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!
apt and rpm are rather young. There is an actual POSIX draft for a UNIX package. Though I do not know anyone using it;-)
-- Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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.
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...
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?
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
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. --
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.
-- Bad Mojo "If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
> 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"
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.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
Here are the differences I see...
by
osjedi
·
· Score: 3
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.
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.
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
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.
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. --
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
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: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.
Slashdot Mirror
apt and rpm are rather young. There is an actual POSIX draft for a UNIX package. Though I do not know anyone using it ;-)
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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.
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...
"That's Tron. He fights for the Users."
It doesn't mention anywhere the 16 reboots.
t
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!
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.
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
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
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 you would want to do that.
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
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
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
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.
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
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.
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!
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
> 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"
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."
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. -=-=-=-=-
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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
> how innovative this patent proves MS to be.
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.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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
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.
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