Microsoft Offers to License the Internet 463
NW writes "According to an eWeek story Microsoft is beginning to assert IP rights over 130 protocols including many basic Internet protocols including TCP/IP, DNS, etc. The story originates with a mailing list post to the IETF's IPR list."
Like most other IP battles... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Like most other IP battles... (Score:5, Funny)
FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
This is clearly, yet again, a story that is more about MSFT bashing than about anything real.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
If they don't claim to own or control it, why are they licensing it?
One stop indemnification? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One stop indemnification? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FUD (Score:4, Insightful)
Signing your soul (well, protocol-soul) over is probably the only supported way to get your software to work with Microsoft's.
This might be another fear-of-free-software; if they can change how all Windows developers and other commercial developers implement protocols, free software will break unless free software developers sign up with Microsoft (and, I haven't read the whole license, but it's quite likely that the license is designed to be non-GPL-compatible in some way).
Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Not just FUD, but also lock-in. Please see the warning at the Samba Development [samba.org] page: In order to avoid any potential licensing issues we also ask that anyone who has signed the Microsoft CIFS Royalty Free Agreement not submit patches to Samba, nor base patches on the referenced specification.
Anyone who voluntarily licenses, for example, eating fish, must then abide by the fish-eating license (:-))
--dave
Re:FUD (Score:4, Informative)
SMB is entirely different from the basic protocols of the internet. Samba was not in the best legal situation to begin with, before MSFT came out with this licencing scheme. You can hardly equate SMB with TCP/IP.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)
-- dave
Re:FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Huh? The only protocol mentioned in what you quoted was CIFS, which is MS's new name for the revised specification of SMB that supports the funky new features of Win2K et al, and which is implemented in samba. That wasn't about 'other' protocols, it's about SMB/CIFS and Microsoft's NDAs, purely and simply.
Re:FUD (Score:3)
I think the GGP (great grand parent) was refering to the legal issues of signing a licensing agreement with M$ that the Samba team raised, not the specific protocols. If you sign a licensing agreement with M$, there may be legal liabilities that come with any patches you create involving ANY of the protocols covered by said licensing agreement.
This whole licensing scheme may simply be a submarine attack on OSS. Shrink the pool of avai
Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Samba implements a protocol which was analyzed "off the wire", and so is not legally encumbered by a license. They wish to stay that way.
Which protocol? Every protocol.
--dave
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
This is clearly, yet again, a story that is more about MSFT bashing than about anything real.
However a follow up to TFA states:
Keep in mind that even though th
Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not saying anybody should licence TCP/IP from MSFT. Far from it. MSFT clearly has no legitimate claims on ipv4, because the patents would have expired by now anyway, as TFA very clearly states. (Well, that, and MS Windows' ip stack was basically ripped out of BSD.)
If your lawyers have reviewed any possible claims MSFT has on a given protocol and determine that there are no valid ones, then there is no reason to licence it from MSFT at all. If MSFT does have a valid claim, then this licence is probably the best you're going to get out of them for free. If you want more, you'll have to licence it the normal way, which involves spending some dough.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the license, you would've seen this:
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."
In other words, "We don't own or have any legal rights over any of this stuff. We're, instead, pointing you to the public domain."
If anything, the license is a complete absolution of any legal rights, and is instead a classification method. MS management probably asked "where does public domain stuff fit into our licensing schemes" (since everything at MS is licensed). The lawyers turned around and said "Nowhere." "Well, write a 'license' anyway, even if it doesn't do anything." If it was ever brought up and court, opponents could actually use the thing against MS and say "look, you absolved any possible legal ownership over these". If nothing else, this "license" is a good thing.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Informative)
Oh? I suppose that's the reason the grandparent post is modded informative... Everybody knows mods don't mod people informative who actually RTFA. (Hint: mods aren't always on crack... they have to come down some time.)
I would ha
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL! You appear to have the peculiar notion that Microsoft's "ROYALTY FREE LICENCES" mean you are free to use them. No. They say you may use them at no cost under certain restrictive conditions. And Microsoft oftent specifically tailors those conditions to prohibit many uses - and in particular to prohibit GPL use.
You can get your ass sued off for usi
Re:FUD (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know what - if anything - this licence actually covers, but to the extent that it covers ANYTHING it is extremely bad.
-
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
How does one license that which one does not control or own? This is like a car manufacturer licensing the ability drive on the road.
Terminate your licence to use Appletalk? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not within Microsofts power to do that - so why is this document not considered fraud?
Also, MS offers no form of warranty and accepts no liability, so this licence is completely worthless in any case.
Re:FUD (Score:5, Insightful)
"So what?", you may say.
Well...
The Recitals (which is the part of a license agreement that amongst other things lays out what property the licenser owns and is willing to license) declares that the licensee wants to license these protocols "under any applicable intellectual property rights that Microsoft may have"
But...
There is no conceivable scenario in which Microsoft could have any rights to TCP/IP whatsoever.
So why is it included in the agreement?
This would be like my company, whose products use XML parsers, licensing the XML standard to our users. It would be bizzare on the face of it, and such a contract would be in my view very poorly written. Good contracts contain just what they need to contain, and nothing more. Microsoft's lawyers probably know this.
So why exactly did they invest the effort into creating such an extensive list?
This story is not about Microsoft bashing. It is about a very strange license from a very powerful company, which should give us all pause.
--Tom
Re:FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there is some reasonable assumption that if you are selling something that you have something to sell, that if you are licensing something that you have something to license.
That would imply that MSFT owns or controls what it is licencing.
I think that is the normal assumption that whoever is licensing something owns or controls what they are licensing. Licensing something that belongs to somebody else seems rather fra
Re:FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that we don't need a license to use them, and by signing up to the license we are locked into something.
This looks very much like someone saying "Sign my free license and you will be able to use your own bank cards", which you can do now, but the license says you can only use money obtained through the bank card to buy Microsoft products. Why would anyone take that license?
This sounds very much like a bad scam. It's not clear what the purpose of it is or why Microsoft is doing this. It doesn't appear to give you anything you don't already have. (And yes, I RTFA.)
Re:FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Methinks this was just a way of classification within Microsoft. Someone in management asked "What kind of license do we give out for the public domain stuff we use?" (because EVERYTHING at MS is license; if you use the bathroom, you're licensed to do so). The lawyers looked, saw that they didn't own any of it, and put together a faux "license" that basically says "We don't own any of it, even though it's in our product."
If you read through the license, it basically exercises no legal rights at all. It's a pointer, in essense, to the public domain. If this was ever brought up in a court, the opponents could basically point to the thing and say "MS, you absolved all potential 'rights' with this 'license'." If nothing else, this "license" is a good thing, because MS is basically backing off with it's hands in the air.
Re:FUD (Score:3, Informative)
If You want a license from Microsoft to implement one or more Protocol(s) [] sign and return this Agreement AS IS to Microsoft at the address shown
You must SIGN it and submit it.
no "legal binding"
This is a legal agreement ("Agreement") between the individual or entity identified and signing below ("You" or "Licensee"), and Microsoft Corporation
Legal agreements are binding.
the public domain stuff
the lawyers looked, saw that they didn't own any of it
Licensee desires a licen
Re:FUD (Score:3, Funny)
Re:FUD (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a question then: how would their copyrighted feature with strings attached get into mainstream TCP/IP implementations? How can they now say they want money? It's like someone saying "Hey, I tell you how to make better paper
Re:Like most other IP battles... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Like most other IP battles... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft would never do anything like this unless they firmly believed that they had an ace up their sleeve that they could later use to crush anyone who got in the way of their grand vision of One World, One Operating System, One Vendor.
Finally... if you actually believe that you can win in a court of law against Microsoft just because you're right... you've got another thing coming. Justice is a myth. Most court battles are won by the party who outspends their opponent... and Microsoft can outspend just about everybody.
Before the M$ Bashing Begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before the M$ Bashing Begins (Score:4, Informative)
Packet forwarding have nothing to do with TCP. It happens in the IP layer, the efficiency is obviously also to some extent affected by the lower layer protocols. But not the higher layers like TCP. But mostly efficiency of forwarding is an implementation issue, and not a property of the actual protocol.
To make things even worse a new term was invented to confuse people, and it is also called IP. Since this term covers a nonexisting concept it is in our best interrest not to use it. IP means Internet Protocol, any other use of that abreviation should be avoided. Unfortunately a lot people errornously use the term TCP/IP about the Internet Protocol.
Some confusion can be avoided by actually specifying the version number as well and say IPv4 or IPv6 rather than just IP. But for god's sake, make sure you use the right terms, or you will just cause even more confusion.
Re:Before the M$ Bashing Begins (Score:3, Informative)
Pick any short acronoym and you'll find multiple meanings, like three common ones for IP. We all just have to make sure that we are not too lazy to put them in context or to spell each one out at least once in any sort of professional communication.
Re:Before the M$ Bashing Begins (Score:4, Informative)
- To make things even worse a new term was invented to confuse people, and it is also called IP.
it was in reference to the term "Intellectual Property" which is supposed to be the body of law that covers copyright, trademark and patents. The spin of the term is intended to confuse people into thinking that property law, an entirely different set of rules, applies to those categories.It does not, and as long as we let the Intellectual Robber Barons define the debate by accepting the concept of ideas as "property" we concede to the assumption that since we're talking about "property" then it must be "ownable."
A better term, that more correctly defines the legal concept and better describes the issues is "intellectual rights." This restricts the debate to the limited rights that the law grants authors and inventors for a limited time and prevents the application of property law concepts like "ownership" and "theft" from being applied to things that they are simply not applicable to.
TCP/IP Term (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Before the M$ Bashing Begins (Score:5, Funny)
I hope you feel better now that you've clarified your opinion of the terms TCP, IP and TCP/IP to the rest of us. Boy do we feel stupid.
Good luck with semester 2.
Re:Before the M$ Bashing Begins (Score:5, Insightful)
As might efficient packet discarding algorithms, as per their listing the Discard Protocol [ietf.org] as one of the protocols you can license from them.
That strongly suggests to me, at least, that they just enumerated protocols Microsoft implements but didn't invent solely by themselves (or didn't invent at all), and threw them into the list, perhaps on the theory that it's better that other organizations and individuals spend time figuring out what stuff might be covered by patents owned by Microsoft than that they spend time figuring out what public protocols actually are covered, in part or in whole, by some Microsoft patent.
Re:Before the M$ Bashing Begins (Score:5, Funny)
you're saying there's no innovation to be had in the discard protocol? the lazy unix programmer would just take his echo protocol implementation and redirect output to
microsoft doesn't do things like that. they planned ahead. what if you want to tunnel discard over an ipsec tunnel of ipv6? what if you wanted to implement discard via remote method invocation using xml with soap? what if you wanted every application you write to have access to the discard protocol as simply as instantiating an object?
that's why they created the microsoft abstract discard server (ms discard). the ms discard library provides you with an abstract implementation of a general discard server, as well as a fully functional discard client. the discard server is fully input-neutral, and can accept data from many common stream formats. have you ever wanted to run a discard server against a relational database query? probably not. but now you can! this is done easily by using the odbc discard data source bridge (or if you need speed over portability, oci). virtually any data source can be discarded in a clean, multithreaded, scalable fashion. discard is now available enterprise-wide over ldap. do your discard servers need load balancing and failover redundancy? with ms discard, you can take advantage of advanced clustering features and achieve five 9's of uptime from your discard server farm (*requires ms discard clustering server and windows 2003 advanced server pro champion edition).
in short, don't assume that just because the protocol in basic, the implementation can't be bloated and patented.
Re:Before the M$ Bashing Begins (Score:3, Funny)
What's it do during the downtime?
RedSox, Bush, MPAA (Score:5, Funny)
Perfect!
The Horsemen are drawing nearer,
On Law suits they ride,
They come to take your LIFE!
How can I pay? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How can I pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
You're not scared enough -- MS has _tonnes_ of patents in the WIMP area, which several Operating Systems use.
MSR has been filing patents left right and center, in various areas such as Graphics, AI and what not. They even have people working on areas of Information Theory in Quantum Computing and what not.
A search on Delphion [delphion.com] shows that about 7,542 patents have been registered in almost every conceivable area of computer science.
I was hoping that MS would not take this stance, but I guess this was inevitable.
Re:How can I pay? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How can I pay? (Score:5, Informative)
IBM has been doing this for decades and they are exceptionally good at this. The difference is that, at least at this point in time, they do not actively do anything with their patents - at least not beyond the point of what's necessary to keep them. They just keep filing new patents to keep their asses covered. And, in a way, they have to do that to ensure the survival of the company. Think about it: it's way cheaper to just file for and receive a patent than to challenge somebody else's patent and to try and have that invalidated (something that hardly ever happens). It also helps with ligigation. If another company is suing you, you first check your database to see if they have violated one of your patents.
And to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, check out this quote from IBM's IP & Licensing website [ibm.com]:
And, believe me, they're covering all their bases (last time, I checked they had 23k+ active patents and they have some exceptionally good lawyers). Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying IBM is the bad guy here. I like the fact that they're supporting Linux as much as the next guy. I'm not even saying what they're doing is inherently evil. I'm merely trying to point out that patents are becoming a priority issue everywhere and that it's becoming increasingly important to CYA.
Re:How can I pay? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think despite everything, IBM at the very least showcases some ethics and principles -- maybe the IBM of the days gone was indeed an Evil Corp (TM) -- but I think the IBM of today is not so evil, maybe nice even.
However, I've never felt so about Microsoft -- they've always come across as _exactly_ the kind who would do something like this. Especially given their antitrust track-record and FUD on Linux and what not. Microsoft comes across precisely as the sort of greedy company that you would expect such a lawsuit from, no matter what.
But what do I know. IBM maybe turn just as evil, when it comes to corps you can never really say. Look at Sun -- how quickly they changed sides and what they're degenerating into.
I can only hope that IBM (and Google) and a few others don't go the same way.
Re:How can I pay? (Score:3, Interesting)
I meant to say, I do not share the same sentiment about Microsoft.
I need more coffee, been up all night.
Unsafe intercourse (Score:5, Funny)
MS seems to have caught SCO disease.
Re:Unsafe intercourse (Score:5, Informative)
MS had it first, and they probably caught it from Apple -- remember when Apple were threatening to sue people (including MS) they claimed had copied the interface Apple had nicked from Xerox?
Suckers may be born every minute, but the scams stay the same. Back when the first animal evolved a mechanism to mark out a territory it opened an ecological niche for a mimic to pretend to own territory it hadn't had to work to get and hold.
Re:Unsafe intercourse (Score:3, Informative)
Apple gave Xerox a large amount of stock in exchange for those tours of PARC and many of the early Apple employees came from Xerox.
As for MS, there was a MS employee on the Office team (when it was a Mac only product) who called and asked in depth implementation questions about the Mac GUI that were irrelevant to developing Office. After stealing many of the ideas, they used the wording of a contract with Apple to make a claim (which held up in court) that they ha
Re:Unsafe intercourse (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft did copy the interface from Apple. It was a pretty blatant ripoff. Even the internal API was a direct ripoff, even down to the identical function names and the peculiar use of handles.
Go read Folklore.org [folklore.org]. In particular, read this story [folklore.org] about Microsoft employee Neil Konzen. Basically he was working on Microsoft Office for the M
QOS (Score:4, Insightful)
Intellectual Property Strikes Again! (Score:5, Interesting)
A lot of rumours... (Score:4, Informative)
As another have pointed out, they could patent IP routing algoritms, but I think most of the apocalyptic vision predicted by this story is rather unlikely to ever happen.
At least, I hope so!
No problem, use TTCPS! (Score:5, Funny)
I have already spoken to Linus T. who will be imlementing TTCPS in kernel 2.8, but I have released some modules which can be compiled into kernels 2.4 and 2.6 right now. Those of us on BSD can try the Two Steel Cans and a Piece of Cord (TSCPC) protocol but I'm not sure about compatability.
I've also received a letter from SCO's lawyers claiming that the string I used was from their own private ball and I should cease and desist. To counter this I am using twine spun by my own mother from the wool of our own sheep. I still maintain that the string I was using was just like any other piece of string and as SCO has been unable to specify what length they have missing I am not too worried.
Some geeks over at www.ttcpsgeek.org have been experimenting with High-Tensile string and have achieved remarkable increases in bandwidth - expect this to be ported back into TTCPSv2, due for release at the end of February.
Just hold on a second... (Score:3, Interesting)
For example, take the "Character Generator Protocol" http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0864.txt [ietf.org], which was posted by Mr. Postel on May 1983 without any restrictions for usage and/or modification.
And AFAIK Postel never did work for Microsoft and never sold his rights to them.
I didn't take a look at the other protocols yet, i i guess it's the same story for most, if not all, of them...
Fuck, Someone's going to be pissed (Score:5, Insightful)
I also wonder just how arrogant, dumb and just plainly disconnected from reality you have to be to start licencing protocols that Microsoft had absolutely nothing to do with, such as DNS, DHCP, TCP/IP etc.
And the microsofties on this board wonder why people refer to MS as M$ or slam the company constantly.
MS is a bunch of criminal bastards. Fuck them and may they burn in fucking hell.
Re:Fuck, Someone's going to be pissed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fuck, Someone's going to be pissed (Score:3, Interesting)
Ping (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe this is a hint as to how much actual investigative work they have put into this spectacle.
How unexpected (Score:5, Interesting)
And of course, when yet another of MS' asinine patents is discussed, the shills come out of the woodwork bleating the corporate line "Microsoft is only interested in using their IP defensively!".
I completely fail to see how this can ever be used for anything but to harass competitors. Not surprising, since this strategic direction was already outlined in a 1998 memo [opensource.org].
So this ought to shut up the MS shills for awhile (unfortunately, there is a large divide between 'ought' and 'will').
MartRe:How unexpected (Score:3, Interesting)
Didn't you read my reply [slashdot.org] the last time you insinuated [slashdot.org] that Microsoft wouldn't use patents offensively? They've tried to do so at least twice already, once successfully [advogato.org] to prevent other programs (even other Windows programs!) from using "their" patented file format, and once unsuccessfully [slashdot.org] (although that hasn't got them to take the threat off their webpage [microsoft.com] yet) to try and squeeze money from
Hold your hourses! (Score:3, Insightful)
November 5, 2004
Has Microsoft been trying to retroactively claim IP (intellectual property) rights over many of the Internet's basic protocols? Larry J. Blunk, senior engineer for networking research and development at Merit Network Inc., believes that might be the case.
[...]
I am not found of M$ like the next slashdotter, but, before 'we' start bashing M$ ... lets do it after we know the _facts_ :)
I mean,
Microsoft Offers to License the Internet
- vs
Is Microsoft Ready to Assert IP Rights over the Internet?is a big difference, that awards 'caution, biased story alert'.
Re:Hold your hourses! (Score:5, Informative)
"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."
In other words, "We don't own any of this. We use it. If you use MS software to access these protocols, here's the (extremely liberal and almost nonexistant) 'license' to do so." Nothing to see here.
not so liberal (Score:4, Insightful)
Closer look (Score:5, Informative)
Reading the FAQ, it looks more like some arcane clot of lawyers came up with this one to cover [Microsoft's|developers'] butts from ???. (can't figure out what the lawyers were trying to accomplish).
Specifically, this:
Q. I noticed a number of these protocols are available for license via other avenues - for instance, under license agreements promulgated by members of a standards setting body. If I already have rights to implement protocols (e.g., under other agreements), do I also have to sign a royalty-free license?
A. No, unless you wish to obtain rights available under the royalty-free license that are not available under other license agreements you may have.
There. They are acknowledging that you can use the protocols anyway without signing this license agreement.
Strange move, but not evil if I read things properly.
Re:Closer look (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, that's very big of them, but some of these protocols don't belong to Microsoft. For example, TCP/IP was developed before Microsoft existed. You might reasonably call this "stupid". I would also call it "evil", just as I would call a burglar evil if I caught him trying to sell (sorry, "licence") property that belonged to me. I think "strange" is understating the case.
yeah (Score:3, Interesting)
The other shoe drops (Score:3, Interesting)
It is their last resort against a better product.
It has been reported here that the man primarily responsible for "productizing" IBM's patent portfolio went to microsoft to do the same thing a couple of years ago. So far, we've seen silly little things like attempting to patent the FAT32 format on flash devices, but nothing really used as an offensive weapon.
Ironically, our best hope of defeating Microsoft in the patent arena is IBM, and to a lesser extent, Novell. Both companies have significant patent portfolios that can be used as a retaliatory threat to MS for trying to lock-out Free software with their patents. Both companies have been hurt badly enough by MS in the past, but are currently stable enough that they aren't likely to make deals either (like Sun did).
Personally, I feel that the whole idea of patent portfolios and all encompassing cross-licensing agreements is an abuse of the patent system because it locks out the little guy. But, in this particular fight we don't have a hope of achieving patent reform soon enough (if ever), so we might as well be glad that we have a few big guns on our side.
Part of DOJ settlement (Score:5, Informative)
And now they have.
From the FAQ (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?ur
Q. When I sign a royalty-free agreement for these protocols, what am I licensing?
A. The list of protocols under this license includes protocols for which documentation has been published, and that Microsoft has implemented in Windows client operating systems to interoperate with Windows server operating systems (up to and including Windows Server 2003). However, just because a protocol appears on the list does not mean that Microsoft is the owner or sole owner of rights in that protocol or its documentation. What the royalty-free license does is ensure that a license is available from Microsoft under whatever rights it may have in the published documentation and/or protocols on the list.
Re:Part of DOJ settlement (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't license what you don't own. The obvious motivation for this long list is to allow MS to claim ownership at some future date when President Jeb Bush lifts even the pathetic restrictions of the DoJ case. They know that many small companies (and that's most when compared to MS) will simply fold and pay up rather than face being ground down in court for 10 years arguing the point.
TWW
Re:Part of DOJ settlement (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Part of DOJ settlement (confusing) (Score:5, Insightful)
Of what use is this license to the ordinary Joe? If MS terminates the license after 30 days, then what? Does Joe have to re-license the use of all 130 protocols elsewhere? And is Joe aware that there may be rights that are no longer valid making him have only partial rights to documentation and protocols? And, under the terms of the license, no improvement to the protocols is allowed either even if MS has no rights in that particular protocol.
Perhaps MS should have named it a
Re:Part of DOJ settlement (Score:4, Interesting)
Although I had assumed it was illegal to claim you could license something you don't own. Or maybe MS is licensing "their" version of the protocol. Like Kerberos. Their version isn't standard at all...
The Real Problem (Score:5, Informative)
Second off, before everyone starts ripping on evil corporations and patents... let's not forget that the evil Government creates the environment that breeds bacterial scum like SCO.
In other words, engage in some activism. Help out the EFF [eff.org], fight software patents in Europe, do whatever it takes to stop this problem at the source: Evil Government...
In other news ... (Score:3, Informative)
Rich.
Microsoft didn't even notice the internet (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Microsoft didn't even notice the internet (Score:4, Informative)
In short, MS did know about the Internet but since they hate "not invented/stolen here" they tried to ignore it as long as possible.
Pay Attention, Kids (Score:4, Interesting)
This is exactly how the real world works. The worlds of politics, business, law, promotions, even employment interviews, are based on recruiting your support for agreements which can't be negotiated.
Wasn't this how BIll managed to get Microsoft's ownership of an early version of DOS for a minimal amount of money? I'd heard he got someone else to enter an agreement which recognized it as owned by Microsoft, but he hadn't actually paid anyone else that contributed to writing it (yet).
Well, and all the poor German children around the 1940s. They thought it was like playing mountaineer when they got to join Boy Scouts (or whatever the German equivalent is).
This is silly. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is clear to anyone who reads the license itself (or, if you perfer english, the FAQ [microsoft.com]) that Microsoft is not trying to claim IP ownership over *any* of the protocols listed in the license. They specifically and clearly say this a number of times in both documents.
However, that doesn't mean this is totally benign. It is classic M$ policy to require the user to license technology from them whether they plan to profit from it, or restrict usage or not; it is better, on their view, to have consumers using their technologies under only a nominal license (the terms of which may be changed later, if need be) than under no license at all. Given that M$ clearly doesn't *know* what protocols they have what rights over, it may be that they're distributing a catch-all license, in the hopes of figuring out what their rights are later and locking them down.
However, as IANAL, this raises the question of whether such a hypothetical license is binding...can you ask a user to sign a license under an IP right that neither party can identify, and that may not even exist? Given that it doesnt even specifiy what it is that the user is licensing (it only effectively says what it relates to)...can this even be considered a real license?
What MS is... (Score:3, Insightful)
In their marketing they lie, they mislead, they present an illusion of their being something they are not, innovators. They use the law to manipulate others in the industry thru licensings and such agreements.
Numerious times they have been found guilty in a court of law for anti-trust violations and they general response is that such fines are part of the cost of doing business, as is the case of organized crime.
So when issues such as this article refers to comes up....
Facts?...... you want what?
OK!!
MS operates on illusion and their ability to fabricated it, if even just thru insinuation. And unfortunately, the public typically falls for it.
Is that fact enough for you all?
Licensing the internet is a good summary of what the general public would preceive of this, and MS knows it, and that is why they are doing it.
DUH!
paint me as a troll but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is the BSD licensing such a good thing after all? It's a license to leech -- a license to embrace and extend -- to take that which is ubiquitous and to own it.
I haven't read the article yet but when I read through the comments here, I get a pretty good feel for what others have read. And while Microsoft might have added tweaks to existing code, I don't think it would have been possible for them to make it happen with existing BSD licensed code for them to start off with. I've long thought it was a bad thing and now I see a pretty clear example of what I consider an abuse of it.
Re:paint me as a troll but... (Score:3, Informative)
Where's the indemnification clause? (Score:4, Informative)
2. Enhancements and Updates
Other than any updates that Microsoft may publish at the URL location(s) for the Protocol(s) listed in Exhibit A, no other Microsoft enhancements or updates to Protocols and/or Technical Documentation are licensed under this Agreement. In the event Microsoft elects to make other such Microsoft enhancements or updates available, such enhancements or updates will only be licensed by Microsoft under a separate written agreement.
3. Licenses
3.1 Copyright License. To the extent Microsoft has copyrights in the Technical Documentation for the Licensed Protocols , Microsoft hereby grants You a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, personal, worldwide license to make a reasonable number of complete copies of that Technical Documentation solely for use in developing Licensed Implementation(s).
3.2 Patent License. To the extent Microsoft has Necessary Claims, Microsoft hereby grants You a nonexclusive, royalty-free, non-sublicenseable, personal, worldwide license under those Necessary Claims to use the Technical Documentation for the Licensed Protocols to:
So in English, Microsoft is not claiming ownership of anything. They are just saying that they may or may not own something but you can license it from them anyway.
Additionally, this license offers no indemnifaction. Even if you license the 130 protocols listed from Microsoft, if there is a legal challenge on a patent, Microsoft isn't going to protect you (according this this agreement).
My last point is this does not cover Microsoft extensions or as them call them "updates" to protocols. Does this mean you are licensing whatever is in the public RFC from Microsoft and their version of the technical documentation?
It's all so strange.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
License is not benign. (Score:4, Insightful)
The license contains some interesting clauses. For example:
Here we have an obligation for licensee to license their implementation of the protocol and require third parties to enforce the license as well. This obligation exists even if M$ has no right to the protocol in the first place.Another funny clause:
Yes M$ admits they might not have a patent, but they don't tell you if they have one or not. So read clause a). It says you can distribute the licensed protocol only as a Licensed Implementation. Do you take the chance and distribute an open source implementation? If M$ happens to have a patent afterall, you are in violation. You may have good chance to challenge the patent and invalidate it, but then you are up for a trial and the contract may be found enforceable for the time period before the patent is invaludated. What would the company lawyer advice? What a PHB will decide? This is called chilling effect.Now look at clause b). As a licensee you are required to tell the world that M$ has rights to the protocol, even if it might not be the case.
It's just a marketing scheme.... can't you see? (Score:3, Interesting)
"Microsoft, at its option, may list You as a licensee on a website or in other public communications."
So in other words, they will put out a newsletter at some point that looks a something like this:
"Microsoft customers see value in Intellectual Property rights, unlike those Communist Linux Bastards. The Microsoft Protocol Bullshit License has been signed by JoeBobCompany because they know that being protected is important in these times of questionable patent and license issues that our legal department is causing."
Laches and Equitable Estoppel? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.legal-definitions.com/equitable-esto
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/l056.htm
http:
I wouldn't be surprised if... (Score:4, Interesting)
...this license is referenced in the EULA for the next version of Windows, whether XP2 or Longhorn (or sooner in the next versions of various network enabled products, like MSN messenger). End user and PHB ignorance is they only way this scheme can work, and MS knows it.
Microsoft is essentially trying to do to the internet what SCO is trying to do to linux.
This license basically amounts to intent to defraud.
I hope I can laugh ... (Score:4, Funny)
SCO doesn't have a deeeeeeeep pocket, MS does !
SCO doesn't have a huuuuugggeee influence over Uncle Sam, MS does !!
In fact, MS is more powerful than
MPAA, RIAA and RedSox combined !
Re:MS & TCP/IP (Score:4, Informative)
As one of the first followups states, however:
"Keep in mind that even though the core protocols haven't changed that
much, actual TCP/IP deployments have drastically changed since the
early 80s. Efficient packet forwarding algorithms (which are
necessary in Gigabit networks and beyond) are certainly subject to
patents today."
There is nothing to stop Microsoft (or IBM or anyone else for that matter) developing such algorithms and patenting them. Before you all go off on your anti-Microsoft tirades, please make sure you have all the facts and not just conjecture!
Re:MS & TCP/IP (Score:5, Funny)
- TCP/IP Take Court Proceedings over Intellectual Property;
- DNS Darl's Not Sinister;
- DHCP Devise Hazardous Corporate Patents;
- LPD Lawyers Paid Double; and, finally
- RIP Our IP
That said, I've never found any alternate uses for NetBIOS over TCP/IP. Or UPnP.Re:MS & TCP/IP (Score:3, Funny)
NetBIOS over TCP/IP
Normally Evil Twat Ballmer Is On Side over Taking Court Proceedings over Intellectual Property.
Re:insane (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:insane (Score:3, Insightful)
" Lawrence Rosen, a partner in the law firm Rosenlaw & Einschlag and author..."
and
"Glenn Peterson, an IP attorney and shareholder with Sacramento-based law firm McDonough Holland & Allen..."
which I'ld say is more than one, more than just "this guy's opinion" and pretty good research for a short magazine article. Since it seems you didn't RTA, these two experts disagree with your assessment.
Re:Al Gore (Score:5, Funny)
But I thought AL Gore invented the Internet?
Oh, come on. That joke hasn't been funny for 4 years. Maybe you could think of something new?
Re:Al Gore (Score:5, Informative)
The most recent IEEE Spectrum (Nov. 2004) has an article about their success in predicting technology over the past 40 years (it's their 40th anniversary issue).
The 1989 entry (pg. 79) is The Internet. The text:
At that time, 56K was sufficient for research; those home users who existed were getting by with 300 to 1440 Baud. (Even today, many users still survive on dial-up.) Of course, someone would have gotten the idea to fund a high speed network for commercial use. However, it almost certainly wouldn't look like the one that got funded for educational and research use, though. Necessarily so, it would have been immediately organized to generate an ROI for the investors who paid for it. Who knows? Maybe SPAM would have been called: COMMERCIAL CONTENT?
Gore's contribution wasn't technical, but if you've been paying attention you'll know that the technical problems are almost always the easiest to solve. The Internet as we know it today wouldn't exist without high bandwidth, inexpensive data pipes, and Mr. Gore generated the cash to have those built. I think he deserves a little credit for the significance of the contribution he made.
Re:Al Gore (Score:4, Funny)
He did, but apparently there was some debate over the matter. Some of the invention forms were incorrectly postmarked, others had pieces missing out of them, and still others claimed that Pat Buchanan invented the Internet. There was a big spectacle, but a Supreme Court decision called a halt to the deliberations and awarded creation of the Internet to Microsoft.
Re:Righteous Indignation (a.k.a. The US Was First) (Score:3, Insightful)
TCP/IP? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How is this possible? (Score:3, Insightful)
Second is that most small company would just settle and avoid the legal battle.
That's the threat. Not that Microsoft has a claim on TCP/IP protocol, but the threat that they actually