administration?

          It's not quite the same. The Republicans have stronger ties to big business.

          Granted, the Dems have their own set of sources of bribes, like lawyers and the labor unions....

      • Re:Why Microsoft is above the law (Score:4, Insightful)

        by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:56AM (#10503863)
        "This means that things like Department of Justice orders from *previous* administrations don't count."

        Kind of makes a mockery of the word "justice" doesn't it? When Justice depends on who is in office then the dept of justice is nothing but orwellian doublespeak.

        Please people make it a point to re-read 1984 before the election.
    • Rename *.mht to *.msg and open it in any mailreader of your choice. Enlightened? Really guys, the followup on this article makes us - free-software-compatible-guys - all look like a bunch of clueless idiots. Sad.

  • The reason is simple... (Score:5, Informative)

    by reynaert ( 264437 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:43AM (#10502743)
    Microsoft's policy is that all downloadable documents and specifications etc. should be signed, so you can verify that the document hasn't been tampered with. Usually they implement that by embedding a word document in an (signed) Windows executable. MHT seems to be an improvement.
    • Well, based on the description in the link labelled 'read' in the article, it isn't much of an improvement.

      I don't see why they need to be encrypted to be signed, that's overkill. Just supply them in a .ZIP file with a document file and a PKCS signature file for the document. Provide a quick downloadable program that can verify them under windows; people using other OS's should be able to figure out a way of verifying them with the tools they have available easily enough.

    • Re:The reason is simple... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pdc ( 19855 ) * on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:30AM (#10503146) Homepage
      If it is tampering they want to prevent, they could publish the SHA(1) digest of the files, or sign the MHTML documents with PGP or GPG.

      An even simpler(*) solution would be to write documents in plain text, and sign that. An approach that has been used on Usenet for ... how many years now?

      -- Damian

      (*) Simpler from a technological point of view. Not simpler to apply for people unaware of the distinction between Microsoft Word documents and plain text and ignorant of existing digital-signature conventions.

  • no chance..... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by zogger ( 617870 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:44AM (#10502756) Homepage Journal
    ...that they would get a contempt of court citation, but they deserve it.

    None of this corporate nonsense will end, and it will continue to get worse and worse, until the law is readjusted to reflect that only named individual human beings have personal rights. Corporations avoid a lot of "guilt" by hiding behind the artificial person legal construct. It's beyond loony, was insane when it was aquired, now it's out of control and has lead to defacto fascism, let's call it what it is.

    And I blame the law/justice/court system just as much in this mess as the corporations.

    "Microsoft" should have never gone to trial, it should have been named humans, completely responsible for their decisions.

    Here's a thought, a mass protest by millions of people having a nationwide "incorporation day", flood the system with incorporation papers and lawsuits, a tidal wave of paperwork shuffling, patent applications, copyright registrations, and so on and so forth. Get every human to be part of their own friends and family corporation, watch the system grind to a halt, THEN maybe we'll get some change. Take every single tax break corporations get, fill out the paperwork. Why should they get all the tax break perks, and avoid personal responsibility? Sue the pants off of every large existing corporation out there, find little picyaune laws you can use. Patent everything possible, no matter how obscure. Challenge "no warranty" EULAS in small claims court all over. Serve every PHB out there with papers detailing your employment status, make them sign off to you on every single decision. They balk, sue em. Hand your own puchase contract to every shopkeeper out there when you go to buy something, demand they sign it for the sale.

    They want stupid, inane, ridiculous, society choking crap busywork and laws I say give it to 'em!

    Completely drown them in their own corporate/governmental/so called "legal system" paperwork BS.....

  • Free Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ProppaT ( 557551 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:45AM (#10502762) Homepage
    If MS has to provide freely available documentation, and the documentation they provide is only accessable using IE....doesn't this mean that MS should provide me with a free Windows license if I choose to develop my Windows software on a Linux workstation? :)
    • It means they should make ie cross platform. Think of all of the wonderful viri you could have! Actually, if they were to ever revive IE for unix, it might just kill mozilla. IF you were a big enterprise trying to switch over to linux and had the option of keeping IE installed for those custom enteprise web solutions you'd do it in a heart beat. I think it would be even cooler if microsoft released it for linux, but not for free. Just make the browser cost ~ $100 and they'd make up for the lack of the wind

  • yeahhhhh... (Score:3, Funny)

    by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:52AM (#10502820)
    we're gonna need you to go ahead and implement everything in MHT. So if you could just go ahead and get the docs on how to read MHT docs... they're on our web site in MHT format... yeahhhh - that'd be great. And we'll need the TPS reports by the fall, too.
  • They aren't required to make anything "freely" available. They just have to make their documentation available under licensing terms. A few companies have already joined the company (like NetApp). NetApp gave a talk about it at the CIFS 2004 [cifs2004.org] conference. Basically, the documentation they provided was incompletely, incorrect, and provided less info than they already knew. However, they did work with NetApp to improve the documentation. I'm not sure what this article is referring to though. This progam

  • Thanks, Richard (Score:4, Funny)

    by orbitor ( 166566 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:55AM (#10502847)
    From the linked document:
    You can use the RMS SDK to build a shared document library that can protect and deliver RMS-protected documents on demand.

    I was unaware that Mr. Stallman had contributed such a thing to Microsoft. Funny that I couldn't find a link at gnu.org.

    • Re:Thanks, Richard (Score:4, Funny)

      by Gorath99 ( 746654 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:04AM (#10502917)
      From the linked document:

      You can use the RMS SDK to build a shared document library that can protect and deliver RMS-protected documents on demand.

      I was unaware that Mr. Stallman had contributed such a thing to Microsoft. Funny that I couldn't find a link at gnu.org.

      No, no. You misunderstand. They mean protected FROM Mr. Stallman. After all, he won't touch MSIE.

  • A prior article says it best (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:56AM (#10502856) Homepage
    The antitrust suit from burst.com or whoever they are and the article recently mentioned pretty-much says it all with regards to Microsoft tactics.

    They are like children always trying to slither and wriggle their way out of things. It's disgusting and dishonorable. What's worse is that the court system seems to tollerate it all too often. I'm not a lawyer which is probably why I have a pretty clear picture of "right and wrong" in this.

    Basically, the court ordered them to do something and they failed to comply. The court should take action and not accept excuses. Freely available is freely available -- locking it down through format is not freely available and NOT what the court intended.
  • Just the other day I was wondering if FireFox, or another Mozilla system would support this file format. The basic premise is it take an entire web page (including exteral resources such as images, CSS, javascript, etc) and puts it in one file. You can open these files in a text editor and see they represent a multipart, plain text document. So MS's reasoning for doing this is to make them a little friendlier to download, although only viewable on IE. No encryption or compression that I saw.

    That said,
  • Gatescorp can't find a way to translate them to HTML.

  • They're doing this because... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jenns ( 571323 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:04AM (#10502922) Journal
    They're doing this because Donna Payne from Payne Consulting Group [payneconsulting.com] gave a talk at Microsoft in which she downloaded some Word files from their website and showed them the network shares and tracked changes that showed up in the metadata of the document.

    I saw that metadata and I must admit that seeing the last 10 authors, the fact that MS folks had crashed no less than 2 times in the document itself, and seeing the revealed tracked changes that showed up again as a result of the corrupting document was a real hoot. Apparently the folks at Microsoft were somewhat horrified...

  • best part is though (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sydres ( 656690 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:11AM (#10502979)
    Microsoft will make themselves look good by saying they are doing it for the customer. the people that don't know will sing their praises

  • Better target than Fairplay (Score:3, Insightful)

    by amichalo ( 132545 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:25AM (#10503113)
    So why don't these fools who are trying to hack [slashdot.org] Fairplay [slashdot.org] do something useful in the fight against unreasonable DRM and turn their attention towards MHT.

  • What about Microsoft Press? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Proudrooster ( 580120 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:34AM (#10503174) Homepage
    Doesn't Microsoft own a publishing company called, "Microsoft Press"? [microsoft.com] MS seems to be able to produce large books (hat usually sit in shrinkwrap boxes and are typically found in the Windows administrator's cube. Maybe MS could take a small break from printing books nobody reads to printing books required as part an important anti-trust settlement.

    They should be thankful that I am not the judge in this case. When a company has a technical publishing department and can't provide timely techical documentation then that is CONTEMPT!

  • How to enforce settlement (Score:3, Interesting)

    by harvey the nerd ( 582806 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:06AM (#10503439)
    You WILL produce following documentation by (30days) or the following MS officers will report to jail for contempt of court... What part of 30 minutes would be necessary if capital punishment were involved?

  • Lemonaide making (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tom3118 ( 790479 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:08AM (#10503453)
    You've got to give them some credit for the creatively sinister solutions they come up with. This reminds me of "Microsoft Would Settle For The Children." [slashdot.org]

    If only they put so much innovation into their software...

  • Signs of things to come? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hcob$ ( 766699 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:12AM (#10503486)
    I believe this is probably the first shot over the bow... so to speak. I see this, and other M$oft tactics, as a sign that they are getting ready to use the DMCA (and hopefully the IDUCE act if it *GASP* get's passed) to bully the wayward explorers that have moved away from them to the Open Source Initiative. They will end up wrapping EVERY file that is created through their programs in some for of DRM/File Encryption so that they can sue the pants of anyone who writes an import program, like Open Office and all the other Office "Compatible" suites. I think this is a step in the wrong direction that needs to be stopped before Microsoft has the right to deny the CIA or the President the right to view a document simply because it was created by Microsoft Word and they want to view it in open office.

    The really scarry part... All the above coupled with "Trusted Computing" and you no longer own anything you create, you no longer own a "lifetime" license to the software you purchased, hell you don't even really OWN your hardware at that point............

    And people wonder why geeks view M$oft as such a bad company. It's a perfect example of the damage that can be done by an entity that has a monopoly on the system.

  • I give it 3 minutes online (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @10:35AM (#10503688) Homepage Journal
    Before someone posts unencrypted non-DRMed versions somewhere on the net. Which will prove once again that no matter how much money and effort you put into your DRM engineering, all it takes is one wise-ass kid from Sweden to defeat it.

    I suspect that Microsoft has already done the engineering and is just trying to figure out how to spin the egg they'll get on their face when this happens. I'm sure the word "terrorists" will somehow be involved.

  • When the court records to be produced (Score:3, Interesting)

    by karlandtanya ( 601084 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @11:25AM (#10504128)
    Who controls those records?


    Do I get to dictate the terms under which I satisfy the court's orders?


    Logic (not that logic has anything to do with our legal system) would suggest that if the court orders me to produce records, the court, not I now controls the records.


    In the past, producing the records in one format or other would seem to satisfy the requirements of the court--the court now has the records, and I do not control them.


    However, if I attempt to satisfy the court's order by producing records in a DRM format--one in which I control the use of the records--I have explicitly said "I, not the court, control those records."


    Doesn't sound like I've produced much of anything at that point.


    Is there a lawyer in the house?

  • What needs to be done (Score:3, Interesting)

    by randall_burns ( 108052 ) <randall_burns@@@hotmail...com> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @12:01PM (#10504489)
    Microsoft was created largely by some changes in IP law that created a niche for a software monopoly.

    Containing that would be simple:
    Require that all software for which the developer
    wants IP protection have source code escrowed that would go into the public domain after some finite time(say 5-10 years).

    Use Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce to move taxes from the broad public onto companies that have a measurable degree of monopoly power.

    Now this isn't being done because congress is intent on selling their offices to the highest bidder.

  • Why is anyone surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by feloneous cat ( 564318 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @12:22PM (#10504722)
    Gates has always said that there isn't any judgement that he won't ignore (okay, so not the exact quote, but it is the intent).

    Why is anyone surprised by MS actions?

    The crock is that the law only applies to those who can't afford to get out of it. For Gates and such, laws are only inconveniences.

  • mod me down for growsing but this was a story (Score:4, Informative)

    by museumpeace ( 735109 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @01:54PM (#10505834) Journal
    on AP back on the 9th and in more obscure places like Hiese.de and North Country times:
    2004.10.10: "Feds knock Microsoft footdragging disclosure"
    North Country Times [nctimes.com], reported Friday that the Justice Department and the states that brought the anti-trust action against Microsoft [nctimes.com] are now complaining that: "... the company's current plan "significantly limits the practical usability" of the information Microsoft was compelled to reveal to its competitors." The basis of the complaint is that Microsoft plans to issue the information in the MHT format which is proprietary to Microsoft and only readable via a Microsoft browser. This story was not widely carried and I actually ran across it in heise.de [altavista.com] while struggling with the fishy translation of the German story on plans impose user fees on PCs hooked to the internet.

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Close