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!
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.
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
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.
...and the geek shall inherit the earth...
-- www.linux-skunkworks.com
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
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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
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
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
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
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
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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.