Posted by
CmdrTaco
on from the you-gotta-be-kidding-me dept.
Lionfire writes "Recently, Microsoft aquired a patent for a "Method and system for installing and updating program module components"." Read the description and replace a few key words, and you have a very nice description of *cough* Debian's apt. Neat!
My site has this kinda hack... www.nul.cjb.net, anyways best way to do this is img src=file://c:|nul/nul there when netscape/IE try to open c:\nul\nul for that picture.....BSOD here it is.....and it's not only nul..these are the ones i remember: nul aux con so u can have nul/con con/nul aux/nul etc.etc.
I can see it now. Microsoft execs running for their lives from an army of GNU Freedom Fighters! If they got the patent and it was enforced me thinks that Micros~1 would not be in business anymore:)
Bill Gates: Please Tux! I didnt mean to file the patent and bribe the patent office. This is a total misunderstanding!
Tux: Muwahahahahahahahahah
(Tux rips Billy's head off by throwing a stack of Linux CDs)
--
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
This isn't just a patent on Packaging, as/. would have everyone believe. Well, maybe it is, because I'm not familiar with Debian packages, but from what I know of RPM's they're not at all what was described in the patent.
For anyone here who's used it (admit it:), what that patent describes is Windows 98's "Critical Notification Update" utility, a program that checks the versions of your software, compares it against what's on Microsofts server, asks if you want to download it, and then if you say so, downloads and installs the appropriate updates.
I'm now reading the FAQ's at Debian's website, and again, this seems to be nothing like what Microsoft patented. Not like Microsoft's patent is an "innovation" worth of a patent (being that software is now commonly distributed via the internet, updates would be too, one would reason), but it's really fanning the flames by saying it's just a package management sytem... Perhaps there could be a little rudimentary fact checking around here?
your absolutely right. The patent office is f*cked up. Patenting "one click" for amazon, and this for Micros~1. Uggh. how ridiculous. OK Everyone, start filing patent apps. Patent everything, from your own variation on peanut butter sandwhiches, to the method you use to choke your chicken. Maybe if we flood them with millions and millions of BS patents they will wake up and get some common sense.
In the meantime, you may be able to sue someone for using your Patented KY twist with the right, pat the top with the left technique !!
> For anyone here who's used it (admit it:), what > that patent describes is Windows 98's "Critical > Notification Update" utility, a program that > checks the versions of your software, compares > it against what's on Microsofts server, asks if > you want to download it, and then if you say so, > downloads and installs the appropriate updates.
Which is almost exactly what apt does.
apt gets th elatest package list, checks it against whats on your system, and downloads all the needed packes and installs them. (well 1 of apts modes of operation does that, it also allows you to install or upgrade individual packages, if you want. It will download the package you told it about and all its dependancies )
-- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
For anyone here who's used it (admit it:), what that patent describes is Windows 98's "Critical Notification Update" utility, a program that checks the versions of your software, compares it against what's on Microsofts server, asks if you want to download it, and then if you say so, downloads and installs the appropriate updates.
You don't know how Debian works?? Poor guy, you are so deprived. This is exactly what APT does under Debian. It checks a list of currently available packages, compares that to the packages you have installed, and asks you if you want to apply any updates. It is a GREAT way to upgrade from an old debian version to the latest.. or just to keep up to date with the current release.
Actually, APT goes one step furthur. You can use apt to install NEW packages. For example, a command like "apt-get install squid" will download squid, all of it dependancies, and install it for you. You will NOT be disappointed by the shear magnitude of applications available for debian. The current (or soon to be released) is 2 CDs worth of binaries.
On the subject of the patent, I don't know the legality of it, but I am sure the Debian community can show that they have been doing this for some time now. I don't know that MS could ask that we get rid of APT.
-matthew
-- "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
apt gets the latest package list, checks it against what's on your system, and downloads all the needed packages and installs them
There's a key distinction here, and it's why the system really is an improvement. On a slow wire, the amount of data transmitted needs to be restricted. So, what? So you absolutely DO NOT want to send the entire package list to the client! Instead, you want to send an encoded date to the server, and let it send you the updates that *might* apply. (It's not enough to send the date when you last did an update; as might choose not to take a component of that update. You might need to send an exceptions list, too.)
Hmmm...doing that well's not going to be easy; it's going to take some fairly clever design (what about losing connectivity? How do you keep the applications database in sync? The registry is transacted...hmm, gotta think about this.)
Solving these problems isn't trivial; it's non-obvious. And that's what the patent is about -- not how to send updates; clearly, that's got prior art. It's how to do it fast with limited bandwidth.
Seems like you want to send the client info upstream to the server instead. Since several of the newer broadband [sic] technologies are more limited upstreams than down this would be bad.
In any case, you don't send a lot of information. The package name, the current version, dependencies. Sure, you can do it the other way around but then:
1) The server will have to do the calculations for all of the clients, that is, it will be bogged down.
2) The server will know what packages/programs you have installed. Yeah, I really want MS to know that. (I bet that they will *promice* that they will not look at that info "...and I have some nice swamp land for you...".)
Do it in a truly efficiant way is hard. I agree. But I bet that the Debian way is better than the Microsoft way.
As a condition of employment, most companies have their employees sign agreements that they will assign ownership of the patent to the company, in return for "valuable consideration". Here, I get a "bonus" for every patent filed, and an additional "bonus" when the USPTO actually accepts the patent. None of that happens (and my employer doesn't file the patent application) until I sign (in blue ink) the "assignment of invention" form.
Redhat has something just like that, its called up2date. It will check redhats servers for newer packages, and will download and install them if they are found.
Well, first, you need to keep in mind that most people are running 56K modems or worse, and that this patent was filed for in 1997. So your asymetry argument is weak to begin with.
But even considering ADSL, your argument fails. When Debian sends down the package list, it doesn't know what packages you've got, much less what their build versions are. So it's got to send the whole batch down. Now, I don't care how cheap each one is (and they aren't; you're actually sending a fair amount of data) -- that's a lot of data when there are thousands of packages available. Microsoft's solution needs to send only a tiny amount of data; properly optimized (and how's not obviousness; I can think of a number of ways, and only experience would determine which), it should be possible to send only a small number of dates and program ids. Moreover, that data should be compressible; at worst, it's 128 bits per PROGID and 64 bits/NT time stamp. That's, what, 24 bytes for a small number of exceptions, plus an 8 byte header field for the time of the last complete update.
And your second objection doesn't work either: somewhere along the line, the server needs to get a list of which packages to send, whether you compute that list locally or on the server itself. Kind of defeats "privacy" right there, right?
That leaves the "overloaded server" argument. You're right, of course: written badly, this would swamp the server. Do you think that it can't be written well and cleverly? It isn't obvious how one would do that, but I can think of a lot of optimization hacks that might make it much faster. It'd take quite a bit of work to actually balance them all to get a high-throughput, robust system to handle the calls, clearly, but my experience suggests that it could be done.
But, either way, this is a non-obvious, useful invention. That's the basis of a valid patent.
Sorry to seem pedantic, but so far as I could ever tell, the RedHat X-Windows/GNOME package update tool, "Update Agent" does Just This [patent pending]. It only downloads a truncated list. (Don't know quite how, however, so maybe there's some innovation by MS here.) It's actually a pretty good tool, although, inevitably, a pain over a slow wire. Give thanks to your particular divine/nondivine entity/entities/nonentity/ies (for athiests;-), cosmic being(s) or random chaos effects, as is your personal preference, for DSL lines!;-)
Understanding something and being dragged into a swamp of prompts and decisions about dependencies are two different things.
Actually, these days I prefer installing via pkgsrc.tgz on my NetBSD system. Then it's 'make && make install' to add packages, building from source. It pulls in dependencies as needed, building those packages from source too. It's the fastest way I know to build something like 'lyx' from source. On a bare-bones install that one command installs it all, TeX, LaTeX, the works. It's far less 'in your face' than dselect.
I don't think that even Microsoft would make a serious attempt to enforce the patent - plus, proving prior use on apt, rpm, whatever, which would be ever so easy, renders Microsoft's patent useless anyway.
The patent does explicitly state "registry key" so they may only be trying to exclude other companies that try to make package managers for Windows. When Linux starts using the word "registry" for a central place of storing all system config info and a few billion other things, you may see a news report where I strangle several developers...
They registered it because in today's world if you don't patent something that may be patentable someone else will and they might sue you for patent infringement. They're doing it because they have to,and maybe because they want to.
--
Nascantur in Admiratione. (Let them be born in Wonder)
Ok, I took a good look over the patent. It appears that the patent is for a software package management system that operates over the internet specifically. Well, there's a good chance that was never patented. There's also a good chance that someone else patented this same feature over a network in general. If that is the case, the patent office has just granted a duplicate patent with more specific terms.
If there never was a patent even like this before, I'm fairly certain AIX had a NIM-like service before this patent was submitted that would work over the internet... if you would want to do that.
using the word "registry" for a central place of storing all system config info and a
I think most commercial unices have maintained a 'registry' with 'keys' for package management for the last ten years or so. Certainly LPP does in AIX, even if it's a file heirarchy w/directories as the 'key.'
It's funny, the difference in a coder and a corporation.. Someone from debian thought 'wow, this would be cool -' and did it. Someone from M$ though 'wow, this would be cool -' and patented it.
Fuckers.
-- blue
-- i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
errm.. Apple have had this for quite some time. The 'Software Updates' control panel is used to either manually or periodically connect to a remote server, verify all packages & automatically download the updates. The user can get the option to accept/refuse updates....
Pete C
-- Alison
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein
apt and rpm are rather young. There is an actual POSIX draft for a UNIX package. Though I do not know anyone using it;-)
I kinda doubt the commerical unicies are using it, but even they have package management. HP/UX has swinstall, swremove, swlist. Solaris has pkgadd, pkginfo, pkgrm, and so on. Basically unix has plenty of prior art out there that M$ is just trying to copy. Think of it in their usual terms...it's simply embrace and extend.
Now only if the patent office would be as anal as they were under Jefferson we wouldn't have all of these stupid patents floating around anyway.
-- "If you insist on using Windoze you're on your own."
You may think so, but there's no way you could ever patent that one. There's so much prior art on that one that even the patent office couldn't mess that one up. ---CONFLICT!!---
Microsoft filed in November 1997. I'm not sure about the apt dates, but the dates on the files ate Debian's site seem to be later than that (but before MS's patent was awarded in October 1999.)
"Maximum RPM" was published in February 1997, so prior art on rpm is established and rock-solid, should anything arise.
Re:OK, what consequenses?
by
PhilHibbs
·
· Score: 2
Probably none. They might just find it easier to say "We got a patent" than "We got prior art" if someone comes knocking on their door later. It bulks out their patent portfolio so they have one more piece of paper to hit 'em with.
Re:OK, what consequenses?
by
Score+Whore
·
· Score: 1
Very little, likely. Go read the patent. It references 4 other patents on similar systems from Apple, IBM, Samsung and another from MS. There appear to be over 150 other patents on automatic software distribution over networks. Obviously that basic idea is not patentable.
When I posted this, there were several people wondering if Microsoft could use this to claim patent violation against rpm. They weren't posting in this thread, but they were posting.
Read the damn thing first.
by
proj_2501
·
· Score: 3
The claim specifically states that a REGISTRY KEY is involved. Does Linux have a registry? NO!
This is an automatic system. A registry key containing a date is checked against the current date, and the system queries a database over the Internet and checks for upgrades. It has nothing to do with RPM etc. -- The other side is crowded. The dead have nowhere to go.
Re:Read the damn thing first.
by
macbar
·
· Score: 2
What is a REGISTRY KEY? The windows registry is nothing more than two files.
Debian's dpkg keeps track of all debian packages available on the server in its status file. Included in this file is local status of these packages (installed, not-installed, to be removed, etc...). Apt being a frontend to dpkg clearly states CmdrTaco's point.
This could perfectly fall under the definition of REGISTRY, IMHO. Just because there might not be (?) automatic system for upgrading an RPM based linux system, doesn't mean it isn't done. Some of us might want to read slashdot more carefully... (remember this?)
-- --
The day Microsoft makes things that don't suck,
it's the day they start making vacuum cleaners.
Re:Read the damn thing first.
by
sirinek
·
· Score: 1
Two words: HELIX GNOME
Helix Gnome comes with a nifty little update tool that queries a server on the internet to give you a list of what GNOME packages are out there more recent that what exists on your RPM-based Linux box. You can then select which package(s) you'd like to download and install. Press a button and the rest is automatic. How does this affect Microsoft's newest innovation^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hpatent?
Re:Read the damn thing first.
by
Paul+Merrell
·
· Score: 1
> This is an automatic system. A registry key containing a date is checked against the current date, and the system queries a database over the Internet and checks for upgrades.
Sounds like AOL to me. How many years was AOL doing this before Microsoft applied for its patent?
BTW, checking for file dates is a really poor way of implementing this kind of thing. Dates get changed too easily; checking both version numbers and file sizes is far better.
Re:Read the damn thing first.
by
Score+Whore
·
· Score: 1
This doesn't effect microsofts patent at all. If you haven't read the application carefully enough to know that then maybe you shouldn't make such comments. Hint: Check the filing date. It's way before "the beginning of the year [2000]."
Re:Read the damn thing first.
by
jxxx
·
· Score: 1
Ahh, but you miss a critical value in the MS Windows registry. If you corrupt the RPM database (*raises hand*), you don't have to reinstall the OS and applications!
It's ok ma'am, we're professionals
Re:Read the damn thing first.
by
proj_2501
·
· Score: 1
Wow, by making a knee-jerk post to the first few shortsighted reactionary idiots, I made an excellent point unintentionally! Thanks for noticing!:-D -- The other side is crowded. The dead have nowhere to go.
Re:Read the damn thing first.
by
SEWilco
·
· Score: 1
Gee, is there a patent on using chronologically overloaded unique version numbers instead of mere unique version numbers? Quite a difference there...particularly as MS DLLs tend to have an assortment of errors in both.
Re:Read the damn thing first.
by
dvdmtz
·
· Score: 1
This could perfectly fall under the definition of REGISTRY, IMHO.
Out of curiosity, has Microsoft patented the Registry? If they have, it could actually protect organizations like Debian by defining what a Registry is in specific language.
after further re-reading, does this really matter?
Installing and updating a software program module component. A determination is made whether the current date is on or after a date stored in a registry key on a computer.
Last I checked, there's no registry keys on Linux (sorry, GNU/Linux:) ).. depends how technical they want to get with it, I suppose.
MS isn't stupid though.. they have to want to patent this for a reason.. even though it appears prior use by linux would make this null and void if they attempt to go after them.
MS isn't stupid though.. they have to want to patent this for a reason.
Of course. Anyone who writes software for Windows will have to license the patent to make their software automatically upgrade. Just another way to milk your monopoly.
Of course this is a totally obvious extension of dpkg-ftp, or apt for debian. But for that to apply the patent checkers would need to have their heads out of their butts.
even though it appears prior use by linux would make this null and void if they attempt to go after them. This doesn't seem to be as much protection as one would think. Think of the Amazon patent or the eToys trademark!
The US legal system has recently been handing out temporary restraining orders based on merely the flimsiest of excuses. If the patent / trademark was invalid, then the TRO will be voided after the trial. Six years from now (or whatever).
The real danger in spurious patents is that the judges are willing to hand out TROs way too freely. I don't think that judges really realize what a shambles the US patent office has become.
So why aren't the disto companies
by
Rombuu
·
· Score: 1
Patenting stuff like this first? Don't they have a responsibility? Why are people giving their money to them otherwise?
--
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Re:So why aren't the disto companies
by
bero-rh
·
· Score: 3
In 2 words: patents suck.
The whole point of open source is that others (including so-called competition) may re-use your inventions.
The only acceptable use of a patent is registering it just to make sure nobody else registers and abuses it, but that's what prior art is there for, so why waste money on patent offices?
-- This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Re:So why aren't the disto companies
by
Dhericean
·
· Score: 1
The problem is that unless you know they are applying for the patent then you cannot challenge with prior art before the patent is granted. Challenging a faulty patent is probably more expensive than applying for it yourself before anyone else. Also if you don't use it then it is unlikely to be challenged and so appears on your company's books as an asset
--
Gamma Testing - Where testing is extended to the full user community (AKA Shipping the Program)
How many of you will work at the Patents Office?
by
segmond
·
· Score: 2
I know that a lot of people are going to jump and down and yell at the Patent Office, for those people, I want to ask, how many of you have applied for a job at the Patent office, so that you work and help remedy this problem we are experiencing? Okay, so perhaps you have never thought of working there, Would you give up your $100k linux sysadmin job for lower wages to make a difference? I thought so...
-- ------
Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
1) Linux does not use a registry. 2) Dates and version numers are monotimically increasing, so you can just use version numbers instead of dates({program name} -v ) 3) Databases can be avoided.
Holy shit. I would have never thought of using a database to store information that controls a system. And to use this database for updating packages. I'm damn glad there are companies like Microsoft that knows how to *cough* innovate.
the filesystem can be thought of as a database so.../etc is a table in the larger FS database
It just happens to be a database that doesn't suck at 3 am when the system went down and can't get past single user mode - because um...one of the um OTHER admins fucked something up (yea thats the ticket)
-Steve
-- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Then ANY fs could be a database, which is true. I wonder if there isn't a database file system.. in which a kernel fs module talks SQL to a database server that provides for filesystem like behavior and capabilites. OOOH I should patent this!!!!!
Advantages? Disadvantages?
It could be slower.. or faster.. depending on the operation and the type of index used, if any.
I think there might be a few prior art issues here. I've never even heard of Microsoft making a package manager. The only package managers I know are Red Hat and Debian (perhaps a few others).
Microsoft: "We are doing this in order to fuel further innovation." Hackers: "Not again!"
-- Not a typewriter
Doesn't seem the same as RPM, don't know APT
by
Elyas
·
· Score: 2
What they are patenting is using a registry to check the system for newer packagese against a database on the internet, and then at the user's discretion download those packages and automatically install them off the internet. They aren't patenting simply having packages, or a package management system. Basically they are patenting Window's Update, and although it is annoying, I don't think it hurts us too much, as the language seemed specific enough to allow someone to make a comparable system that operated in a diffferent way
Re:Doesn't seem the same as RPM, don't know APT
by
double_h
·
· Score: 1
What they are patenting is using a registry to check the system for newer packagese against a database on the internet, and then at the user's discretion download those packages and automatically install them off the internet.
That's exactly what apt does. Typing 'apt-get dist-upgrade' will go out on the net and upgrade all of the packages on your system to the latest version.
Re:Doesn't seem the same as RPM, don't know APT
by
bero-rh
·
· Score: 2
Linux still has had it first, their patent is a close match to tools like up2date (Red Hat) or MandrakeUpdate (Mandrake). They're not the same though (AFAIK neither of them uses "registry keys" [or did they change the labels of db database keys recently;) ] or "dates" [we rely on version numbers only], and the linux tools are older than Microsoft's.
Another thing matching their description closely is the good old CVS, which predates their patent by at least a couple of years.
-- This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Re:Doesn't seem the same as RPM, don't know APT
by
Blue+Lang
·
· Score: 2
Nothoing personal against Elyas, but why is every post that mentions 'registry' moderated up? RPM does, in fact, 'register' packages, as does every other package manager that tracks versions.
They have to. It's implicit - tracking requires history. Sheesh.
Come on, moderators. If you don't understand the technology, DON'T moderate the posts.
Thanks.
-- blue
-- i browse at -1 because they're funnier than you are.
Re:Doesn't seem the same as RPM, don't know APT
by
greed
·
· Score: 1
Actually, that sounds very much like AIX installp plus the ``FixDist'' package which monitors lists of updates on the Internet and offers to download them and install them. IIRC, FixDist uses a date to determine if its list of fixes is out-of-date, and then uses installp version numbers to check your local system.
Unfortunately, IBM's patent server seems to be suffering from the slashdot effect... which is too bad, because I think they've got prior art on this one.
That is a funny point. But seriously, extrapolating this with the UCITA and-- whammo! system no longer works. For instance, install IE, overwrite some key dlls, lose license for IE, lost dlls, lost system. Remedy: put CC# in registry key:
\HKEY_CURRENT_USER\EXTORTION\CONVENIENT_PAY_OFF_ METHOD (Of course this will be stored plain text with all billing information) And if the credit card doesn't work, the local "UCITA Enforcement Task-force, a subsidiary of Gambino Enterprises, LTD" will just pluck the necessary info from the registry key.
If Microsoft's patent was valid (I'm not going to argue about this) then they would have every right to enforce their patent against a GPL'ed package. The GPL specifically reads that if you aren't legally allowed to use and redistribute a patent used in your software, then your software can't be GPLed. RMS is quite specific about that.
If GPL'ed software was exempt from patents, why was PGPi developed overseas rather than here? Part of it was crypto export limits, but the other part is that they couldn't implement the RSA patent here. GPG doesn't include RSA. There's no GPL'ed quicktime player for linux because of patents... If GPLing a piece of software no one would ever complain about Starwars trailers using the Sorenson codec again.
Maybe what you meant is that you can just release the code on the internet and watch it proliferate, but that's a completely different story. It;'s a way for you to show your disgust with them, perhaps, but none of the US based distro's will touch your software with a 10 foot pole. I
The conclusion was that this is not like apt since apt figures out the (local) dependencies at the client and not the server. And even if it would be considered the same thing then apt/dpkg did have this functionaly long before Microsoft applied for the patent. Just look at the Changlog for dpkg-ftp.
Re:This is not like apt
by
Starselbrg
·
· Score: 3
Yes. That is completely different. Take an idea already done for years, move its computation to the server, and Whammo! instant patent.
Actually, what disturbs me more are the list of other patents at the linked page. Things such as "automatic update of software". Does anybody else think all of these are a little broad and obvious?
In that case we should THANK MS for comming up with this patent...its such a damned stupid idea that people SHOULD be prevented from using it.
Maybe next someone will patent sloppy code indenting, oh...and memory leaks.
I would say someone should patent opening files and writting to them without checking if the write failed (::cough::quota::cough::) but pine has been doing that for years. (if you don't believe me, id be happy to show you some nice runaways)
Then again, I supose memory leaks, and bad code have plenty of prior art too.
-- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
What about BSD's cvsup? Or CTM (patches by e-mail)? Most of the work is done by the server, especially for CTM. What's updated is source code, not `packages' which can be bought, but does that make a difference?
This is the patent office we're talking about. They wouldn't know software prior art if it walked up and slapped them in the face. Sometimes I think they go out of their way to aprove absurd patents. It'd be nice if software patents weren't legal, really, it would.
-- I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
"And even if it would be considered the same thing then apt/dpkg did have this functionaly long before Microsoft applied for the patent." Although, the issue is not when they applied for the patent, but when they started the development.
Re:How many of you will work at the Patents Office
by
paRcat
·
· Score: 2
$100k linux sysadmin job?!?!
Where do you work? I'll take your place when you leave for the patent office.:)
Maybe since the target of this patent is only the window's OS, that they are merely trying to secure that they are the only people who can update windows?..
And nother crack-pot thought... imagine using such a system to replace windows with non-microsoft components.. maybe gnu-ify windows, and replace the OS right out from under people.
Hrm.. this could go the otherway and replace non-ms components with ms components.... hrm.....
Now that would be a nice try...:> If Microsoft sues over patent infringement on a site allowing to replace all installed windows components with free counterparts, they'll admit that the transition to Linux or *BSD constitutes an upgrade.:)
-- This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
The registry is just an implementation detail. RPM keeps track of which packages are installed, though I would guess it does so in flat files.
It does have to do with RPM because one of the features is being able to tell what version of something is installed, which, in additional to making it easier to install stuff, is the purpose of RPM.
The only possibly novel thing is checking the website automatically, which probably has prior art. I can't remember when I first saw something automatically check the web for updates, but I doubt Microsoft invented it. The patent abstract sounds like it's describing Windows Update.
Agreed, no registry key for Linux. But how do Red Hat and Debian determine how a particular piece of software needs to be updated.
I certainly wouldn't put it past MS to argue that apt invalidates their patent.
In the wake of this weeks fiasco on "viruses", does anyone get updates to Norton Anti-virus over the Web? If so for how long? Not sure whether this invalidates the MS patent, I think a registry key is involved but I am not completely sure.
Agreed, no registry key for Linux. But how do Red Hat and Debian determine how a particular piece of software needs to be updated.
I know nothing about Red Hat. Debian stores the list of currently available packages in var/lib/dpkg/available. To update this list (it tends to go out of date almost daily if you're running the unstable (read, "Development") version, you execute/usr/bin/apt-get update.
You could cron a 2 line script that upgrades every installed package on your system automatically.
I certainly wouldn't put it past MS to argue that apt invalidates their patent.
I'm not sure about this. You would think someone owns the patent to spreadsheets, yet M$ and GNOME both have a spreadsheet program. Gnumeric even writes XLS files.
> I'm not sure about this. You would think someone > owns the patent to spreadsheets, yet M$ and GNOME > both have a spreadsheet program. Gnumeric even > writes XLS files.
Actually, I think that nobody owns a patent for spreadsheets. Man who (I don't remember his name) invented spreadsheets didn't apply for patent.
Excel, when it shipped for the Macintosh in 1985, pretty much defined how a GUI spreadsheet should be done. Even though it might seem obvious now, when you look at abortions like 1-2-3 R3's psuedo-GUI mode with it's horrid mouse functionality, Microsoft pretty much hit the nail on the head right off.
Early versions were ported from the Mac to Windows, but MS found that they had to include a Windows runtime for anyone to buy it (because nobody would buy Windows on it's own). With Windows 3.0, they discovered the key idea to their current business model -- give away Windows for free (just put WIN in the autoexec!) and make the money back on the robust, highly developed GUI apps they had ported from the Macintosh.
Meanwhile, Lotus, which had abandon GUI development with Jazz for the Mac (1985), had to figure out how to adapt 1-2-3 to a WIMP environment. It took them about 3 tries to get right, and by that time Excel was the 'standard'.
Trying to argue that Excel beat 1-2-3 by "bundling" is silly. They had a better product, at least in a GUI environment (which most people seem to like). Plus it was half the cost of Lotus 1-2-3 in the early 90s. Microsoft has shut out other vendors like Corel and Lotus from bundling agreements with OEMs, but most Excel and Office sales come from customers paying full freight. --
Nice that you give the credit to Debian, but *cough* IBM's AIX has had package management since (almost?) the beginning. And I'm sure some mainframe haxhors could probably tell us stories of earlier package management.
Which brings up the question again of whether Open Source has ever innovated anything, but that's another subject.:)
--
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
You can't buy Debian so make'em do something illegal so you have a right to sue the people behind the project. Pretty clever way to eliminate 500+ active communist-hippies and one of the toughest strongholds of the OSS movement. Jail is the right place for those little thieves. Nothing else won't make'em learn.
Or maybe not.
Re:How many of you will work at the Patents Office
by
mrfiddlehead
·
· Score: 1
Would you give up your $100k linux sysadmin job for lower wages to make a difference?
Make a difference? It's not exactly like working for greenpeace for cripes sake.
I know I'd give up my 30K sysadmin job for a job at the patent office. Come to think of it though, your comment was absolutely pointless so I'll just stay where I am.
-- :wq
This is not how Debian's update works.
by
weaselp
·
· Score: 3
What mircosoft patent claims is totally different from the way debian's apt works.
From the Abstract:
A determination is made whether the current date is on or after a date stored in a registry key on a computer. If the current date is on or after the date stored in the registry key, then ac omputer transmits a database query via the Internet to a database server. At the database server, a determination is made whether an upgrade package for the softwareprogram module component is available, such as by performing a database lookup. (emphasis mine)
First deb's and I presume rpm's use version numbers instead of dates and second with apt, the client determines which packages to update, so MS' system is different from what debian does use. --
--
Weasel
Re:This is not how Debian's update works.
by
DavidTC
·
· Score: 1
But Linux did do this better and before MS...:)
They just patented the sucky method.:)
-David T. C.
-- If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I am no lawyer. Maybe there are one or two 'legal experts' out there reading/. that can answer this. Here is a URL from Cornell on Patent Law Some thoughts: -The patents must be 'novel' (original?) and not of an obvious nature. This new microsoft patent is neither. -Since debian's apt does the same thing this patent does, and debian has been doing it longer, what does this mean to debian users? -Am I a now a patent law violator and possible criminal since I've been using Debian for years? -Lastly, why is the U.S. Patent Office giving away patents on such obvious ideas (think Amazon's one-click shopping)??
Re:What does this mean?
by
DeepDarkSky
·
· Score: 2
But the people working at the PTO are not us, nor are they Linux users (even if some are, you can't take it for granted) whether they use debian or any distro that uses RPM. Maybe as far as the PTO is concerned, it IS novel.
The PTO employs a bunch of low paid (relatively speaking) workers to do the work, as compared to the wealthy patent attorneys who would know better and get paid tons more money because they do know better.
The best people to work at the PTO would be the patent attorneys in conjunction with specialists. But these people can get paid more elsewhere, why would they work there?
It would be considered a profound conflict of interest for the Patent Attorneys who work on the 'other side of the table' to become examiners at the PTO.
Re:What does this mean?
by
DeepDarkSky
·
· Score: 2
No, I mean work solely as examiners, and quit their job as patent attorneys. Like I said, who would do that?
If I read the page right, the patent was filed Nov 14th, 1997, and issued Oct 26th, 1999. Now, I don't know when apt was first developed, but at least there are still apt-get reports on Debian's wishlist from early 1998. I'd wager that apt precedes this patent.
-- "The Internet, of course, is more than just a place
to find pictures of people having sex with dogs."
- Time Magazine
Hell, I know at least 20 different programs that are not M$ and that do Live Update (think Symantec Norton Antivirus or Symantec Visual Cafe, think Real (player) etc.) Those were here for a long time and all of a sudden MS has a patent for this? I suppose the question is in the process of how the update is done. MS checks the registery for the date (I am sure Symantec or Real do the same) the date is sent to the server and compared with a db query (for some reason this sounds just as any other application or a company would do.)
Help! Microsoft has patented me!
by
The+Wookie
·
· Score: 2
I check the dates on my installed Linux packages and download updates and install them.
We are Wookie of Borg.
The patent doesn't cover the idea of a package
by
Kismet
·
· Score: 2
Microsoft applied for the pattent in 1997, and received it in 1999.
Upon reading the text of the patent, it becomes clear that the idea of a software module package is not important. Rather, it is the idea of how a Windows system might go about upgrading components via the internet. Part of the patent mentions the Windows Registry, the Internet, and a special Package Server.
The patent is quite trivial. Any amateur programmer could probably "invent" this as a simple and obvious solution. It does not represent anything new. Remote package upgrades have been performed in numerous ways over the years, doubtless. There is no direct relation between this patent and any package management system currently available.
This is simply a patent on a process, not a technology.
And you're willing to bet your life on that?
by
Colin+Smith
·
· Score: 1
Are you sure they wouldn't come piling down on top of Red Hat and Debian like a tonne of bricks.
Microsoft have an awful lot of money, an awful lot of lawyers and have demonstrated a willingness to use them...
I can understand my MS got this patented. Without it another company could have gotten the patent and then sued MS for patent infringement. They might not have had a good case, but who wants to go through that legal hassle?
The real test will be whether MS starts extracting royalties from people who use this "method and system for installing and updating program module component."
More globally, the problem of reforming the patent system is one of public choice. The people with an interest in keeping the system would lose millions if the patent system was reformed. And the people with an incentive to have it reformed don't have so much money at stake. (Or at least it's potential, possible, might-exist-later money, not right-here-being deposited money.)
And, if copyright law is any guide, most companies are totally committed to making intellectual property as much like tangible property as possible by extending rights over it indefinitely.
-- Diana Hsieh
--
-- Diana Hsieh
GeekPress: The Weirder Side of Tech News
to want to say anything good about the Redmond Empire but if this patent is fairly closely linked to the Windows system (as references to the registry seem to imply) then this may be more of a protective patent to prevent others from patenting the idea and either charging excessive licensing fees or preventing anyone else from using the ideas at all.
If they hold the patent (even if it can be considered invalid) then no-one else should be able to get such a patent. This prevents them from having to mount an expensive patent challenge. However if they start to try and use this patent to restrict others from using the same method then that would be bad.
In another example the real problem with the Amazon case was not necessarily the patent itself (which prevented anyone else from getting it and using it against them). The problem was when Amazon started to use it as a commercial weapon against their competitors.
--
Gamma Testing - Where testing is extended to the full user community (AKA Shipping the Program)
You know, I've heard countless comments on how Linux and other open-source projects are simply playing catch-up to existing systems, but what really entertains me is people seemingly thinking MS products offer anything new. Take, for example, this patent: MS has basically established their exclusive right to use Windows Update, which is basically just a net-connected version of the package managers that have been in use in countless commercial and open *NIX distributions for the last couple of decades. Just look at the "new features" in Win2k -- most of them *almost* bring it up to the level of a basic UNIX system (I'm thinking of file and directory-level permissions and the like). It would make me want to laugh, if it wasn't so disturbing to see how effectively advertising can render people's memories and critical thinking skills inoperable.
Looks like we really need to get that patent review method implemented. The contents of this patent are overly obvious to anyone involved in the field, and thus, invalid for a patent.
As for prior art, it is completely possible to call Debian's package list a "registry", because what does it do? It registers what packages are available in a formatted list. Also, the patent directly applies to the use of dates only to determine which package is new. Well, a good quantity of Debian's packages DO use dates as their version numbers, wine for one example, and when dselect determines that the date from the server is different from the date in its registry, it downloads a new version and installs it.
Microsoft's Great Contribution to Society
by
jd
·
· Score: 4
Once again, Microsoft has heard the cry of the serfs in it's Kingdom, and has responded in kindness, by sending care packages of managers to each and every peasent, to explain the necessity of handing over all the gold(tm) to King William the Gates III.
This new method of packaging managers has been patented. This means that any peasent caught trying to stuff a manager into any box in a way not approved by the King will be flogged and have really nasty things said to him by the Court High Lawyer.
Rebel OS Barons will be punished most severely, once the stolen plans for the station have been recovered.
Meanwhile, on Tattoine, Luke Stallman meets his Internet mentor-to-be, Obj WAN...
-- It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Hmm.. dig a little deeper
by
Hardwyred
·
· Score: 5
At face value, this has no effect on linux, but dig a little deeper. Yes, it mentions that a key is taken out of a registry, but Linux doesnt have a registry, or does it? What is a registry, is it that hellish tree that MS products use, or could it be more? What worries me is that this patent doesnt explicitly state what a registry is. If MS decided to go balls to the wall on this, it could be argued that a registry is any file or system that contains version information on anything other then itself. If that is the case, then what about Mandrakes AutoRPM. It completes the same job using a version file, that if you really wanted to, could be referred to as a registry. I dont think this patent should be taken too lightly. Its main threat is its ambiguity. Imagine that, Microsoft king of security by obscurity, being vague.
This is exactly what they plan to do IMHO, and illustrates why our patent system is a bit on the slow side. How soon before the lawsuits? I say within 6 months...
And registry is the key term. The patent says "a registry" not "the Windows Registry". A registry (def 2:" a place of registration") would then be anything where information concerning package attributes is registered.
Currently I would think BillyG and CO are pretty pissed about the laws in this country (and those incredulous companies that want to compete with them), and since they can't do it in the marketplace (how can you compete with someone who's software is Free..ask Netscape..) they'll want to use the patent laws against Free Software. --
Re:Hmm.. dig a little deeper
by
richie123
·
· Score: 1
I would say that this is yet more proof that the USPTO does even do a cursory check of the market to see if the same tech is in use by someone else. How is anyone suppose to respect a so called authority when anyone with a clue can see that they don't do their job?
This is nothing to be alarmed about in the Linux world. Microsoft's plan over the next few years is to make computers easier and friendlier for the home user, and this is just one aspect of this plan. If you follow MS like I do, this is simply a new feature that will be implemented in MS's next OS release, Windows ME. Every time the OS boots, it's going to check on-line for an updated patch/feature (sucks to be a modem user), and automatically download and install it. Other things such as improved speech recognition and even a rumored tweaking to the GUI are in the works.
-- --- RFC 1149 Compliant.
What if they get broken up?
by
MVoelker
·
· Score: 1
Will they lose any of their patents, or will they just transfer some of them to each company?
Who cares,really. Like this is going to stop me from using dpkg? Nope.
-- Sure, I have a thankless job. That's okay. I have a lot of (non/.)karma to burn off.
Re:What if they get broken up?
by
Stonehand
·
· Score: 1
Well, if implemented as the DoJ proposal specifies, intellectual property that both the OS and applications parts use gets shared, with the exception of IE. Other IP gets allocated between the two with strong restrictions on licensing or other forms of sharing...
-- Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Nothing succeeds like success
by
ch-chuck
·
· Score: 2
those innovations just keep on coming! Personally I can't wait to see what patented software Rube Goldberg anti-email-virus scheme they're going to come up with post love.Bug. Should lift stock prices some.
what kind of patent is this? i certainly do not see any innovation in this. this has gone too far. a patent, is meant to be an enticement to produce innovation so that the world can become a better place, witht eh inventors gettin credit for it. how could a "method to update" software be granted ?! in all, it's a very simple mechanism, and i know that there are programs that do similar stuff, this isn't new. but in all, the patent is ok with me. but what they will do with it, we'll have to see. i certainly won't be trusting any microsoft assurances as far as patent-persuing goes, because they've shown themsevles to be untrustworthy. i've already stated a very good example here before. you may all have heard of getright, and now they ahve a patent. for ftp downloading, it's nothing more than a couple of clever ftp commnads combined. (REST, RETR, mainly and PASV for passive mode). i've been doing that on my command line ftp for a long time. and getright actually has a patent for it?! to get back to the point, it's a little bit like re-inventing stuff, since these things have been around for a long time. where's microsoft been all this time when _their_ supposely invented stuff was created ?
Shield, sword and statutory patents
by
MountainLogic
·
· Score: 4
As an engineer who has my company's patent counsels almost live in my cube (knock, knock, how many patent counsels does it take to fill an engineer's cube...) I have a few thoughts on why MS did what they did. Patents are a current part of the business landscape. Companies get patents for "real" reasons such as protecting their IP rights as well as "human" reasons such as a patent counsel's bonus is based on how many patents they file. The fact of the matter is that the decission to file this patent was made 3 to 5 years ago as that is how much time it often takes to get a patent out. Don't waste too much time trying to figure out why some big dumb creature as MS does something, just assume one Dilbert manger won out over a different Dilbert manager. The patant office is so short staffed that the examaner spends only a short few hours with each patent and most of that time is spent dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s. The reality is not that questionable patents get issued, but that some future Dilbert manager may try to make a name for themselves by using it againts a smaller group that can not afford to defend them selves. Sometime the small guy wins, too. Anybody remember Stacker Software and MS?
Patents tend to be written in two ways, as shields or as swards. Shield patents are designed to allow a company to continue to do what they want while swords are intended to go after others. There exists another type of patent, statutory, that is seldom used and the open source sommunity should consider it. A statutory patent provides no IP rights to the issuer and is most often used by a government lab or university to put their work into the public domain. The nice thing about this kind of patent is that it is cheep and puts the work firmly into the public domain. We might want to write up Linux, Apache, etc. each into it's own patent application and file them as statutory patents. Such actions would form the ultamate shield that _proves_ prior art!
Re:Shield, sword and statutory patents
by
scotchie
·
· Score: 1
We might want to write up Linux, Apache, etc. each into it's own patent application and file them as statutory patents. Such actions would form the ultamate shield that _proves_ prior art!
This is an excellent idea! How about extending that and making a "patent-left". Patent technologies as an ordinary patent, and don't charge royalties, but make the legal condition that in order to use the technology the code has to be open-sourced.
BTW, who's Microsoft gonna sue? Richard Stallman? Tux? Everyone who uses Linux? This isn't the typical company-suing-company case. I can't see how M$ could use patent-law to stop a group of volunteers.
Re:Shield, sword and statutory patents
by
MountainLogic
·
· Score: 1
Statatory patents owners are not able to demand any kind of royalties. It is the "original" open source. Seldom used, but possible very powerful.
As far as if they can enforce IP rights against volunteers just ask the scandanavian kid who was rousted in the middle of the night by the cops over the DVD copyright fight.
Re:Shield, sword and statutory patents
by
scaryjohn
·
· Score: 1
the one problem with that is that linux and apache have both been in the public domain without IP support long enough (~2 yrs, i think) to be wholly in the public domain (relative to patent protection). in short it doesn't matter for them... now for the Next Big Thing(tm) sure... __
alt.geek
-- One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We
just don't know.
"Obvious" is a term of art, not just the English word you're used to. There are tests for "obviousness", and the standards are much lower than you're probably used to. Of course, *everything* is obvious once you've seen it in use.
"novel" is satisfied if even one element of the patent (say, the use of a "registry key") is distinct, as I understand it.
If debian's apt *does* do the same thing, it's prior art, and the patent is invalid. My guess is that debian's apt does *not* do the same thing as the patent.
As to why the patent office gives out patents so easily, it's probably because "obvious" is a really hard term to define, and it's not clear that the normal English usage is appropriate in the law. It may be, however, that the standards are really too low right now - in which case, the problem isn't the patent office, it's *Congress*.
IANAL, but I occasionally read things written by them.
-- My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
>"novel" is satisfied if even one element of the >patent (say, the use of a "registry key") is >distinct, as I understand it.
Did anyone else take a look at the patents referenced by the Microsoft one? (here, here, and here)
It seems to me that they are all patenting the same thing, just changing some of the implementation details. Replace "database" and "inventory" with "registry" in the previous Microsoft patent, for example, and you have pretty much the same thing.
If "novel" means "change the name we use to refer to something", then why can't I just patent the same thing with new words and continue on with my business? What's the point of a patent then?
There are some differences between what Debian is doing and MS. The entire list of packages is mainatained in a Packages.gz file, and the "apt update" grabs this entire file for all list of packages. It seems that MS actually queries the server package by package for this. Whether the date or the package version is used is a minor issue really.
Now is this innovative and worth a patent? I can't see why. So one does not need to download the entire list, but face it, that is good database to browse offline anyway. You can't do that with MS, short of sending a query for all packages, which takes effectively, more than the bandwidth needed than Debian.
Minor rant: What is it with the patent application process anyway? I would like to see what sort of problems MS was trying to solve with this "innovation". Who cares how they did it, if we don't know what problem they were trying to solve. If fubar algorithm does not solve fubar problem, by what criteria does one know if it is "innovative" or not? I could strip in the middle of winter and dance around a fire naked. That would be new, but it doesn't solve any damn problem!
Isn't this what Java does?
by
KevThorpe
·
· Score: 1
Am I being stupid? I write Java apps which refer to peer classes residing on the server. For java simply replace 'registry' with 'internet cache' and 'database' with 'webserver'. More to the point we all know that this method works. Do you really want your NT server to install SP99 overnight and instantly break everyone else's apps?
Why don't they patent the good stuff...
by
Shotgun
·
· Score: 5
Note to Microsoft:
You're not getting patents on the good stuff, the things people haven't done before. In the interest of showing that not everyone on/. is biased against you, here is a little help, the title for your next patent application:
A method for allowing random users to execute arbitrary code within a secure network.
/**Describe your email program here**/
This patent will not be attacked by the prior art argument, but that just may be because previous programmers actually thought about what they were putting in their email programs. You know, they had a clue.
To the rest of/.: This is offtopic, but we've been fruitlessly brainstorming here all morning. Is there any valid business use for having an email execute itself?
-- Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Re:Why don't they patent the good stuff...
by
madsen
·
· Score: 1
Is there any valid business use for having an email execute itself?
To quote with a quote (from the episode of Max Headroom about BlipVerts(tm) when he's presented to the board of executives)
So, you're the people who exec-exec-execute the audience
In that sense I could see a use for self execution or suicide as you also might call it.
Re:Why don't they patent the good stuff...
by
Mr+44
·
· Score: 1
This is offtopic, but we've been fruitlessly brainstorming here all morning. Is there any valid business use for having an email execute itself?
Since when does email execute itself? This latest one requires the uese to click on (i.e. execute) IM_A_DUMBASS.VBS Or are you asking is there any reason for attatching an executable to email? I think that answer would be yes.
Re:Why don't they patent the good stuff...
by
Trepalium
·
· Score: 1
I can think of one -- To get rid of useless users who think that forwarding e-mail jokes, etc is the greatest thing in the world.
Maybe I'm just bitter, but after reading the same lame jokes for the hundredth time, I'm not finding them very funny anymore.
-- I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Re:Why don't they patent the good stuff...
by
Skald
·
· Score: 3
Is there any valid business use for having an email execute itself?
No, but plenty of reason's I'd love to have it execute the idiot who sent it.
--
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
There is a tool/script for Solaris to install patches that works in this exact way. It checks your systems patch list saved in their style of database against the one on the internet and offers you new/updated patches etc. in special packaged format. I know of some other systems working this same way. This patent will proably be granted due to complete idiocty in patent office but it will most definitely not be enforceable due to vast amounts of prior art.
It could screw any other company wishing to provide upgrades for their software components automagically depending on the date enetered in the registry.
So, the workaround? store the VERSION number in the registry (unless someone has already patented).
Heh..this patent is almost as stupid as the M$ press release on Innovations Enhance Windows 2000. Hmm...can you say file links boyz & grlz? They are only umpteen years behind the times.
This patent is unenforcable, at least as a means of extracting licensing fees or prevention of competitors from implementing package managers.
If this patent were interpreted in its broadest sense, then countless examples of "prior art" (many of which have been mentioned by previous posters) would easily serve to defeat litigation brought on by Micro$oft over the issue.
Interpreted in its strictest sense, this patent wouldn't even apply to non-Micro$oft package managers at all.
As much as I dislike Micro$oft, this patent can only be viewed as a defensive maneuver on their part, much like those of IBM, in order to keep opportunists from trying to extract licensing fees etc from them. If it were used in any other way (i.e., in an offensive fashion), it could easily be challenged and nullified, thus effectively nullifying what little defensive power it carries for them.
ObDisclaimers: IANAL. Just MHO. I could be wrong. Blah blah blah.
Linux packaging? What about
by
sirsyko
·
· Score: 1
the bsd package subsystem. the sysv package subsystem. Theres gotta be enough prior art here to make overturn this patent.
Foot in mouth, read the patent
by
sirsyko
·
· Score: 1
The MS patent is a little more involved than just a "tarball". It does comparisons to a database on the internet. However, this sounds exactly like patch managers written by IBM for AIX and Sun for Solaris. And set aside the MS bashing for a moment. This patent shows that IBM, Samsung, and Apple all have patents for similar processes.
Re:Foot in mouth, read the patent
by
mgh
·
· Score: 1
Come on this is *not* (repeat ****not***) new stuff. And its exceptionally trivial. I defy anyone to prove that they thought of this first. The patent laws in the US have become a very bad joke indeed!
I used too .... but still
by
ch-chuck
·
· Score: 2
Get a load of thispatent - "... thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light. "
Something's definitely rotten in Crystal City.
I spent a summer there way back, and gave many a patent application for 'some neat software burned into a common ROM' a resounding smack of the ol' reject stamp, but that was before the judge liberalized the place to include business procedures etc.
Re:I used too .... but still
by
Simoriah
·
· Score: 1
Ladies and Gentlemen.... Please keep your trays in the locked, upright position. Your data is about to enter a WORMHOLE!
Sounds like it, to me? Anyone else?
-- "It compiles, SHIP IT!" -Overheard at Microsoft's development lab
Re:I used too .... but still
by
MalaclypseJr
·
· Score: 1
a known speed of light Key word here is "a" It's quite possible to slow down light by having it pass through something; that's how refraction works. Clever, though...
-- "And real life has warts and smelly feet" -- Paul Jaquays, id Software
Change in gov't starts only at the top
by
ballestra
·
· Score: 4
I don't think it would make any difference how many wise/. readers became patent examiners at the USPTO. The system in place there would just punish anyone trying to make a difference. Meanwhile, the more expedient examiners will get bonuses and be promoted to supervisor. It is a management problem, and therefore can only be solved with new management.
We need insiders in the Bush and Gore campaigns, who understand the importance of this issue and will work to get the next president to put real scientists in charge of USPTO. They need to end the policies with reward examiners for volume, and provide incentives for nonrigorous approval processes.
This, of course, is about as likely as the FCC coming up with a fair process for the allocation of broadcast spectrum, or the goverment discontinuing the purchase of M$ software.
You know how Windows Update claims that it works without sending any information to Microsoft? Well, the patent's abstract says that, "at the database server, a determination is made whether an upgrade package for the software program module component is available...." In other words, your computer sends a list of software and versions to M$, and M$ tells you what must be upgraded.
That doesn't seem consistent with Windows Update's "no information" claim. Perhaps, if M$ uses this patent in some future product, the company will disavow their "no information" promises. Or perhaps, with UCITA in place, they will consider it their right to audit your computer every time you use Windows Update, which might run every time you boot up.
according to the apt changelog, the 0.0.1 release was made Tue, 31 Mar 1998. so scratch apt as prior art.
however, the older `dselect' method used by debian 1.3 (and earlier, i think; i haven't used 1.3) does the same thing; you give it a ftp or http address to a package server. it gets a package list, presents it and you choose to upgrade everything (default), not upgrade some packages, remove some, or add others.
the release date for debian 1.3 was 5 Jun 97; 1.2 was 12 Dec 96 - both providing solid prior art.
I know; I was joking. I wanted to see if any old farts would comment on it...
--
-- Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The claim's the thing....
by
BlackStar
·
· Score: 2
Having been involved in more than one patent dust-up from a technical point of view, it's the cliams that afford the patent protection. After reading the Microsoft claim, I think they would be able to make a fight out of it, and the onus would be on Debian, Red Hat, possibly Sun, and even Netscape (Smart Update) for proof of prior art.
The claim states that they are patenting a method by which a computer makes a list of files, asks a server for deatils on those files, and a date for those files, and comparing it to a local date (held by a number of means for those who jumped on the Registry idea, which is only an example), presenting an upgrade option to the user. The claim then further patents getting the package delivered and installed as part of the claims.
This patent clearly attempts to claim anything even remotely implementing an automatic update procedure. I think it's possible that Microsoft is looking for another block to shore up it's defense by patenting parts of other OSes currently out there. This does that. Yet another patent on something that is essentially "obvious" to a "skilled praticioner of the art" cited.
This is an algorithm, and that should make it all but unpatentable, but it's written as an operational procedure with real parts, rather than a simple sequence of steps, so it suddenly becomes patentable.
It would be nice if ZDnet or Wired or a "mainstream" non-techie newsfeed covered the discussion, especially regarding Debian and/or Red Hat, and prior art on the patent front. It seems that the lawyers and committees responsible for overseeing the patent office think it's working very well thank you, and that it doesn't need to be changed.
I'm quite concerned that this was granted. It's another item that if it goes to court takes time and energy away from people doing good things for the Open Source movement.
But that's just an opinion, and I'm not a lawyer......:-)
Re:The claim's the thing....
by
TechLawyer
·
· Score: 1
You are correct that the claims define the scope of what's protected. The title is meaningless and typically reflects what the applicant would like to cover, instead of what is actually covered by the patent itself. Although the claims define the scope of the patent, the claims have to be interpreted based on the disclosure in the patent, and on the history of the application. That is, MS may have had to make some concessions to the Patent Office to get this patent allowed, and it can't now interpret the patent contrary to those concessions. The only way to see how valid and broad this patent really is would be to order the file history from the usual places and take a good hard look. I can't believe, off the top of my head, that this patent covers much at all. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a patent attorney & deal with this stuff all the time. I imagine that I have just painted a big red target on myself by bringing that up. FYI, on a related topic, people interested in patent reform should check out New Zealand's patent law. I think it offers some good ideas that should be considered for use in the US (e.g., an opposition period so that interested parties who have access to prior art can submit it to the Examiner).
Does anybody follow links anymore? At the bottom of the referenced page it links to other similar patents including Apple's from '98. Digging deeper, the oldest patent for this basic process was granted to Xerox in 1985! Hitachi, IBM, Minicom, and Compaq all have similar patents. These patents must be much more specific than the abstracts would seem to indicate. I don't think Debian has much to worry about since if they are infringing prior use would be easy to claim.
-- Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
Changelog entries for dpkg...
by
latham
·
· Score: 1
The most recent entry for dpkg, the heart of apt, (cut and paste from it ) is Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:28:04 by David Morris . The first entry is on Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:07:53 by Ian Jackson . And the first version of rpm can out in 1995. The MSFT application file date isn't until Nov. 14 1997. So I don't think that MSFT has a very good case with respect to prior art. In school this was called plagerism.
Even with the psuedo distinction of the Windows registry, a very good argument could be made to effect that the database that dpkg and rpm keeps are equivalent and therefore MSFT's "technology" does not constitute a new invention. Even the Apple patent might not have a leg to stand on.
Hey, RedHat! Hey, Debian! Are you going to challenge these patents?
I find it amusing that the Patents IBM site is hosting this page when IBM's OS/2 was performing the same sort of services to upgrade itself in (IIRC) 1994.
I recall reading posts jokingly wondering how long it was going to take MS to steal the idea.
Now we know. 5 years.
Groupthink hard at work
by
GenChalupa
·
· Score: 1
I read Slashdot daily and I like it.
I also know that every story has some idiot complaining about the degradation of the forums.
Having said that, it is usually painful for me to read the talkbacks. Once upon a time, this was a forum for tech nerds/intellectuals to debate the issues posed in the news items. Now, it is a place to:
A. Mindlessly complain about Microsoft. (as in, "Netscape always crashes on Linux! I bet it's because of Microsoft!")
B. Mindlessly praise Linux! (as in, "Linux is so good that people will begin switching over en masse any day now!! But they can't because Microsoft won't let them! Bill Gate$ suxx!")
Why do I say this? Because in this news article, the facts are clearly stated, but NOBODY is reading it! Yet *everyone* has an opinion!
"I bet Microsoft is going to enforce it on Debian and we will get really mad!! And Bill Gate$ suxx! So the government better get him! But Linux is so good everyone will switch over anyway! But Microsoft is a monopoly so that means that people are incapable of going to CompUSA and buying Red Hat!"
Can't anyone here read? "A determination is made whether the current date is on or after a date stored in a registry key on a computer."
Linux does not have a registry! But I guess everyone here read the source and knows that.
Now then, we should all complain that "Bill's gonna get 'cha!"
No he's not. Microsoft, as far as I can remember, has zero history of suing anyone for patent violations. And Microsoft has thousands of patents. They own a patent for everything they can possibly claim. If they wanted to, they could most likely sue every company in the industry for one violation or another. (They would most likely lose, but they *could* sue.)
These are defensive patents. Because, believe it or not, there are companies worse than Microsoft. There are companies who have produced nothing, yet patent the most mundane obvious thing and sue like hell.
Microsoft has a lot of money and is a big company. People like to sue big companies. Microsoft is patenting to protect themselves from frivilous lawsuits.
"NO WAY! Bill Gate$ is satan and he wants to stop competition! He's going to sue Linux because they are competitors! They are already stopping people from downloading Debian for free on the Internet, and Bill Gates personally is stopping Cheapbytes server from selling distros for 2 dollars!!"
Fine. Long live groupthink!
Gen Chalupa
Re:Groupthink hard at work
by
Monolith
·
· Score: 1
How does getting a patent keep Microsoft from getting sued?? True they don't have a history of sueing over patents but with things going like they are for microsoft I wouldn't be supprised if they started.
-- May your soul reach heaven before the devil realizes you are dead
Re:Groupthink hard at work
by
GenChalupa
·
· Score: 1
>How does getting a patent keep Microsoft >from getting sued??
Perhaps you forgot to read my post. Allow me to restate it for you, and follow it with explanation.
These are defensive patents. Because, believe it or not, there are companies worse than Microsoft. There are companies who have produced nothing, yet patent the most mundane obvious thing and sue like hell.
Now, in case you missed it, other companies patent things like the mouse arrow, and then sue Microsoft because it uses a little arrow icon. Get it? So MS patents the obvious, and prevents others from suing them.
>I wouldn't be supprised if they started
I have no real secret motives to defend MS, but this kind of crap just pisses me off! This is what I'm talking about! Blindly attack Microsoft with no reasonable foundation in fact.
How are they going to sue? Linux has no registry! In the hundreds of hours that you spent analyzing the source, you *must* have seen that! ESR said so!
Gen Chalupa
Re:Groupthink hard at work
by
remande
·
· Score: 2
These are defensive patents. Because, believe it or not, there are companies worse than Microsoft. There are companies who have produced nothing, yet patent the most mundane obvious thing and sue like hell.
Maybe they are defensive patents. Maybe they are offensive patents. Only time will tell. Patents are like guns; they can be used to defend or destroy.
Given Microsoft's track record in general, I think at least some skepticism and even preparation is in order. When a bank robber picks up a handgun, it may just be defensive. But I'm going to run for the nearest cover, and a good cop will level his own piece at the man and tell him to drop it.
Microsoft doesn't try to win by being the fastest runner. It tries to win by being the last man standing. When it picks up a patent, any patent, I don't expect that it is going to play nice with it.
--
--The basis of all love is respect
Re:Groupthink hard at work
by
GenChalupa
·
· Score: 1
>Given Microsoft's track record in general, I >think at least some skepticism and even >preparation is in order.
I disagree.
Given Microsoft's track record, no preparation is in order. Microsoft competes in the arena of business. Even if you think Microsoft is out to slay us all, two things you can absolutely NOT say about them:
1.) They strategically sue their competition.
2.) They strategically use the government against their competition.
Microsoft, as far as I know, never sues anyone. (excluding matters of piracy, of course.) Oh, they wage bloody and violent wars in the marketplace, but never have I seen them go to the courts and say, "Stop ABC Widgetsoft from doing that!"
They could have on numerous occasions, (AOL's acquisition of TimeWarner comes to mind, as do numerous potential patent lawsuits against others) but Microsoft has steered clear of that. I consider that a Very Good Thing.
Sun Microsystems is the polar opposite of this. That is a sue-happy enterprise.
Another interesting fact about MS is their restraint in going to the government tactically. In fact, this is probably hurting them today. Had they been "playing the game," they might have avoided this lawsuit all together. Contrast that with Oracle, who put the political pressure on (the weak, useless) Orrin Hatch to start hearings in the Senate in the mid-90s. (Hearings which amounted to nothing, and wasted tax-dollars all to get Orrin "Give me your money and I'll give you my time" Hatch good TV exposure.
Microsoft seems to dislike fighting outside of the market, which is at least one good thing that everyone can agree on about them.
Gen Chalupa
Re:Groupthink hard at work
by
remande
·
· Score: 3
Microsoft, as far as I know, never sues anyone. (excluding matters of piracy, of course.) Oh, they wage bloody and violent wars in the marketplace, but never have I seen them go to the courts and say, "Stop ABC Widgetsoft from doing that!"
Stac vs. Microsoft, and then the countersuit Microsoft vs. Stac.
Stac figured out a way to compress and decompress a FAT filesystem on-the-fly. Thus, you could effectively double your hard drive capacity. They sold this as a DOS utility called Stacker.
Microsoft put this technology into DOS 6. Unfortunately, they didn't bother to ask Stac permission first. They just stole Stacker and used it. The Stac Vs. Microsoft suit caused them to pull it back out (they eventually built their own disc-compression logic and put that back in).
Microsoft then proceeded to sue Stac for using "undocumented DOS calls". Never mind that these APIs were documented by third parties and you could go down to your bookstore and get it, and never mind that these were the same calls that make any useful program possible in DOS; Microsoft realized that their legal budget exceeded Stac's grosses and sued their asses for deigning to complain about Microsoft stealing their code.
I don't trust Microsoft with a plastic spoon, much less a patent. Now you know why.
--
--The basis of all love is respect
Automation is trivial and nonpatentable
by
Rares+Marian
·
· Score: 2
Unix invented automation of text processing that was its original purpose.
Linux doesn't need a registry to do this. A registry key is a string of bytes. Any damn file regardless whether it's a regisrtry, a database, or a config file can contain a string of bytes.
Second, dates/versions same fucking thing. Think first moron.
In fact prior art: the online calendar and reminder systems. Those are automated too. And jesus christ CRON. Microsoft has patented CRON.
-- The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Email auto-execute [Off Topic]
by
Tim+C
·
· Score: 1
This is offtopic, but we've been fruitlessly brainstorming here all morning. Is there any valid business use for having an email execute itself?
Well, the only thing I can think of is self-propagating advertising. Why bother finding an open relay/getting a temporary account, etc, then sending out tens of thousands of mails, when you can send one or two, and sit back and watch as they propagate themselves for you?
I'm not advocating this as a realistic use (I can imagine that more than a few ISPs, companies, etc would sue for the amount of traffic it generated on their networks), but it's the only one I've been able to think of.
RPM is just a package format. AFAIK, there is no automated update facility in RedHat Linux. This patent is for a method of distributing software updates. It has nothing to do with any particular package format. The only technologies that I know of that might infringe are APT under Debian and Apple's software update control panel.
-matthew
-- "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Irony
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1
Irony - when one branch of a goverment takes action against a company's attempt to monopolize a specific industry and another branch of the same goverment attempts to grant the same company a monopoly on a basic function used in that same industry.
Patents don't suck; software patents suck. Non-software patents actually work; for example, look at the model for development of new pharmaceuticals. Without the guarantee of a monopoly, drug companies would have no incentive to spend big bucks on research and development.
Software patents, on the other hand... The Patent Office needs to get better reviewers who actually know something about the software industry, especially free software. Only truly revolutionary techniques (MPEG audio layer 3, RSA public-key encryption, etc.) deserve a patent. This Unisys patent (even dumber than its LZW patent) doesn't.
What's so special about MP3 or RSA PKE? Pretty much the same thing that was special about LZW compression back in 1983. Sure these things are plain to us now, because we've seen the methods and are familiar with the research. 30 years ago there weren't a lot of people who understood compression, so compression techniques were pretty revolutionary. In 10 years nobody will be impressed with perceptual audio coding (which is really only a variant of perceptual video coding [ie. jpeg]). And everybody will be pissed because it's patented.
But it covers package management on Windows
by
alispguru
·
· Score: 2
This is simply a patent on a process, not a technology.
Exactly correct. What it means is that now nobody but Microsoft may use the obvious mechanism for maintaining package information on Windows systems.
Why they would want to make all non-Microsoft software packages harder to install and maintain on their OS remains a mystery...
--
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Re:But it covers package management on Windows
by
Kismet
·
· Score: 2
Exactly correct. What it means is that now nobody but Microsoft may use the obvious mechanism for maintaining package information on Windows systems.
I'm sure there are a multitude of other, equally obvious methods of package management. The MS Patent makes some specific points in its application:
1) The Windows Registry 2) A date 3) A database query 4) The Internet 5) A Package Server
Current PMSes can use some other form of tracking software, not the Windows registry. Similar, but different. A version number is probably prefered over the date for an upgrade. Similar, again. The patent's language pertains to the Internet, but the more general idea of a Network isn't covered by that specific piece.
How can MS enforce its patent on other ideas that are similar, yet lack the specifics in the text? I don't think they can.
how innovative this patent proves MS to be. I probably wouldn't know a patent from a patient from a pentacle, but I do know what Microsoft Innovation means.
With a pace to the astroturfers, we all know how innovative MS is, and the only thing we have to think about is whether to laugh at them or be offended by the bs.
But it's also interesting to step back from that issue, and examine their overuse of the word. It has apparently become some kind of mantra for them. Want to hype a new product (or a recycled old product)? Describe it as innovative. Want to justify your monopoly? Point out how innovative you are. Need to divert attention from courtroom lies? Hold a press conference on the courthouse steps and say 'innovative' three or four times. Want to divert the rap for features that make security a joke? Point out how innovative they are. Need to shove out some upgradeware to maintain your cash flow? Add some useless frills and call them innovative.
It seems like MS has somehow gotten stuck on 'innovative' as a magic word that cures all ills.
When you watch from this viewpoint, it's absolutely hilarious to see Gates make his statements to the press after each latest setback. It's as if he believes in magic, and 'innovative' is the word the realeases the spell. Truly, there's something wrong with that man.
The other word that they're stuck on is 'active'; they can hardly put out a product anymore without putting 'active' in its name.
Is this a recognizable symptom of some mental disorder?
ps - If they were really innovative, they would think of an innovative word to discribe it with now and then. --
Copyright applies as soon as it is set in fixed form.
So if you make something and do not patent it, you do not get patent privilidges, but you do stop someone else from later making it and getting a patent. (in theory...)
-- "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Did anyone actually read the referenced patents?
by
saurik
·
· Score: 3
Everyone who is making comments like about how Microsoft is patenting package management or automation ("Microsoft Patented CRON" was my favorite example of this one) needs to read the referenced patents.
If you actually look, this patent is a modification to existing patents by other companies, such as Compaq's 1996 "US5586304: Automatic computer upgrading" ( http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US5586304), which begins with "A method for use in upgrading a resource of a computer from an existing version of the resource to a later version of the resource.", which seems to conflict with just about every helpful installation program ever created.
How about IBM's 1995 "US5473772: Automatic update of static and dynamic files at a remote network node in response to calls issued by or for application programs" ( http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US0547377 2) which seems to cover applications like rsync and maybe even CVS.
All that Microsoft's patent is is a small extension of a few other patents (Apple already got automating program upgrade in 1998, IBM got automatic maintenance, an earlier Microsoft patent covering remote software discovery (probably for Windows Update like behavior), and Samsung's system of letting the app developer update a server and have it distribute down to clients) making them more focused for what they are trying to do. BUT, everyone chooses to attack this patent:).
Xerox's >>1985 http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US0455841 3) actually seems to have the source code based package management systems covered (although it might be just different enough to be talking more about source code management than of binary applications).
There were a bunch of other goodies there but I am already way past when I was supposed to leave this morning to point them out:).
Well, one more I just hit on... IBM's 1987 "US4649473: Flexible data transmission for message based protocols" ( http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US4649473). This one seems pretty close to Microsoft's Message Queue system... Maybe someone should point that out to someone, hehe.
Re:RedHat is indeed in violation of our patent
by
steelerhead
·
· Score: 1
You don't need to patent something defensively. If you do something but don't patent it, nobody else can patent it afterwords because of a little caveat called "Prior Art."
There is no such thing as a defensive patent. Either you patent something and use it like a club on those in your industry, or you don't and it's a little like copyleft.
Furthermore, Microsoft, if it were really interested in not being sued, would have settled the anti-trust case. They are now subject to a million points of litigation that rely directly on the judge's findings of fact--specifically that microsoft behaves in a manner unbefitting a monopolist. The appelate court can only overturn the remedies or demand a revisitation of certain conclusions. The facts are in and almost unbesmirchable.
Frankly, both of your premises need work. "Microsoft wants to avoid lawsuits" and "Defensive patents protect against lawsuits." are both false.
There are, as I see it, two kinds of defensive patents. The more benign use is to prevent someone else from trying to patent the same thing. The nice thing about having a patent in that regard is that demonstrating prior art is very simple. Of course, filing that as a statutory patent is the most benign of all. Without that, though, you have to demonstrate a lot more: literature searches and all that. The patent office would be hard pressed to ignore a patent that it itself granted earlier.
The second use is basically "I won't stop anyone from doing this, unless they try to stop me from doing something else." Someone goes after you for infringing their patent? Fine -- but gee whiz, doesn't your frobnitz infringe mine too? Uh, gee, there's no sense in getting all tied up in court. We're even. Without that patent, there's not a whole lot of defense. Of course, since a patent is a patent, it can "mutate" into something less benign when management gets other ideas.
Then there's what Amazon tried to claim as "defensive" -- they're a small, weak company, and they need something to hold the big guys at bay. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as very defensive.
Truth be told, I haven't heard a lot about Microsoft going after other companies on patent violations. Maybe they have and I haven't heard about it, but they do generally seem more inclined to compete in the marketplace (even if it's a marketplace that they've rigged) than to play legal games.
Frankly sir, you don't know what you are talking about.
Defensive patents are a very legitimate business practice, and they most certainly work. It is difficult, or at the very least a nuisance, to be dragged into court day after day, week after week to prove "prior art" on every type and detail of technology in a product.
That wastes money, both in terms of paying lawyers and paying engineers to testify rather than work. Microsoft, love them or hate them, is a well run company and has no interest in such time consumption and waste.
>Furthermore, Microsoft, if it were really >interested in not being sued, would have settled >the anti-trust case.
I am discussing "nuisance" lawsuits. The anti-trust trial is the most important legal challenge that Microsoft, or indeed any company, can ever face. The two types of lawsuits are miles apart and have nothing to do with one another.
True, by not settling Microsoft is open to litigation on many fronts. However, it is now clear that the alternative would have been ritual hara-kiri. The government was demanding a break-up all along. Microsoft had two choices: risk lawsuits that they can win, or kill themselves.
Microsoft has never lost on appeal, and it is becoming likely that the next presidential administration will drop all charges against the company anyway.
Worst case scenario, the states lawsuits will win the first level of appeal, but be struck down by the conservative Supreme Court. Once the high Court rules in Microsoft's favor, it will be difficult for "reprocussion" suits from having any serious chance at beating MS.
Back to Microsoft's legal mentality, can you name a single patent lawsuit that Microsoft has initiated? No. You can't.
Microsoft is an old software company with thousands of patents. They are not "using it like a club" on anybody.
Well, unless you mean to tell me that they are saving them up for the right time, and then they're going to strike with hundreds of "mega-suits." But if you really believe that, perhaps you should be more concerned with the planets lining up today and the world ending. Or the inevitable alien invasion.
You don't need to patent something defensively. If you do something but don't patent it, nobody else can patent it afterwords because of a little caveat called "Prior Art."
I suspect this is a myth. It is claimed that prior art is sufficient to defend against a patent but I believe I've seen references in this forum that show that prior art isn't always a defense.
And, in any case, even if prior art were a defense, you still have to defend yourself in court and that means spending lots of ca$h. But if you have a patent on something that the other guy is likely to be using himself, you can politely point that out to him before his patent lawsuit gets off the ground and then arrange a cross-licensing agreement of some kind.
The traditional players in the field, and it seems that Microsoft is one of them, use patents as a way of preventing themselves from being sued. It's primarily morons like Amazon that have decided to break with this tradition and thus put the entire field in jeopardy.
--
-- Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
I remember seeing something on freshmeat a while back that periodically checked redhat's site for new packages and downloaded them automatically. Can't remember what it was called. Didn't use it because I run slackware.
What about Slolaris et. al.? Don't they have package managers too? I know slolaris does.
With a bit of luck, Sun will sue Micros~1 over this, or get the patent voided.
Let's sit back, relax and enjoy watching this develop.
Drink beer. Eat curry.
-- I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
Re:New packages on the Net...
by
Mr.+Piccolo
·
· Score: 1
Yes, Sol-what's-the-deal-with-this-virtual-memory-syste m-anyway-how-come-it-pages-so-much-with- 64-MB-nothing-else-does-aris has a package manager.
So does FreeBSD, and I would assume NetBSD and OpenBSD as well.
Now, why can't all the BSD folks get together and patent the ports collection?:-)
-- Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
you might agree that patents do suck and choose to ignore them, but other companies will take advantage and you'll be screwed. Its a necessary evil.
-- Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
WSH, VBScript, Preview Pane
by
rjamestaylor
·
· Score: 1
Since when does email execute itself?
Since the combination of VBScript, Windows Scripting Host, and the Preview Pane in Outlook hit corporate America.
This latest one requires the uese to click on (i.e. execute) IM_A_DUMBASS.VBS Or are you asking is there any reason for attatching an executable to email? I think that answer would be yes.
I don't think you understand the issues here: regardless how the "latest" worm is initiated, the ability for anyone to embed executable code in the message itself is a huge security violation (not even a risk). For more information see this.
VBScript, WSH, Outlook Preview Pane: the unholy trinity that empower e-vandals.
-- --
@rjamestaylor on Ello
Re:WSH, VBScript, Preview Pane
by
Trepalium
·
· Score: 1
There have been a MULTITUDE of flaws in Outlook and Outlook Express that allowed execution of arbitrary code when looking at a specially contructed (read: MS HTML extensions) HTML message. It's stupid, and most of it revolved around ActiveX.
-- I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Microsoft should patent a, "Method for Updating and Ensuring Complex System Stability". Essentially it would be a small 4 line program which reboots WinX systems every 30 minutes without prompting for confirmation from the user.
This would decrease Windows downtime exponentially, as the average windows system crashes every 35 minutes. With a stable new OS in memory just before crash time, they could eliminate that bug completely!
Instead of patenting the code though, they should just patent the process of "Rebooting", since essentially that is all there code would really be doing. Sounds miniscule under the microscope, but think of the possibilities. An OS with zero logged downtime!. And Microsoft would be the first to think of patenting "Rebooting as a means of maintaining system stability". Legally, we all know they have the right to it, who in the world associates rebooting for continued use with any OS other than Windows?
Unfortunately all you Linux lovers out there will be screwed when they do patent it. Next time your system crashes, legally, you'll have to throw them out and go get new ones.
Copyright protection is automatic. Patent isn't. Copyright can be registered. Patents have to be.
RPM has nothing to do with this. This is about an automated, internet based, update system, that may update only partial modules of programs.
Essentially anything is patentable
by
gelfling
·
· Score: 2
I was recently at an intellectual property conference and the two things that shocked me were:
Anything is patentable or at least submittable as a patent. Depending on how you word it even if there may be some issues with prior art, if you describe even a business process, then tat can be patented.
You don't actually need finished product to patent it. You can describe how the code might work. You don't actually need working code to patent what the code does.
This goes to the heart of why this is such a hot topic now. You get a bunch of smart people to describe some of the ideas and solutions they've come up with over the years and patent them. Then you get a bunch of sharp people to scour the landscape and identify something that knowingly or unknowingly uses substantial aspects of your patent. Lastly you go to them with your hand out requesting royalties.
Debian had this long before APT....
by
Diesel+Dave
·
· Score: 1
Debian supported this using dselect. The 'FTP' method has been around as long as I can remember and my frist Debian install was 1.0.1 (?) Around early 1996 (?)
run dselect, Cursor down once to 'update'. Hit return about 5 times, and it goes from there to 'Select' to 'Install', automatically selecting all newer packages, downloading, then installing them.
I'm sure there were external ways to call this but I never looked into it.
CASE Computer Aided Software Engineering
by
Dungeon+Dweller
·
· Score: 2
Anybody who has used a CASE system before, can tell you that updating all of your files to the current status is nothing new. CASE has been around (at least in concept) for a very long time.
Even Microsoft can, since they use one...
-- Eh...
Prior Art => Useless Patent
by
jdiggans
·
· Score: 1
This patent and it's effects on Linux seem to be moot points. If, indeed, MS does try to flaunt their patent around and enforce it by bully-whipping anyone trying to create such a system the EFF would have no problem demonstrating prior art, whether in RedHat's RPM system or Debian's apt.
The fact that a patent is granted for a particular idea isn't always the most important concept, the patent never really becomes important until it's used as a weapon against a competitor. I doubt MS will ever have the cojones to attempt this, as anyone and their mother can show prior art for this particular 'concept'.
- jc ---------------------------------------------- ----------------- James C. Diggans jdiggans@excelsior-web.com
New award for patent system
by
AShuvalov
·
· Score: 1
I just wrote an article about patents at samovarawards.com. Thanks ch-chak for a nice link!
Plenty of people have noticed that Microsoft's system uses a (Windows)Registry key to store date/time stamps and that Linux/[Insert other OS here] does not have a registry as part of the OS.
Yeah, you noticed that too:). But I reckon it could mean one of two things:
Microsoft's patent covers using some sort of hierarchical database to store the timestamps. This means their patent has been worded badly, because it might mean that in reality...
Microsoft's patent only covers systems that use the Windows Registry. That will definitely rule out apt, RPM and pals, but might affect some companies releasing Windows Software.
The US Patent office worry me, but not that much, because I live in the UK. Unfortunately I heard somewhere that in future there might be a reciprocal patent agreement between Europe and the US. Oh great.
I've been reading through all the messages and one thing confused me after checking the length a pattent is good for. Now I would think the people in the pattent office lack any real great intellegence when it comes to computers, just look at all the pattents they pass through. But realisticly, what good is a computer pattent 20 years from now? If the pattent is inteded to help a company make some $$ off their invention before its mass produced by everyone, then a computer related pattent is basicly getting a monopoly on that concept.
I would think 2 years is long time in terms of computer development.
Basicly if this pattent were to hold then M$ would have exclusives on remote/automated updating for 20 years?
I feel there is a serious flaw in this system.
-- If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
CVS is a management system also Re:Umm..
by
mr
·
· Score: 1
And FreeBSD has been allowing users to execute one command (make update) and the system goes out, gets the code necessary to bring the latest and greatest in to compile for many, many years.
And the BSD package system goes out and gets any dependancies one needs and installs them 1st. Did this long b4 any Linux system thought it would be a good thing to do.
M$'s actions are more to stop someone else from suing them over such a patent award/a bargining chip.
If one wants to overthrow this patent on prior art, it looks like it could be done. And, because it *IS* Micro$oft, I'm sure some members of the geek community will try extra hard.
--
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Re:CVS is a management system also Re:Umm..
by
Steelehead
·
· Score: 1
"...And FreeBSD has been allowing users to execute one command (make update) and the system goes out, gets the code necessary to bring the latest and greatest in to compile for many, many years... Did this long b4 any Linux system thought it would be a good thing to do. That is one reason why I decided to check out FreeBSD. That and the Linux binaries compatability option (though I hardly need it because all the little proggies I use(d) under Linux are already a/port )
-- --
100% MS-Free as of 4-4-1999, 11:47:38 PST.
"The lapdance is always better when the stripper is cryin'"
Free Kevin,
Re:CVS is a management system also Re:Umm..
by
Rogain
·
· Score: 1
Oh yeah, TRS80's had keyboards back before BSD was anything more than school project. Just press a button and click, there's a new character on your screen. Amazing! Radio Shack should get a patent on using keyboards with computers.
That is an insane use of patent law. Here's a concept thats been reality for years, lets get a totally unfounded patent for legal reasons. Then the morons at the Patent office have no idea. I seriously doubt they even know what a computer or the internet are.
Could Radio Shack sue the apple of the Imac, like Apple did e-machines (or whichever pc maker it was)?
-- The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
Re:CVS is a management system also Re:Umm..
by
mr
·
· Score: 1
>Radio Shack should get a patent on using keyboards with computers.
Considering keyboards existed on things called punch-card writers and on the follow-up product called the interactive terminal, exactly what clown-college-caker-jack-box legal school did you get a licence to practice law as a patent lawyer?
Everyone is claiming prior art with RPM, but the prior art is in the Mandrake Update it does automatically check a website for updated packages and acts as a front-end to RPM.
New M$ Patent - E-mail "ZeroClick" Technology
by
ahg
·
· Score: 3
Redmond WA. Microsmut announced today that have received a patent on a new technology known as "ZeroClick" for previewing e-mails and all executable attachments within, without requiring the user to actually do anything to open them. A Microsmut spokesperson said "This will help us serve our customers better enabling us to e-mail them software updates without any need for their intervention."
They further said that they will aggressively enforce this patent securing their competitve edge over Linux and other competing operating system that will not be able to provide similiar functionality. CEO, Billy predicts that this will lure users from the Linux platform who still must suffer with the "TwoClick" method for viewing an attachment.
--
--Aaron Greenberg
Who works in the patent office?
by
yorgi
·
· Score: 1
Ok, does ANYONE that knows anything about technology work in the patent office??? How do ridiculous patents like this actually pass through?
Wouldn't the app called Update Agent for RPM be considered close enough to be prior work? Doesn't it querie the ftp site for updated RPM's and install them (I've never used it - any self-respecting Admin would never arbitrarily apply upgrades like this without knowing exactly what's going where and what's going to be affected by it). I know it's not automatic (thank God), and if Win32 makes their version automatic that's one more reason not to use it. Think of the issues with corrupted files, privacy, etc...
Additionally, I know Quicktime had the pre-downloader that downloaded the rest of the app and installed it for you (I hated that - sometimes I need to install QT on systems with no internet access and they made that impossible). Now Internet Explorer is proving Microsoft as the ultimate copy-cat by doing the same thing. We can rest assured that Microsoft has NOTHING that is original or not a blantant copy of something else, so the thought of them getting a patent for something proves that the paper-pushers at the patent office are more concerned with quota and revenue that with issueing fully researched and justified patents (if that actually exists). How long are we going to let this travesty continue? Either abolish patents or re-create the system and force all current patent holders to re-apply with full research that should have been happening from the beginning, and down with software patents. That's like me patenting a novel because I used "He tenderly kissed her" in it. Sheesh...
Prior Art at Northern Telecom
by
deeny
·
· Score: 2
I did a major rewrite, in 1993, of this exact kind of system for Northern Telecom. The Product Portfolio group (the group I was in) did this initially in 1992 or perhaps even 1991. We had a series of Macintosh applications that were front ends to Oracle databases. When you logged in, it would check and see what updates were available and download them (the rewrite I did was to add the functions to selectively download, so people who didn't need to upgrade then didn't have to).
It was even smart enough to be able to replace the currently-running application cleanly.
The only distinction is the datestamp and the "registry key" -- not really innovations. We used version numbering (gosh, how standard) and an application code name to determine whether or not an application was current. Even at that time, it was all done over the internet.
I'd be willing to be a part of any patent challenge on this, as the patent is ridiculous.
Once again, no more "I" for Microsoft.
_Deirdre
Proposal: Reversed patent infrigement?
by
~roman
·
· Score: 1
What about such a law, that if a subject B will fill invalid patent (previously used by a subject A), than A can try a case against B for patent infringement? Than B will thing twice before coming to patent office...
Scenario:
Bill: "I want to patent Sex!" Patent Officer: "No problemo." You (married with children): "Hey Bill, pay me for patent infringement!" (...and there is about 6 000 000 000 more proves)
US2224666: Method for encoding disapproval...
by
Moorlock
·
· Score: 1
...and sarcasm in the form of visual representations of spoken human language, using the form of recognizable contexts for similar representations as an ironic counterpoint for the ostensible message contained in the linguistic symbols in order to convey the actual intended message, with inevitable misinterpretations serving as further ironic counterpoint that can be leveraged to underscore the intended message.
-- Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Not about "downloading from the internet"
by
Tor
·
· Score: 1
Ok, I took a good look over the patent. It appears that the patent is for a software package management system that operates over the internet specifically. Well, there's a good chance that was never patented.
Actually, if you look closer at the patent description, it references some other patents related to updating software components over the internet
This patent is a bit more specific, and relates to providing a remote server with information about installed software, then have the server return with a list of needed updates.
This is a tiny little bit different from Debian's "dselect" and APT tools, in that these latter ones receive a list of available software from the server, and locally determine which software can/should be upgraded or which software is newly available/obsolete.
The cynical part of us all (and we are probably right, given Microsoft's history) will conclude that this is done on the server in Microsoft's case only to provide some information back to them about how their customer's computers look - i.e. do do a little bit of surveying, policing and the like.
In either case, it will be very hard for Microsoft to hold up this patent in court, given that there is prior art (patented as well as non-patented) in this area.
Our problem is that this still means litigation; and even if we may be right, Debian/SPI do not have the same economical resources at their disposal as does Microsoft. If Microsoft sues the organization, or any U.S.-based member of it, for patent violations, chances are that this will be a major obstacle for Debian's packaging method.
Unless, of course, Corel or Storm Linux (both derived from Debian) would be willing to assist.
-tor
Microsoft has us all by the balls
by
fred_the_slow
·
· Score: 2
Who cares about updates? Looks like they've got us pretty good.
Re:Microsoft has us all by the balls
by
Trepalium
·
· Score: 1
I think my favorite part of that The Onion story is:
"Think of this as a partnership," Gates said. "Like the ones and zeroes of the binary code itself, we must all work together to make the promise of the computer revolution a reality. As the world's richest, most powerful software company, Microsoft is number one. And you, the millions of consumers who use our products, are the zeroes."
-- I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Well, just another example of the same old same old micro$oft style of taking other folk's ideas and using them for their own profit. Stealing from the open source community. Does "Stacker" come to mind anyone? I really hope they get whats coming to them and their hole ridden,ineffecient,bloated software. unix for life.
McAffe (macaffe?) had/has a product called Oil Change since around 94/95 I'm guessing. This product checked a central database of version numbers for popular software packages and would allow you to download and install updates when they became available. I believe the software checked version numbers as they appeared in the registry.
This confuses me..because it sounds like MS is now patenting the exact same process. -Jer
Over the last few months my legal advisors and I have become aware that the large majority of/. readers are infridging my latest patient. Please if you wish to read left to right mail me my royality checks.:-p
Since the first version of NeXTSTEP that I ever saw (2.0), NeXT had a package manager. By 1992, they had a concept of a "remote package", where instead of a.tar.gz file inside the.pkg directory, they had the moral equivalent of an URL, which gave a hostname and a path from which to FTP the contents of the package.
-jcr
-- The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Uh, there's AutoRPM. There's also Symantec's LiveUpdate feature. And let's not forget Lotus Notes replication (which does code, not just data, y'all).
That's off the top of my head. And that's just ones using the public Internet that have UIs that ask users what they want to do. I daresay, this is no different from what most automated file mirroring and ASD (automated software distribution) systems do. Computer Associates, Tivoli and a few other companies I can think of will have something to say about this. A look at the legal status screen makes it appear they already have.
Apple's Software Update Control Panel
by
bwdezend
·
· Score: 1
Correct me if I am wrong, but... Patents require proof of no prior art. Apple Computer has a control panel that does exactly what MS has patented... it checks a list of Apple supplied and supported patches and downloads and installs the proper ones, either on set schedule, or manually. Something seems wrong here, or I have missed something REALLY big...
Win2K is much better when it comes to requiring restarts. I believe I installed all of Office 2000 without a single reboot, although I may be mistaken. Sometimes you can even change video drivers without rebooting. (That actually scared the hell out of me when it happened, it's such a foreign concept in Windows.)
Of course, there are still a lot of obnoxious installers that force a restart when it isn't necessary. That's partly why MS wants to make installing apps a service of the OS.
Win2K is much better when it comes to requiring restarts. I believe I installed all of Office 2000 without a single reboot, although I may be mistaken. Sometimes you can even change video drivers without rebooting. (That actually scared the hell out of me when it happened, it's such a foreign concept in Windows.)
Nope. Sorry. Win2k still a reboot if you change nameserver information, which is utterly ridiculous. It's getting better though. You can change your IP address without a reboot. Why Microsoft didn't take this one step further is anyones guess (mine: laziness).
Nope. Sorry. Win2k still a reboot if you change nameserver information, which is utterly ridiculous.
It's true that Windows networking has always been the worst when it comes to unnecessary restarts. (Sometimes, on Win9x, if you just look at your settings and then hit "Cancel", you still have to restart. Grrr.) But I just changed my DNS settings several times in Win2K without restarting, so I guess YMMV.
My favorite little "bug" in Win9x is the fact you get ONE shot at installing the networking files... If you add a networking device, and click cancel instead of putting in the Win9x CD-ROM, it'll never try to install VREDIR.VXD, VNETSUP.VXD, and a handful of other VXD files ever again. Or the other issue where going into the network control panel in Win95 will cause it to copy the same files usually about 4 times and then tell you to reboot despite not changing anything. And of course, it always wants to overwrite the updated version of SECUR32.DLL with the one on the CD. It's slightly better with Win98, but not much. I seriously doubt any of these quirks would require substancial programming effort to fix.
-- I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Many people have replied stating several different operating systems who have been using a similar package management system for over a decade (I saw a reply about NeXT using a system since 1989.) As well, there is FreeBSD, and as stated in the excerpt, Debian. Isn't prior use a defence in patent infrigement? Couldn't Debian take Microsoft to court over this? I'm sure if Microsoft even raised an eyebrow they'd get blown out of court faster than you can say "Monopoly".
-- -kidlinux.
Who the hell moderated this up?
by
Malcontent
·
· Score: 5
Look bub. The patent doesn't define what a registry is. Anything can be registry even a text file. If you think the word "registry" protects debian or red hat from a suit you are truly stupid.
The fact is MS has gotten a patent on a widely used technology. This allows them to sue anybody they don't like. This is not a Good Thing but it is just another "innovation" from MS. If you can't think of something new get a patent on somebody elses idea.
--
War is necrophilia.
Re:Who the hell moderated this up?
by
GenChalupa
·
· Score: 1
I'm delighted that you responded to my message in a perfectly Slashdot groupthink manner. If you reread my message (or in your case, read it for the first time) you will see that:
A.) Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent violations, even though it owns thousands of far deadlier patents than this.
B.) Being a perfect Slashdot reader, you are blindly attacking Microsoft with no substantive information to back yourself up. As I posed in another post, In the decades that MS has been around, and out of the thousands of patents that MS holds.... Name ONE incident of Microsoft suing another company over patent violations.
Nowthen, reread my message, you will will see the logical, and historically accurate reason for the patents: Legal Defense.
It's OK to be against software patents. I personally believe that the government should ban them. However, until they do, what's the alternative?
A couple of years ago, some yahoo sued dozens of game companies that used video animation in their games. The plantiff owned the patent for full motion video. (!)
The case was ultimately dismissed, but think of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal defense it took to stop the frivilous case. Had some reasonable, benevolent company owned the patent but not enforced it, the case never would have been brought, and everyone would have been happy.
Our patent system is broken, and until it is fixed, Defensive Patents are the lesser of two evils.
Gen Chalupa
Re:Who the hell moderated this up?
by
pohl
·
· Score: 1
It's been said in these pages before: a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.
--
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Re:Who the hell moderated this up?
by
Black+Parrot
·
· Score: 2
> Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent violations, even though it owns thousands of far deadlier patents than this.
Repeat after me: "GIF compression"
--
-- Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:Who the hell moderated this up?
by
Malcontent
·
· Score: 1
"A.) Microsoft has never sued anyone for patent violations, even though it owns thousands of far deadlier patents than this."
So what. Does this mean they will never sue anybody for patent infringement? Can you gurantee this? Why doesn't Bill G. come out and state publicly that MS will never under any circumstances sue anybody for patent infringement.
"Name ONE incident of Microsoft suing another company over patent violations. "
A quick reading of MS history (not to mention the emails that were made public) shows the top brass of MS to be ruthless, unethical, power hungry, megolomaniacal bastards. I would not trust these sliballs to babysit my dog. What makes you think these unethical and amoral people will never sue anybody anyway?
A registry is merely a database in which files can store name/value pairs for their configuration. libPropList does exactly this for WindowMaker. Linux may lack a single, unified registry that all things use, but it doesn't lack a registry entirely.
--
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot?
by
Jouni
·
· Score: 1
Since we're talking about Windows software i.e. software with registry key entries etc., wouldn't writing around this kind of patents make things more awkward specifically for Windows software developers?
It may well be a defensive patent but still, it'll be a hassle in every developer's face who wants to do a similar Windows-based component update system, as they would either have to get legal clearance (or even license) from Microsoft, or roll their own.
Isn't this quite counter-productive for the Windows platform, unless they make a general release concerning the use of such technologies for Windows?
I can't see how that would be in their best interest.
Apparently Microsoft also invented sym links too. They have 3 engineers that 3 years ago were working on a solution to replicating files on a file system but saving space too. IE sym links. I think I read this here a while ago. It is so funny how Microsoft "invents" stuff that already exists.
For those of you who are not familiar UNIX flavors sym links have been around for about as long as unix, and Microsoft just now discoverd there usefullness.
send flames >/dev/null
--
Only 'flamers' flame!
Gee... this sounds a lot like...
by
PowerMacDaddy
·
· Score: 1
...MacOS 9's Software Update control panel. Does the same damn thing, and it's been humming along for over 6 months in a released OS. Works the same way: checks all your installed OS components against the most recent versions posted on Apple's servers, and alerts you that there's updates availible, asking if you want to download & update them. If this is what Microsquish calls "innovation", I'd hate to see what they call "blatent copying". ---
Further evidence that Gates should be jailed
by
Syberghost
·
· Score: 2
I think it's clear that Microsoft has been deliberately, willfully engaged in criminal behavior for their entire existence.
Not punishing them because the acts were performed by a corporation instead of a person is rubbish; they were performed by people, just as much as more horrible crimes in the 1930s and 1940 were performed by German soldiers, not by Germany.
To not punish Microsoft for it's crimes, based on the idea that they won't commit them any more, would be like not jailing Ted Kaczynski because he hasn't blown anybody up lately.
The Microsoft executives responsible for this debacle, including Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, should be jailed for a long time and have all of their personal assets that derive from Microsoft seized and placed up for auction.
Microsoft itself should be dissolved, all assets sold, and the proceeds divided among everyone who has ever bought or sold a copy of a Microsoft software product.
The domain "microsoft.com" should be given to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, with them directed to operate a web server at that address with all the relevant court documents displayed there for all time.
They should be directed to place the source code for all of their products under GPL immediately, and reassign the copyrights to Richard Stallman.
Oh; and Gates should be delivered to the jail wearing lipstick and a miniskirt. --
Huh? I thought patents had to be nonovious
by
Mongoose
·
· Score: 1
It's making the statement the patent office thinks things like network packaging systems and (I still remember) the "oone-click" shopping are new ideas. =(
Also debs and rpms are signed on the server via PGP keys and etc - so if you streach the meaning... this is another stupid patent...
A method for the development of highly insecure, unstable, slow, and bloated software for the personal computer. Prior art: Microsoft, anyone?
Chris Hagar
--
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Everyone at the USPTO needs to be fired!!!!!!!!
by
richie123
·
· Score: 1
I'm not against patents as a concept, but It has gone way beyond what it was desighed for. It is my understanding that patents were created in order to reduce the need for trade secrets, and NOT some kind of state sponsored contest to create a monopoly over any trivial thing. But as anyone can see things have gone far beyond that, and worse, the people who are supposed to check the validity of these patents don't do there job. This is a perfect example of how the system is being abused, not to encurage inovation, but as a simple excuse to sue the competition, and turn this into a huge expensive legal battle. The Creative vs. Aureal is another example, the real purpose of Creatives legal suit was to drown Aureal in legal bills, not protect themselves from being ripped off. I wonder how long this turns into a legal brawl with Redhat, Debian, or any other linux distrobution.
Atten: New patent, buy groceries
by
kalmite
·
· Score: 1
Patent is as follows:
By looking in my cabinets, I see what I am currently out of. I then ask myself, do I want more. If the answer is Yes, I go to the grocery store, buy what I am out of, and return home. Finally, I put the item in my cabinet.
---
Statutory Patents: why we all need to file them
by
WillAffleck
·
· Score: 1
The problem, as we all know, is that the USPTO is overworked and that the Patent system is broken. Since it's managed by the politicians, who are rewarded with money by the big players out there, I doubt it will change any time soon.
Given that, one poster previously noted that you can file Statutory Patents. They're easy to do, very cheap, but they basically Open Source the Patent to everyone and prevent other people (the big players such as MSFT, IBM, Sun) from patenting a really cool idea.
I've been thinking about the next phase of being wired and what it will really look like, and it's obvious to me that it involves something I've called Avatars. Not the kind that others have described, a totally new way of doing things. My main fear is that Bill Gates or someone else will patent something I've been thinking through for the last decade, before I get around to it.
So, it seems that I, as well as others in Open Source, should bite the bullet and start filing these Statutory Patents as soon as possible. Once my old house closes, I'll get it done for my idea; hopefully others amongst us will do the same.
It's time to take technology back from the monopolists of the world and advance the cause of civilization in it's highest form.
So, if you've got a cool patentable idea, but know you'll never go through the usual 2-3 year patent process, with it's expenses, to get it patented, this is a call to arms - patent it as a Statutory Patent to keep it out of the clutches of the vampires of technology and in the daylight of Open Source.
And for all those who do this, I suggest we consider founding some kind of Open Source Patent Foundation, with a really cool party each year at Burning Man or some other cool event. Worst case, I'll buy you a beer or hard cider...
Neat? I wouldn't consider it neat that Microsoft, a monopolistic (YES! I can say that now and be legally accurate!) software company that is known for 'stealing' other's ideas and making them legally their own, has gotten a patent for one of the coolest 'install' procedures in the linux world - a major competetor, of late.
------- CAIMLAS
-- ~/ssh slashdot.org
ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
More specific terms are patentable.
by
werdna
·
· Score: 2
If that is the case, the patent office has just granted a duplicate patent with more specific terms.
It is important not to confuse patentability with infringement. In the scenario of two patents issuing, the first, A, being more general, and the second, later patent B, having all of the elements of A, but with more specific terms, that would not preclude the validity of B.
Assume the only claim of patent A discloses claim elements A1, A2 and A3, and that the only claim of patent B claims elements A1, A2, A3 and B1. Only the following is clear:
1) An apparatus practicing B would probably infringe A, since it has all of the claimed elements A1, A2 and A3. (There are some legal doctrines that would preclude infringement, but they would rarely apply).
2) However, B *is NOT* anticipated by A. While A discloses A1, A2 and A3, it does not have the limitation B. (This would also be true if B claimed A1, A2 and a green A3). If the differences between the more specific limitations satisfy the legal obviousness test of Section 103, B may well be patentable, even though one couldn't build it without infringing A.
Consider for example, if I had a patent on the chair generally. You might well be able to obtain a patent on a rocking chair (a specific kind of chair), but this would not mean that by obtaining the patent you could build a rocking chair without my consent. (And while I can certainly build rockerless chairs without infringing your patents, I would be precluded from building chairs with rockers!)
Re:How many of you will work at the Patents Office
by
TheGratefulNet
·
· Score: 2
$100k linux sysadmin job?!?!
in case you didn't know, sysadmins (in the bay area, at least) are REAL hard to find. good ones, at least.
at the hourly rate most charge, it puts them in the 100k range, more or less. if you don't mind doing pager duty and also doing NT work (you almost can't get an admin job SOLELY on unix these days), then high salaries are NOT hard to find.
--
--
-- "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:Not really -- New hope!
by
Quintus
·
· Score: 1
Actually, I made the fascinating discovery on *ahem* someone else's W'98 computer the other day that you can avoid some reboots! (also in 95?) By using the winipcfg tool (loaded from the dos prompt, oh irony of ironies), and (I think) the release all or renew all buttons, you can persuade it to start using new DNS and Gateway settings, and probably new IP settings, and perhaps the others without rebooting. Of course, I haven't tried this often (I try to avoid W9x, despite administering a labful) and so I may be wrong, but it worked well at least once!
Oh yeah, and I forward this as evidence of incompetence not laziness. Here, some engineer has clearly written an equivalent to raising and dropping an interface, changing routing tables, DNS, etc., and the control panel people have not picked up on it. (You'd think it was them who would've written it!) If there is a reason, I would guess their are stability/conflict issues w/ running apps (yeah, like you get more than one at a time in win...) that I haven't found yet, that they didn't want to support. A bit of a stretch, tho'.
Patents are all about implementation details. As long as you are achieving the same results a different way you are fine.
Also, by naming the registry specifically as a required technology should clear the Linux varieties. If they had stated that the information is store in a file in the local filesystem without specifying the technology then there would be problems.
Anyway, I think that IBM had this sort of information kept on the mainframes (a db of app/lib/version/dependencies) and that would definitely be prior art there. Anyone know for sure?
In 10 years nobody will be impressed with perceptual audio coding (which is really only a variant of perceptual video coding [ie. jpeg]). And everybody will be pissed because it's patented.
Here is a nonpatented perceptual audio coding system from xiph.org.
M$ patent protect monopoly
by
bineronbrain
·
· Score: 1
M$ patent seems so narrowly defined that it makes me think it has only one purpose: Prevent another company from producing another Update service for windows. This way M$ can make sure it won't get any competition in that arena. This speaks volumes about how microsoft deal with innovation: keep it out. But for MS this is just a strategic Bussness move that makes sense for it. Of course this strategy makes no sense if MS is split into separate companies that produce software that is then integrated by third party companies.
Rsync is a nice utility that removes the need to download the entire file.
From the manual.... The rsync remote-update protocol allows rsync to transfer just the differences between two sets of files across the network link, using an efficient checksum-search algorithm described in the technical report that accompanies this package.
Now that in conjunction with apt would be nice.
So they patent upgrading their own products...
by
cokane
·
· Score: 1
The wording of the patent (for those of you who actually read the patent) state that it is patenting a method for using dated-keys stored in the registry for querying a master database to see whether there is an update. It is so restrictive to windows, that MS & Friends would be the only ones using it anyway. RPM, apt, and the BSD package/ports system are not in any trouble.
For all those who're scandalized: it was filed for in 1997, issued 10/99. So why is this mean, evil, and nasty now, but nobody said anything in November 1997? By my lights, the time to whine about it was when there was a chance at shooting it down as prior art...
-- Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Re:Prior Art => Useless Patent
by
Another+MacHack
·
· Score: 1
Given how expelsnive patent litigation can be, even a patent which would be "easy" to defeat can be a formidable weapon. Especially against an opponent without much money.
It is the server that is to actively check if there is a new update. If you download the database, and check for yourself it doesn't count.
I am not sure what the automated update software for linux does, but if it runs ls in the RPM directory at Red Hat, and checks the version number of the output. I cant see that it is the same thing
Also you would have to have a "Are you completely sure you want to install this software?" box pop up, and you cant download the software before you ask.
I Ignore 75% of reboot requests
by
Northern+Hunter
·
· Score: 1
> you can avoid some reboots!
Oh hell, you can ignore the request to reboot nearly 75% of the time with software in general, and everything will work just fine! (WinNT or 98) I *frequently* ignore requests by applications for a reboot.
I have gut feelings for what types of functional upgrades and pieces of software will actually change things that really need a reboot, which are just bluffing to cover their asses, and which were simply programmed by idiots... I'm usually right. Most software falls into the latter two categories.
I work for a product house. Much to my chagrin, a couple years after I discovered the above properties about software in general, our own management forced us to put in a request to reboot one product upon install or upgrade simply to *try* and prevent a bug from happening and getting a support call.
We have only observed this bug once, ever. We're only guessing that a reboot would prevent that problem. It might also need a service pack re-application, but we don't know, we've never been able to repeat the problem.
On another of our series of products, we request that the user stop and start a major component (which affects any and all users using the application at the time)... for no reason! Someone wrote the instructions for a specific item that needed it a year ago, and some other developer copied the instructions verbatim without re-examining that requirement.
The current project that I'm working on violates nearly everything Steve McConnell has ever written... and there's no way I'm getting my neck cut off trying to point this out..
- shudder -
Re:I Ignore 75% of reboot requests
by
Chao
·
· Score: 1
well, the best reason to reboot in 9x is the registry backups (which, of course, you can do manually...) because there's always the chance that adding that app, or changing that system setting will make the system wonky.
i still need to alias "scanreg/restore" to something like "AAAAAACK!"
there is some post down there about forming a Open Source Patenting commitee. That is a very good idea, if everything Open Source we're patented than people like microsoft (who buy stolen software like DOS 1.0) would have follow open source rules when using things like symlinks and this apt-like system (i know its not the same, but its really close). I think that we need to have someone look into forming this commitee, anybody interested? This is the post
Slashdot Mirror
microsoft package manager for linux? heheheheheheheheheheheh ehehehhehehe *ahem* sorry...
you'd think this would have no chance.. but with the state of the patent office today.. ..
:(
Imagine the uproar if Microsoft tried to enforce this patent on Debian and other distributions.. oh my..
God, I have a sinking feeling this will actually get through too. What a shame.
BilldaCat
I don't think that even Microsoft would make a serious attempt to enforce the patent - plus, proving prior use on apt, rpm, whatever, which would be ever so easy, renders Microsoft's patent useless anyway.
Then, again, why did they register it? Weird.
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
What consequenses will this have?
I hope we will be able to point to "prior art" and get the patent invalidated. Or this may be a major setback...
When did microsoft apply for the patent? Before or after apt existed?
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
The claim specifically states that a REGISTRY KEY is involved. Does Linux have a registry? NO!
This is an automatic system. A registry key containing a date is checked against the current date, and the system queries a database over the Internet and checks for upgrades. It has nothing to do with RPM etc.
--
The other side is crowded. The dead have nowhere to go.
Installing and updating a software program module component. A determination is made whether the current date is on or after a date stored in a registry key on a computer.
Last I checked, there's no registry keys on Linux (sorry, GNU/Linux :) ) .. depends how technical they want to get with it, I suppose.
MS isn't stupid though.. they have to want to patent this for a reason.. even though it appears prior use by linux would make this null and void if they attempt to go after them.
BilldaCat
Patenting stuff like this first? Don't they have a responsibility? Why are people giving their money to them otherwise?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
I know that a lot of people are going to jump and down and yell at the Patent Office, for those people, I want to ask, how many of you have applied for a job at the Patent office, so that you work and help remedy this problem we are experiencing? Okay, so perhaps you have never thought of working there, Would you give up your $100k linux sysadmin job for lower wages to make a difference? I thought so...
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
1) Linux does not use a registry.
2) Dates and version numers are monotimically increasing, so you can just use version numbers instead of dates({program name} -v )
3) Databases can be avoided.
I think there might be a few prior art issues here. I've never even heard of Microsoft making a package manager. The only package managers I know are Red Hat and Debian (perhaps a few others).
Microsoft: "We are doing this in order to fuel further innovation."
Hackers: "Not again!"
Not a typewriter
What they are patenting is using a registry to check the system for newer packagese against a database on the internet, and then at the user's discretion download those packages and automatically install them off the internet. They aren't patenting simply having packages, or a package management system. Basically they are patenting Window's Update, and although it is annoying, I don't think it hurts us too much, as the language seemed specific enough to allow someone to make a comparable system that operated in a diffferent way
It doesn't mention anywhere the 16 reboots.
t
Please pay us $0.50 for every instance of your Red Hat RPM Manager and Debian apt in existence. Or we sue for infringement.
Reply? Too obscene to be shown here.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
The MS package management system has certain features that improve performance over the Debian system
Instead of spending precious cycles checking for dependancies the MS system saves time by blindly overwriting everything.Perhaps Debian should apply for a patent for SAFE software updates over the net
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
There's no way they can enforce their 'patent' anyway, because of the GPL. This is a non-issue.
Fighting the War on the War on Drugs.
http://smokedot.org/
Patented package management? I believe the first thought to come to my mind was:
Think of the tarballs! Won't somebody please think of the tarballs!
-Denor
http://www.debia n.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0005/msg00000.h
The conclusion was that this is not like apt since apt figures out the (local) dependencies at the client and not the server. And even if it would be considered the same thing then apt/dpkg did have this functionaly long before Microsoft applied for the patent.
Just look at the Changlog for dpkg-ftp.
$100k linux sysadmin job?!?!
:)
Where do you work? I'll take your place when you leave for the patent office.
Maybe since the target of this patent is only the window's OS, that they are merely trying to secure that they are the only people who can update windows?..
And nother crack-pot thought... imagine using such a system to replace windows with non-microsoft components.. maybe gnu-ify windows, and replace the OS right out from under people.
Hrm.. this could go the otherway and replace non-ms components with ms components.... hrm.....
The registry is just an implementation detail. RPM keeps track of which packages are installed, though I would guess it does so in flat files.
It does have to do with RPM because one of the features is being able to tell what version of something is installed, which, in additional to making it easier to install stuff, is the purpose of RPM.
The only possibly novel thing is checking the website automatically, which probably has prior art. I can't remember when I first saw something automatically check the web for updates, but I doubt Microsoft invented it. The patent abstract sounds like it's describing Windows Update.
--Kevin
Agreed, no registry key for Linux. But how do Red Hat and Debian determine how a particular piece of software needs to be updated.
I certainly wouldn't put it past MS to argue that apt invalidates their patent.
In the wake of this weeks fiasco on "viruses", does anyone get updates to Norton Anti-virus over the Web? If so for how long? Not sure whether this invalidates the MS patent, I think a registry key is involved but I am not completely sure.
Nice that you give the credit to Debian, but *cough* IBM's AIX has had package management since (almost?) the beginning. And I'm sure some mainframe haxhors could probably tell us stories of earlier package management.
Which brings up the question again of whether Open Source has ever innovated anything, but that's another subject. :)
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
You can't buy Debian so make'em do something illegal so you have a right to sue the people behind the project. Pretty clever way to eliminate 500+ active communist-hippies and one of the toughest strongholds of the OSS movement. Jail is the right place for those little thieves. Nothing else won't make'em learn.
Or maybe not.
Make a difference? It's not exactly like working for greenpeace for cripes sake.
I know I'd give up my 30K sysadmin job for a job at the patent office. Come to think of it though, your comment was absolutely pointless so I'll just stay where I am.
:wq
From the Abstract:
A determination is made whether the current date is on or after a date stored in a registry key on a computer. If the current date is on or after the date stored in the registry key, then ac omputer transmits a database query via the Internet to a database server. At the database server, a determination is made whether an upgrade package for the softwareprogram module component is available, such as by performing a database lookup. (emphasis mine)
First deb's and I presume rpm's use version numbers instead of dates and second with apt, the client determines which packages to update, so MS' system is different from what debian does use.
--
Weasel
I am no lawyer. Maybe there are one or two 'legal experts' out there reading /. that can answer this. Here is a URL from Cornell on Patent Law
Some thoughts:
-The patents must be 'novel' (original?) and not of an obvious nature. This new microsoft patent is neither.
-Since debian's apt does the same thing this patent does, and debian has been doing it longer, what does this mean to debian users?
-Am I a now a patent law violator and possible criminal since I've been using Debian for years?
-Lastly, why is the U.S. Patent Office giving away patents on such obvious ideas (think Amazon's one-click shopping)??
"The Internet, of course, is more than just a place to find pictures of people having sex with dogs." - Time Magazine
Hell, I know at least 20 different programs that are not M$ and that do Live Update (think Symantec Norton Antivirus or Symantec Visual Cafe, think Real (player) etc.) Those were here for a long time and all of a sudden MS has a patent for this? I suppose the question is in the process of how the update is done. MS checks the registery for the date (I am sure Symantec or Real do the same) the date is sent to the server and compared with a db query (for some reason this sounds just as any other application or a company would do.)
Oh, well.
You can't handle the truth.
We are Wookie of Borg.
Microsoft applied for the pattent in 1997, and received it in 1999.
Upon reading the text of the patent, it becomes clear that the idea of a software module package is not important. Rather, it is the idea of how a Windows system might go about upgrading components via the internet. Part of the patent mentions the Windows Registry, the Internet, and a special Package Server.
The patent is quite trivial. Any amateur programmer could probably "invent" this as a simple and obvious solution. It does not represent anything new. Remote package upgrades have been performed in numerous ways over the years, doubtless. There is no direct relation between this patent and any package management system currently available.
This is simply a patent on a process, not a technology.
Are you sure they wouldn't come piling down on top of Red Hat and Debian like a tonne of bricks.
Microsoft have an awful lot of money, an awful lot of lawyers and have demonstrated a willingness to use them...
Deleted
The real test will be whether MS starts extracting royalties from people who use this "method and system for installing and updating program module component."
More globally, the problem of reforming the patent system is one of public choice. The people with an interest in keeping the system would lose millions if the patent system was reformed. And the people with an incentive to have it reformed don't have so much money at stake. (Or at least it's potential, possible, might-exist-later money, not right-here-being deposited money.)
And, if copyright law is any guide, most companies are totally committed to making intellectual property as much like tangible property as possible by extending rights over it indefinitely.
-- Diana Hsieh
-- Diana Hsieh
GeekPress: The Weirder Side of Tech News
http://www.debi an.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0005/threads.ht ml
--
Weasel
Yep, indeed. How smart to come up with this. And so shortly after they invented the symbolic links (remember?)!!
Could somebody help me - I forgot the details: Didn't Al Gore also work for M$ when he invented the Internet?
Oh, and what about the wheel? I hope everybody's paying M$ for that, too.
Say, does anybody know if anybody actually holds a patent on the wheel?
-Jan
-- "Tradition is the illusion of permanence."
to want to say anything good about the Redmond Empire but if this patent is fairly closely linked to the Windows system (as references to the registry seem to imply) then this may be more of a protective patent to prevent others from patenting the idea and either charging excessive licensing fees or preventing anyone else from using the ideas at all.
If they hold the patent (even if it can be considered invalid) then no-one else should be able to get such a patent. This prevents them from having to mount an expensive patent challenge. However if they start to try and use this patent to restrict others from using the same method then that would be bad.
In another example the real problem with the Amazon case was not necessarily the patent itself (which prevented anyone else from getting it and using it against them). The problem was when Amazon started to use it as a commercial weapon against their competitors.
Gamma Testing - Where testing is extended to the full user community (AKA Shipping the Program)
You know, I've heard countless comments on how Linux and other open-source projects are simply playing catch-up to existing systems, but what really entertains me is people seemingly thinking MS products offer anything new. Take, for example, this patent: MS has basically established their exclusive right to use Windows Update, which is basically just a net-connected version of the package managers that have been in use in countless commercial and open *NIX distributions for the last couple of decades. Just look at the "new features" in Win2k -- most of them *almost* bring it up to the level of a basic UNIX system (I'm thinking of file and directory-level permissions and the like). It would make me want to laugh, if it wasn't so disturbing to see how effectively advertising can render people's memories and critical thinking skills inoperable.
Looks like we really need to get that patent review method implemented. The contents of this patent are overly obvious to anyone involved in the field, and thus, invalid for a patent.
As for prior art, it is completely possible to call Debian's package list a "registry", because what does it do? It registers what packages are available in a formatted list. Also, the patent directly applies to the use of dates only to determine which package is new. Well, a good quantity of Debian's packages DO use dates as their version numbers, wine for one example, and when dselect determines that the date from the server is different from the date in its registry, it downloads a new version and installs it.
This new method of packaging managers has been patented. This means that any peasent caught trying to stuff a manager into any box in a way not approved by the King will be flogged and have really nasty things said to him by the Court High Lawyer.
Rebel OS Barons will be punished most severely, once the stolen plans for the station have been recovered.
Meanwhile, on Tattoine, Luke Stallman meets his Internet mentor-to-be, Obj WAN...
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
At face value, this has no effect on linux, but dig a little deeper. Yes, it mentions that a key is taken out of a registry, but Linux doesnt have a registry, or does it? What is a registry, is it that hellish tree that MS products use, or could it be more? What worries me is that this patent doesnt explicitly state what a registry is. If MS decided to go balls to the wall on this, it could be argued that a registry is any file or system that contains version information on anything other then itself. If that is the case, then what about Mandrakes AutoRPM. It completes the same job using a version file, that if you really wanted to, could be referred to as a registry. I dont think this patent should be taken too lightly. Its main threat is its ambiguity. Imagine that, Microsoft king of security by obscurity, being vague.
...and the geek shall inherit the earth...
www.linux-skunkworks.com
This is nothing to be alarmed about in the Linux world. Microsoft's plan over the next few years is to make computers easier and friendlier for the home user, and this is just one aspect of this plan. If you follow MS like I do, this is simply a new feature that will be implemented in MS's next OS release, Windows ME. Every time the OS boots, it's going to check on-line for an updated patch/feature (sucks to be a modem user), and automatically download and install it. Other things such as improved speech recognition and even a rumored tweaking to the GUI are in the works.
--- RFC 1149 Compliant.
Will they lose any of their patents, or will they just transfer some of them to each company?
Who cares,really. Like this is going to stop me from using dpkg? Nope.
Sure, I have a thankless job. That's okay. I have a lot of (non
those innovations just keep on coming! Personally I can't wait to see what patented software Rube Goldberg anti-email-virus scheme they're going to come up with post love.Bug. Should lift stock prices some.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
what kind of patent is this? i certainly do not see any innovation in this. this has gone too far. a patent, is meant to be an enticement to produce innovation so that the world can become a better place, witht eh inventors gettin credit for it. how could a "method to update" software be granted ?! in all, it's a very simple mechanism, and i know that there are programs that do similar stuff, this isn't new. but in all, the patent is ok with me. but what they will do with it, we'll have to see. i certainly won't be trusting any microsoft assurances as far as patent-persuing goes, because they've shown themsevles to be untrustworthy. i've already stated a very good example here before. you may all have heard of getright, and now they ahve a patent. for ftp downloading, it's nothing more than a couple of clever ftp commnads combined. (REST, RETR, mainly and PASV for passive mode). i've been doing that on my command line ftp for a long time. and getright actually has a patent for it?! to get back to the point, it's a little bit like re-inventing stuff, since these things have been around for a long time. where's microsoft been all this time when _their_ supposely invented stuff was created ?
As an engineer who has my company's patent counsels almost live in my cube (knock, knock, how many patent counsels does it take to fill an engineer's cube...) I have a few thoughts on why MS did what they did. Patents are a current part of the business landscape. Companies get patents for "real" reasons such as protecting their IP rights as well as "human" reasons such as a patent counsel's bonus is based on how many patents they file. The fact of the matter is that the decission to file this patent was made 3 to 5 years ago as that is how much time it often takes to get a patent out. Don't waste too much time trying to figure out why some big dumb creature as MS does something, just assume one Dilbert manger won out over a different Dilbert manager. The patant office is so short staffed that the examaner spends only a short few hours with each patent and most of that time is spent dotting the "i"s and crossing the "t"s. The reality is not that questionable patents get issued, but that some future Dilbert manager may try to make a name for themselves by using it againts a smaller group that can not afford to defend them selves. Sometime the small guy wins, too. Anybody remember Stacker Software and MS?
Patents tend to be written in two ways, as shields or as swards. Shield patents are designed to allow a company to continue to do what they want while swords are intended to go after others.
There exists another type of patent, statutory, that is seldom used and the open source sommunity should consider it. A statutory patent provides no IP rights to the issuer and is most often used by a government lab or university to put their work into the public domain. The nice thing about this kind of patent is that it is cheep and puts the work firmly into the public domain. We might want to write up Linux, Apache, etc. each into it's own patent application and file them as statutory patents. Such actions would form the ultamate shield that _proves_ prior art!
"Obvious" is a term of art, not just the English word you're used to. There are tests for "obviousness", and the standards are much lower than you're probably used to. Of course, *everything* is obvious once you've seen it in use.
"novel" is satisfied if even one element of the patent (say, the use of a "registry key") is distinct, as I understand it.
If debian's apt *does* do the same thing, it's prior art, and the patent is invalid. My guess is that debian's apt does *not* do the same thing as the patent.
As to why the patent office gives out patents so easily, it's probably because "obvious" is a really hard term to define, and it's not clear that the normal English usage is appropriate in the law. It may be, however, that the standards are really too low right now - in which case, the problem isn't the patent office, it's *Congress*.
IANAL, but I occasionally read things written by them.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Now is this innovative and worth a patent? I can't see why. So one does not need to download the entire list, but face it, that is good database to browse offline anyway. You can't do that with MS, short of sending a query for all packages, which takes effectively, more than the bandwidth needed than Debian.
Minor rant: What is it with the patent application process anyway? I would like to see what sort of problems MS was trying to solve with this "innovation". Who cares how they did it, if we don't know what problem they were trying to solve. If fubar algorithm does not solve fubar problem, by what criteria does one know if it is "innovative" or not? I could strip in the middle of winter and dance around a fire naked. That would be new, but it doesn't solve any damn problem!
Am I being stupid? I write Java apps which refer to peer classes residing on the server. For java simply replace 'registry' with 'internet cache' and 'database' with 'webserver'. More to the point we all know that this method works. Do you really want your NT server to install SP99 overnight and instantly break everyone else's apps?
Note to Microsoft:
/. is biased against you, here is a little help, the title for your next patent application:
/.:
You're not getting patents on the good stuff, the things people haven't done before. In the interest of showing that not everyone on
A method for allowing random users to execute arbitrary code within a secure network.
/**Describe your email program here**/
This patent will not be attacked by the prior art argument, but that just may be because previous programmers actually thought about what they were putting in their email programs. You know, they had a clue.
To the rest of
This is offtopic, but we've been fruitlessly brainstorming here all morning. Is there any valid business use for having an email execute itself?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
There is a tool/script for Solaris to install
patches that works in this exact way.
It checks your systems patch list saved in their
style of database against the one on the internet
and offers you new/updated patches etc. in
special packaged format.
I know of some other systems working this same
way. This patent will proably be granted due to
complete idiocty in patent office but it will
most definitely not be enforceable due to vast
amounts of prior art.
It could screw any other company wishing to provide upgrades for their software components automagically depending on the date enetered in the registry.
So, the workaround? store the VERSION number in the registry (unless someone has already patented).
Heh..this patent is almost as stupid as the M$ press release on Innovations Enhance Windows 2000. Hmm...can you say file links boyz & grlz? They are only umpteen years behind the times.
--Clay
This patent is unenforcable, at least as a means of extracting licensing fees or prevention of competitors from implementing package managers.
If this patent were interpreted in its broadest sense, then countless examples of "prior art" (many of which have been mentioned by previous posters) would easily serve to defeat litigation brought on by Micro$oft over the issue.
Interpreted in its strictest sense, this patent wouldn't even apply to non-Micro$oft package managers at all.
As much as I dislike Micro$oft, this patent can only be viewed as a defensive maneuver on their part, much like those of IBM, in order to keep opportunists from trying to extract licensing fees etc from them. If it were used in any other way (i.e., in an offensive fashion), it could easily be challenged and nullified, thus effectively nullifying what little defensive power it carries for them.
ObDisclaimers: IANAL. Just MHO. I could be wrong. Blah blah blah.
the bsd package subsystem. the sysv package subsystem. Theres gotta be enough prior art here to make overturn this patent.
The MS patent is a little more involved than just a "tarball". It does comparisons to a database on the internet. However, this sounds exactly like patch managers written by IBM for AIX and Sun for Solaris. And set aside the MS bashing for a moment. This patent shows that IBM, Samsung, and Apple all have patents for similar processes.
Get a load of thispatent - "... thereby sending the signal at a speed faster than light. "
Something's definitely rotten in Crystal City.
I spent a summer there way back, and gave many a patent application for 'some neat software burned into a common ROM' a resounding smack of the ol' reject stamp, but that was before the judge liberalized the place to include business procedures etc.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
We need insiders in the Bush and Gore campaigns, who understand the importance of this issue and will work to get the next president to put real scientists in charge of USPTO. They need to end the policies with reward examiners for volume, and provide incentives for nonrigorous approval processes.
This, of course, is about as likely as the FCC coming up with a fair process for the allocation of broadcast spectrum, or the goverment discontinuing the purchase of M$ software.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
You know how Windows Update claims that it works without sending any information to Microsoft? Well, the patent's abstract says that, "at the database server, a determination is made whether an upgrade package for the software program module component is available...." In other words, your computer sends a list of software and versions to M$, and M$ tells you what must be upgraded.
That doesn't seem consistent with Windows Update's "no information" claim. Perhaps, if M$ uses this patent in some future product, the company will disavow their "no information" promises. Or perhaps, with UCITA in place, they will consider it their right to audit your computer every time you use Windows Update, which might run every time you boot up.
Scary.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
however, the older `dselect' method used by debian 1.3 (and earlier, i think; i haven't used 1.3) does the same thing; you give it a ftp or http address to a package server. it gets a package list, presents it and you choose to upgrade everything (default), not upgrade some packages, remove some, or add others.
the release date for debian 1.3 was 5 Jun 97; 1.2 was 12 Dec 96 - both providing solid prior art.
--
I know; I was joking. I wanted to see if any old farts would comment on it...
--
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The claim states that they are patenting a method by which a computer makes a list of files, asks a server for deatils on those files, and a date for those files, and comparing it to a local date (held by a number of means for those who jumped on the Registry idea, which is only an example), presenting an upgrade option to the user. The claim then further patents getting the package delivered and installed as part of the claims.
This patent clearly attempts to claim anything even remotely implementing an automatic update procedure. I think it's possible that Microsoft is looking for another block to shore up it's defense by patenting parts of other OSes currently out there. This does that. Yet another patent on something that is essentially "obvious" to a "skilled praticioner of the art" cited.
This is an algorithm, and that should make it all but unpatentable, but it's written as an operational procedure with real parts, rather than a simple sequence of steps, so it suddenly becomes patentable.
It would be nice if ZDnet or Wired or a "mainstream" non-techie newsfeed covered the discussion, especially regarding Debian and/or Red Hat, and prior art on the patent front. It seems that the lawyers and committees responsible for overseeing the patent office think it's working very well thank you, and that it doesn't need to be changed.
I'm quite concerned that this was granted. It's another item that if it goes to court takes time and energy away from people doing good things for the Open Source movement.
But that's just an opinion, and I'm not a lawyer...... :-)
Insanity is the last line of defence for the master diplomat. But you have to lay the groundwork early.
The most recent entry for dpkg, the heart of apt, (cut and paste from it ) is Tue, 3 Dec 1996 23:28:04 by David Morris . The first entry is on Wed, 21 Aug 1996 15:07:53 by Ian Jackson . And the first version of rpm can out in 1995. The MSFT application file date isn't until Nov. 14 1997. So I don't think that MSFT has a very good case with respect to prior art. In school this was called plagerism.
Even with the psuedo distinction of the Windows registry, a very good argument could be made to effect that the database that dpkg and rpm keeps are equivalent and therefore MSFT's "technology" does not constitute a new invention. Even the Apple patent might not have a leg to stand on.
Hey, RedHat! Hey, Debian! Are you going to challenge these patents?
I'm very worried. Not only this is not an MS exclusive, it's something that can be coded in 10 minutes...
I find it amusing that the Patents IBM site is hosting this page when IBM's OS/2 was performing the same sort of services to upgrade itself in (IIRC) 1994.
I recall reading posts jokingly wondering how long it was going to take MS to steal the idea.
Now we know. 5 years.
I read Slashdot daily and I like it.
I also know that every story has some idiot complaining about the degradation of the forums.
Having said that, it is usually painful for me to read the talkbacks. Once upon a time, this was a forum for tech nerds/intellectuals to debate the issues posed in the news items. Now, it is a place to:
A. Mindlessly complain about Microsoft. (as in, "Netscape always crashes on Linux! I bet it's because of Microsoft!")
B. Mindlessly praise Linux! (as in, "Linux is so good that people will begin switching over en masse any day now!! But they can't because Microsoft won't let them! Bill Gate$ suxx!")
Why do I say this? Because in this news article, the facts are clearly stated, but NOBODY is reading it! Yet *everyone* has an opinion!
"I bet Microsoft is going to enforce it on Debian and we will get really mad!! And Bill Gate$ suxx! So the government better get him! But Linux is so good everyone will switch over anyway! But Microsoft is a monopoly so that means that people are incapable of going to CompUSA and buying Red Hat!"
Can't anyone here read? "A determination is made whether the current date is on or after a date stored in a registry key on a computer."
Linux does not have a registry! But I guess everyone here read the source and knows that.
Now then, we should all complain that "Bill's gonna get 'cha!"
No he's not. Microsoft, as far as I can remember, has zero history of suing anyone for patent violations. And Microsoft has thousands of patents. They own a patent for everything they can possibly claim. If they wanted to, they could most likely sue every company in the industry for one violation or another. (They would most likely lose, but they *could* sue.)
These are defensive patents. Because, believe it or not, there are companies worse than Microsoft. There are companies who have produced nothing, yet patent the most mundane obvious thing and sue like hell.
Microsoft has a lot of money and is a big company. People like to sue big companies. Microsoft is patenting to protect themselves from frivilous lawsuits.
"NO WAY! Bill Gate$ is satan and he wants to stop competition! He's going to sue Linux because they are competitors! They are already stopping people from downloading Debian for free on the Internet, and Bill Gates personally is stopping Cheapbytes server from selling distros for 2 dollars!!"
Fine. Long live groupthink!
Gen Chalupa
Unix invented automation of text processing that was its original purpose.
Linux doesn't need a registry to do this. A registry key is a string of bytes. Any damn file regardless whether it's a regisrtry, a database, or a config file can contain a string of bytes.
Second, dates/versions same fucking thing. Think first moron.
In fact prior art: the online calendar and reminder systems. Those are automated too. And jesus christ CRON. Microsoft has patented CRON.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
This is offtopic, but we've been fruitlessly brainstorming here all morning. Is there any valid business use for having an email execute itself?
Well, the only thing I can think of is self-propagating advertising. Why bother finding an open relay/getting a temporary account, etc, then sending out tens of thousands of mails, when you can send one or two, and sit back and watch as they propagate themselves for you?
I'm not advocating this as a realistic use (I can imagine that more than a few ISPs, companies, etc would sue for the amount of traffic it generated on their networks), but it's the only one I've been able to think of.
Anyone else got any ideas?
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Irony - when one branch of a goverment takes action against a company's attempt to monopolize a specific industry and another branch of the same goverment attempts to grant the same company a monopoly on a basic function used in that same industry.
In 2 words: patents suck.
Patents don't suck; software patents suck. Non-software patents actually work; for example, look at the model for development of new pharmaceuticals. Without the guarantee of a monopoly, drug companies would have no incentive to spend big bucks on research and development.
Software patents, on the other hand... The Patent Office needs to get better reviewers who actually know something about the software industry, especially free software. Only truly revolutionary techniques (MPEG audio layer 3, RSA public-key encryption, etc.) deserve a patent. This Unisys patent (even dumber than its LZW patent) doesn't.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Exactly correct. What it means is that now nobody but Microsoft may use the obvious mechanism for maintaining package information on Windows systems.
Why they would want to make all non-Microsoft software packages harder to install and maintain on their OS remains a mystery...
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Got a beef? Plug a name into the Bizarre Rumour Generator!
M$ system = date driven
Debian system = version driven
M$ system = server tells client what to update
Debian system = client determines updates
M$ system = remote database queried by client
Debian system = client reads a flat text file
used to update client's local
database.
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
I think that there are at least two issues:
- Every rpm-db is something like a registry, one may save some records. Registry doesn't mean exactly Windows-Registry
- Read the lower part - there's no longer any registry mentioned
Nope wrong...
Patents have to be applied for an awarded.
Copyright applies as soon as it is set in fixed
form.
So if you make something and do not patent it,
you do not get patent privilidges, but you do
stop someone else from later making it and getting
a patent. (in theory...)
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Everyone who is making comments like about how Microsoft is patenting package management or automation ("Microsoft Patented CRON" was my favorite example of this one) needs to read the referenced patents.
4 ), which begins with "A method for use in upgrading a resource of a computer from an existing version of the resource to a later version of the resource.", which seems to conflict with just about every helpful installation program ever created.
7 2) which seems to cover applications like rsync and maybe even CVS.
:).
1 3) actually seems to have the source code based package management systems covered (although it might be just different enough to be talking more about source code management than of binary applications).
:).
3 ). This one seems pretty close to Microsoft's Message Queue system... Maybe someone should point that out to someone, hehe.
If you actually look, this patent is a modification to existing patents by other companies, such as Compaq's 1996 "US5586304: Automatic computer upgrading" ( http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US558630
How about IBM's 1995 "US5473772: Automatic update of static and dynamic files at a remote network node in response to calls issued by or for application programs" ( http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US054737
All that Microsoft's patent is is a small extension of a few other patents (Apple already got automating program upgrade in 1998, IBM got automatic maintenance, an earlier Microsoft patent covering remote software discovery (probably for Windows Update like behavior), and Samsung's system of letting the app developer update a server and have it distribute down to clients) making them more focused for what they are trying to do. BUT, everyone chooses to attack this patent
Xerox's >>1985 http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US045584
There were a bunch of other goodies there but I am already way past when I was supposed to leave this morning to point them out
Well, one more I just hit on... IBM's 1987 "US4649473: Flexible data transmission for message based protocols" ( http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US464947
Yeah, I bet.
Webmaster www.streetrodstuff.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What an oxymoron.
You don't need to patent something defensively. If you do something but don't patent it, nobody else can patent it afterwords because of a little caveat called "Prior Art."
There is no such thing as a defensive patent. Either you patent something and use it like a club on those in your industry, or you don't and it's a little like copyleft.
Furthermore, Microsoft, if it were really interested in not being sued, would have settled the anti-trust case. They are now subject to a million points of litigation that rely directly on the judge's findings of fact--specifically that microsoft behaves in a manner unbefitting a monopolist. The appelate court can only overturn the remedies or demand a revisitation of certain conclusions. The facts are in and almost unbesmirchable.
Frankly, both of your premises need work. "Microsoft wants to avoid lawsuits" and "Defensive patents protect against lawsuits." are both false.
I don't need large brains to have a good time.
I remember seeing something on freshmeat a while back that periodically checked redhat's site for new packages and downloaded them automatically.
Can't remember what it was called. Didn't use it because I run slackware.
What about Slolaris et. al.? Don't they have package managers too? I know slolaris does.
With a bit of luck, Sun will sue Micros~1 over this, or get the patent voided.
Let's sit back, relax and enjoy watching this develop.
Drink beer. Eat curry.
I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
you might agree that patents do suck and choose to ignore them, but other companies will take advantage and you'll be screwed. Its a necessary evil.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
VBScript, WSH, Outlook Preview Pane: the unholy trinity that empower e-vandals.
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
Microsoft should patent a, "Method for Updating and Ensuring Complex System Stability". Essentially it would be a small 4 line program which reboots WinX systems every 30 minutes without prompting for confirmation from the user.
This would decrease Windows downtime exponentially, as the average windows system crashes every 35 minutes. With a stable new OS in memory just before crash time, they could eliminate that bug completely!
Instead of patenting the code though, they should just patent the process of "Rebooting", since essentially that is all there code would really be doing. Sounds miniscule under the microscope, but think of the possibilities. An OS with zero logged downtime!. And Microsoft would be the first to think of patenting "Rebooting as a means of maintaining system stability". Legally, we all know they have the right to it, who in the world associates rebooting for continued use with any OS other than Windows?
Unfortunately all you Linux lovers out there will be screwed when they do patent it. Next time your system crashes, legally, you'll have to throw them out and go get new ones.
Ace
Copyright protection is automatic. Patent isn't. Copyright can be registered. Patents have to be.
RPM has nothing to do with this. This is about an automated, internet based, update system, that may update only partial modules of programs.
I was recently at an intellectual property conference and the two things that shocked me were:
Anything is patentable or at least submittable as a patent. Depending on how you word it even if there may be some issues with prior art, if you describe even a business process, then tat can be patented.
You don't actually need finished product to patent it. You can describe how the code might work. You don't actually need working code to patent what the code does.
This goes to the heart of why this is such a hot topic now. You get a bunch of smart people to describe some of the ideas and solutions they've come up with over the years and patent them. Then you get a bunch of sharp people to scour the landscape and identify something that knowingly or unknowingly uses substantial aspects of your patent. Lastly you go to them with your hand out requesting royalties.
Symantec's LiveUpdate is the obvious one. McAfee may have had an auto-update feature too, I don't recall.
Hokey statistics and ancient misconceptions are no match for a good thought in your head, kid!
That's nothing compared to this one
A choice of masters is not freedom
Debian supported this using dselect. The 'FTP' method has been around as long as I can remember and my frist Debian install was 1.0.1 (?) Around early 1996 (?)
run dselect,
Cursor down once to 'update'. Hit return about 5 times, and it goes from there to 'Select' to 'Install', automatically selecting all newer packages, downloading, then installing them.
I'm sure there were external ways to call this but I never looked into it.
FreeAmp has been doing this for a while, now. There's an option to check for updates automatically on start.
http://www.freeamp.org
== I am not Me.
Anybody who has used a CASE system before, can tell you that updating all of your files to the current status is nothing new. CASE has been around (at least in concept) for a very long time.
Even Microsoft can, since they use one...
Eh...
This patent and it's effects on Linux seem to be moot points. If, indeed, MS does try to flaunt their patent around and enforce it by bully-whipping anyone trying to create such a system the EFF would have no problem demonstrating prior art, whether in RedHat's RPM system or Debian's apt.
- -----------------
The fact that a patent is granted for a particular idea isn't always the most important concept, the patent never really becomes important until it's used as a weapon against a competitor. I doubt MS will ever have the cojones to attempt this, as anyone and their mother can show prior art for this particular 'concept'.
- jc
---------------------------------------------
James C. Diggans
jdiggans@excelsior-web.com
I just wrote an article about patents at samovarawards.com. Thanks ch-chak for a nice link!
Andrew
Yeah, you noticed that too :). But I reckon it could mean one of two things:
- Microsoft's patent covers using some sort of hierarchical database to store the timestamps. This means their patent has been worded badly, because it might mean that in reality
... - Microsoft's patent only covers systems that use the Windows Registry. That will definitely rule out apt, RPM and pals, but might affect some companies releasing Windows Software.
The US Patent office worry me, but not that much, because I live in the UK. Unfortunately I heard somewhere that in future there might be a reciprocal patent agreement between Europe and the US. Oh great.technology* t = new technology();
while ( companies_copy(t) )
{
if ( strcmp (company_that_copied_technology, "Microsoft") )
{
continue;
}
else
{
submit_to_slashdot();
bitch_and_moan();
}
}
I've been reading through all the messages and one thing confused me after checking the length a pattent is good for. Now I would think the people in the pattent office lack any real great intellegence when it comes to computers, just look at all the pattents they pass through. But realisticly, what good is a computer pattent 20 years from now? If the pattent is inteded to help a company make some $$ off their invention before its mass produced by everyone, then a computer related pattent is basicly getting a monopoly on that concept.
I would think 2 years is long time in terms of computer development.
Basicly if this pattent were to hold then M$ would have exclusives on remote/automated updating for 20 years?
I feel there is a serious flaw in this system.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
And FreeBSD has been allowing users to execute one command (make update) and the system goes out, gets the code necessary to bring the latest and greatest in to compile for many, many years.
And the BSD package system goes out and gets any dependancies one needs and installs them 1st. Did this long b4 any Linux system thought it would be a good thing to do.
M$'s actions are more to stop someone else from suing them over such a patent award/a bargining chip.
If one wants to overthrow this patent on prior art, it looks like it could be done. And, because it *IS* Micro$oft, I'm sure some members of the geek community will try extra hard.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
Everyone is claiming prior art with RPM, but the prior art is in the Mandrake Update it does automatically check a website for updated packages and acts as a front-end to RPM.
Redmond WA. Microsmut announced today that have received a patent on a new technology known as "ZeroClick" for previewing e-mails and all executable attachments within, without requiring the user to actually do anything to open them. A Microsmut spokesperson said "This will help us serve our customers better enabling us to e-mail them software updates without any need for their intervention."
They further said that they will aggressively enforce this patent securing their competitve edge over Linux and other competing operating system that will not be able to provide similiar functionality. CEO, Billy predicts that this will lure users from the Linux platform who still must suffer with the "TwoClick" method for viewing an attachment.
--Aaron Greenberg
Ok, does ANYONE that knows anything about technology work in the patent office??? How do ridiculous patents like this actually pass through?
Wouldn't the app called Update Agent for RPM be considered close enough to be prior work? Doesn't it querie the ftp site for updated RPM's and install them (I've never used it - any self-respecting Admin would never arbitrarily apply upgrades like this without knowing exactly what's going where and what's going to be affected by it). I know it's not automatic (thank God), and if Win32 makes their version automatic that's one more reason not to use it. Think of the issues with corrupted files, privacy, etc...
Additionally, I know Quicktime had the pre-downloader that downloaded the rest of the app and installed it for you (I hated that - sometimes I need to install QT on systems with no internet access and they made that impossible). Now Internet Explorer is proving Microsoft as the ultimate copy-cat by doing the same thing. We can rest assured that Microsoft has NOTHING that is original or not a blantant copy of something else, so the thought of them getting a patent for something proves that the paper-pushers at the patent office are more concerned with quota and revenue that with issueing fully researched and justified patents (if that actually exists). How long are we going to let this travesty continue? Either abolish patents or re-create the system and force all current patent holders to re-apply with full research that should have been happening from the beginning, and down with software patents. That's like me patenting a novel because I used "He tenderly kissed her" in it. Sheesh...
It was even smart enough to be able to replace the currently-running application cleanly.
The only distinction is the datestamp and the "registry key" -- not really innovations. We used version numbering (gosh, how standard) and an application code name to determine whether or not an application was current. Even at that time, it was all done over the internet.
I'd be willing to be a part of any patent challenge on this, as the patent is ridiculous.
Once again, no more "I" for Microsoft.
_Deirdre
Scenario:
Bill: "I want to patent Sex!"
Patent Officer: "No problemo."
You (married with children): "Hey Bill, pay me for patent infringement!" (...and there is about 6 000 000 000 more proves)
...and sarcasm in the form of visual representations of spoken human language, using the form of recognizable contexts for similar representations as an ironic counterpoint for the ostensible message contained in the linguistic symbols in order to convey the actual intended message, with inevitable misinterpretations serving as further ironic counterpoint that can be leveraged to underscore the intended message.
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Ok, I took a good look over the patent. It appears that the patent is for a software package management system that operates over the internet specifically. Well, there's a good chance that was never patented.
Actually, if you look closer at the patent description, it references some other patents related to updating software components over the internet
This patent is a bit more specific, and relates to providing a remote server with information about installed software, then have the server return with a list of needed updates.
This is a tiny little bit different from Debian's "dselect" and APT tools, in that these latter ones receive a list of available software from the server, and locally determine which software can/should be upgraded or which software is newly available/obsolete.
The cynical part of us all (and we are probably right, given Microsoft's history) will conclude that this is done on the server in Microsoft's case only to provide some information back to them about how their customer's computers look - i.e. do do a little bit of surveying, policing and the like.
In either case, it will be very hard for Microsoft to hold up this patent in court, given that there is prior art (patented as well as non-patented) in this area.
Our problem is that this still means litigation; and even if we may be right, Debian/SPI do not have the same economical resources at their disposal as does Microsoft. If Microsoft sues the organization, or any U.S.-based member of it, for patent violations, chances are that this will be a major obstacle for Debian's packaging method.
Unless, of course, Corel or Storm Linux (both derived from Debian) would be willing to assist.
-torWho cares about updates? Looks like they've got us pretty good.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpaten ts.html
Well, just another example of the same old same old micro$oft style of taking other folk's ideas and using them for their own profit. Stealing from the open source community. Does "Stacker" come to mind anyone? I really hope they get whats coming to them and their hole ridden,ineffecient,bloated software. unix for life.
McAffe (macaffe?) had/has a product called Oil Change since around 94/95 I'm guessing. This product checked a central database of version numbers for popular software packages and would allow you to download and install updates when they became available. I believe the software checked version numbers as they appeared in the registry.
This confuses me..because it sounds like MS is now patenting the exact same process.
-Jer
Over the last few months my legal advisors and I have become aware that the large majority of /. readers are infridging my latest patient. Please if you wish to read left to right mail me my royality checks. :-p
/NextLibrary/receipts
.tar.gz file inside the .pkg directory, they had the moral equivalent of an URL, which gave a hostname and a path from which to FTP the contents of the package.
Since the first version of NeXTSTEP that I ever saw (2.0), NeXT had a package manager. By 1992, they had a concept of a "remote package", where instead of a
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
hey, i just patented being a big asshole! does this mean that m$oft cant do it anymore?
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
Ham on rye, hold the mayo please.
thelocust[dot]org
Uh, there's AutoRPM. There's also Symantec's LiveUpdate feature. And let's not forget Lotus Notes replication (which does code, not just data, y'all).
That's off the top of my head. And that's just ones using the public Internet that have UIs that ask users what they want to do. I daresay, this is no different from what most automated file mirroring and ASD (automated software distribution) systems do. Computer Associates, Tivoli and a few other companies I can think of will have something to say about this. A look at the legal status screen makes it appear they already have.
Correct me if I am wrong, but... Patents require proof of no prior art. Apple Computer has a control panel that does exactly what MS has patented... it checks a list of Apple supplied and supported patches and downloads and installs the proper ones, either on set schedule, or manually. Something seems wrong here, or I have missed something REALLY big...
Win2K is much better when it comes to requiring restarts. I believe I installed all of Office 2000 without a single reboot, although I may be mistaken. Sometimes you can even change video drivers without rebooting. (That actually scared the hell out of me when it happened, it's such a foreign concept in Windows.)
Of course, there are still a lot of obnoxious installers that force a restart when it isn't necessary. That's partly why MS wants to make installing apps a service of the OS.
MSK
Many people have replied stating several different operating systems who have been using a similar package management system for over a decade (I saw a reply about NeXT using a system since 1989.) As well, there is FreeBSD, and as stated in the excerpt, Debian.
Isn't prior use a defence in patent infrigement? Couldn't Debian take Microsoft to court over this? I'm sure if Microsoft even raised an eyebrow they'd get blown out of court faster than you can say "Monopoly".
-kidlinux.
Look bub.
The patent doesn't define what a registry is. Anything can be registry even a text file. If you think the word "registry" protects debian or red hat from a suit you are truly stupid.
The fact is MS has gotten a patent on a widely used technology. This allows them to sue anybody they don't like. This is not a Good Thing but it is just another "innovation" from MS. If you can't think of something new get a patent on somebody elses idea.
War is necrophilia.
A registry is merely a database in which files can store name/value pairs for their configuration. libPropList does exactly this for WindowMaker. Linux may lack a single, unified registry that all things use, but it doesn't lack a registry entirely.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
It may well be a defensive patent but still, it'll be a hassle in every developer's face who wants to do a similar Windows-based component update system, as they would either have to get legal clearance (or even license) from Microsoft, or roll their own.
Isn't this quite counter-productive for the Windows platform, unless they make a general release concerning the use of such technologies for Windows?
I can't see how that would be in their best interest.
Jouni
--
Jouni Mannonen
3D Evangelist
Jouni Mannonen | Game Designer, Consultant
For those of you who are not familiar UNIX flavors sym links have been around for about as long as unix, and Microsoft just now discoverd there usefullness.
send flames > /dev/null
Only 'flamers' flame!
...MacOS 9's Software Update control panel. Does the same damn thing, and it's been humming along for over 6 months in a released OS. Works the same way: checks all your installed OS components against the most recent versions posted on Apple's servers, and alerts you that there's updates availible, asking if you want to download & update them. If this is what Microsquish calls "innovation", I'd hate to see what they call "blatent copying".
---
MacTacToe - for every problem, an elegant solution
I think it's clear that Microsoft has been deliberately, willfully engaged in criminal behavior for their entire existence.
Not punishing them because the acts were performed by a corporation instead of a person is rubbish; they were performed by people, just as much as more horrible crimes in the 1930s and 1940 were performed by German soldiers, not by Germany.
To not punish Microsoft for it's crimes, based on the idea that they won't commit them any more, would be like not jailing Ted Kaczynski because he hasn't blown anybody up lately.
The Microsoft executives responsible for this debacle, including Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, should be jailed for a long time and have all of their personal assets that derive from Microsoft seized and placed up for auction.
Microsoft itself should be dissolved, all assets sold, and the proceeds divided among everyone who has ever bought or sold a copy of a Microsoft software product.
The domain "microsoft.com" should be given to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, with them directed to operate a web server at that address with all the relevant court documents displayed there for all time.
They should be directed to place the source code for all of their products under GPL immediately, and reassign the copyrights to Richard Stallman.
Oh; and Gates should be delivered to the jail wearing lipstick and a miniskirt.
--
It's making the statement the patent office thinks things like network packaging systems and (I still remember) the "oone-click" shopping are new ideas. =(
Also debs and rpms are signed on the server via PGP keys and etc - so if you streach the meaning... this is another stupid patent...
A method for the development of highly insecure, unstable, slow, and bloated software for the personal computer. Prior art: Microsoft, anyone?
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
I'm not against patents as a concept, but It has gone way beyond what it was desighed for. It is my understanding that patents were created in order to reduce the need for trade secrets, and NOT some kind of state sponsored contest to create a monopoly over any trivial thing. But as anyone can see things have gone far beyond that, and worse, the people who are supposed to check the validity of these patents don't do there job. This is a perfect example of how the system is being abused, not to encurage inovation, but as a simple excuse to sue the competition, and turn this into a huge expensive legal battle. The Creative vs. Aureal is another example, the real purpose of Creatives legal suit was to drown Aureal in legal bills, not protect themselves from being ripped off. I wonder how long this turns into a legal brawl with Redhat, Debian, or any other linux distrobution.
Patent is as follows:
---
The problem, as we all know, is that the USPTO is overworked and that the Patent system is broken. Since it's managed by the politicians, who are rewarded with money by the big players out there, I doubt it will change any time soon.
...
Given that, one poster previously noted that you can file Statutory Patents. They're easy to do, very cheap, but they basically Open Source the Patent to everyone and prevent other people (the big players such as MSFT, IBM, Sun) from patenting a really cool idea.
I've been thinking about the next phase of being wired and what it will really look like, and it's obvious to me that it involves something I've called Avatars. Not the kind that others have described, a totally new way of doing things. My main fear is that Bill Gates or someone else will patent something I've been thinking through for the last decade, before I get around to it.
So, it seems that I, as well as others in Open Source, should bite the bullet and start filing these Statutory Patents as soon as possible. Once my old house closes, I'll get it done for my idea; hopefully others amongst us will do the same.
It's time to take technology back from the monopolists of the world and advance the cause of civilization in it's highest form.
So, if you've got a cool patentable idea, but know you'll never go through the usual 2-3 year patent process, with it's expenses, to get it patented, this is a call to arms - patent it as a Statutory Patent to keep it out of the clutches of the vampires of technology and in the daylight of Open Source.
And for all those who do this, I suggest we consider founding some kind of Open Source Patent Foundation, with a really cool party each year at Burning Man or some other cool event. Worst case, I'll buy you a beer or hard cider
Will in Seattle
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
If that is the case, the patent
office has just granted a duplicate patent with more specific terms.
It is important not to confuse patentability with infringement. In the scenario of two patents issuing, the first, A, being more general, and the second, later patent B, having all of the elements of A, but with more specific terms, that would not preclude the validity of B.
Assume the only claim of patent A discloses claim elements A1, A2 and A3, and that the only claim of patent B claims elements A1, A2, A3 and B1. Only the following is clear:
1) An apparatus practicing B would probably infringe A, since it has all of the claimed elements A1, A2 and A3. (There are some legal doctrines that would preclude infringement, but they would rarely apply).
2) However, B *is NOT* anticipated by A. While A discloses A1, A2 and A3, it does not have the limitation B. (This would also be true if B claimed A1, A2 and a green A3). If the differences between the more specific limitations satisfy the legal obviousness test of Section 103, B may well be patentable, even though one couldn't build it without infringing A.
Consider for example, if I had a patent on the chair generally. You might well be able to obtain a patent on a rocking chair (a specific kind of chair), but this would not mean that by obtaining the patent you could build a rocking chair without my consent. (And while I can certainly build rockerless chairs without infringing your patents, I would be precluded from building chairs with rockers!)
in case you didn't know, sysadmins (in the bay area, at least) are REAL hard to find. good ones, at least.
at the hourly rate most charge, it puts them in the 100k range, more or less. if you don't mind doing pager duty and also doing NT work (you almost can't get an admin job SOLELY on unix these days), then high salaries are NOT hard to find.
--
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Oh yeah, and I forward this as evidence of incompetence not laziness. Here, some engineer has clearly written an equivalent to raising and dropping an interface, changing routing tables, DNS, etc., and the control panel people have not picked up on it. (You'd think it was them who would've written it!) If there is a reason, I would guess their are stability/conflict issues w/ running apps (yeah, like you get more than one at a time in win...) that I haven't found yet, that they didn't want to support. A bit of a stretch, tho'.
_____________________
He who fights and runs away,
Patents are all about implementation details. As long as you are achieving the same results a different way you are fine.
Also, by naming the registry specifically as a required technology should clear the Linux varieties. If they had stated that the information is store in a file in the local filesystem without specifying the technology then there would be problems.
Anyway, I think that IBM had this sort of information kept on the mainframes (a db of app/lib/version/dependencies) and that would definitely be prior art there. Anyone know for sure?
In 10 years nobody will be impressed with perceptual audio coding (which is really only a variant of perceptual video coding [ie. jpeg]). And everybody will be pissed because it's patented.
Here is a nonpatented perceptual audio coding system from xiph.org.
Will I retire or break 10K?
M$ patent seems so narrowly defined that it makes me think it has only one purpose: Prevent another company from producing another Update service for windows. This way M$ can make sure it won't get any competition in that arena. This speaks volumes about how microsoft deal with innovation: keep it out. But for MS this is just a strategic Bussness move that makes sense for it. Of course this strategy makes no sense if MS is split into separate companies that produce software that is then integrated by third party companies.
Rsync is a nice utility that removes the need to download the entire file.
From the manual....
The rsync remote-update protocol allows rsync to transfer just the differences between two sets of files across the network link, using an efficient checksum-search algorithm described in the technical report that accompanies this package.
Now that in conjunction with apt would be nice.
The wording of the patent (for those of you who actually read the patent) state that it is patenting a method for using dated-keys stored in the registry for querying a master database to see whether there is an update. It is so restrictive to windows, that MS & Friends would be the only ones using it anyway. RPM, apt, and the BSD package/ports system are not in any trouble.
For all those who're scandalized: it was filed for in 1997, issued 10/99. So why is this mean, evil, and nasty now, but nobody said anything in November 1997? By my lights, the time to whine about it was when there was a chance at shooting it down as prior art...
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
Given how expelsnive patent litigation can be, even a patent which would be "easy" to defeat can be a formidable weapon. Especially against an opponent without much money.
This patent also includes something else.
It is the server that is to actively check if there is a new update. If you download the database, and check for yourself it doesn't count.
I am not sure what the automated update software for linux does, but if it runs ls in the RPM directory at Red Hat, and checks the version number of the output. I cant see that it is the same thing
Also you would have to have a "Are you completely sure you want to install this software?" box pop up, and you cant download the software before you ask.
Oh hell, you can ignore the request to reboot nearly 75% of the time with software in general, and everything will work just fine! (WinNT or 98) I *frequently* ignore requests by applications for a reboot.
I have gut feelings for what types of functional upgrades and pieces of software will actually change things that really need a reboot, which are just bluffing to cover their asses, and which were simply programmed by idiots... I'm usually right. Most software falls into the latter two categories.
I work for a product house. Much to my chagrin, a couple years after I discovered the above properties about software in general, our own management forced us to put in a request to reboot one product upon install or upgrade simply to *try* and prevent a bug from happening and getting a support call.
We have only observed this bug once, ever. We're only guessing that a reboot would prevent that problem. It might also need a service pack re-application, but we don't know, we've never been able to repeat the problem.
On another of our series of products, we request that the user stop and start a major component (which affects any and all users using the application at the time)... for no reason! Someone wrote the instructions for a specific item that needed it a year ago, and some other developer copied the instructions verbatim without re-examining that requirement.
The current project that I'm working on violates nearly everything Steve McConnell has ever written... and there's no way I'm getting my neck cut off trying to point this out..
- shudder -
there is some post down there about forming a Open Source Patenting commitee. That is a very good idea, if everything Open Source we're patented than people like microsoft (who buy stolen software like DOS 1.0) would have follow open source rules when using things like symlinks and this apt-like system (i know its not the same, but its really close). I think that we need to have someone look into forming this commitee, anybody interested? This is the post