Microsoft: Future Web Services Plans?

An Anonymous Coward writes: "According to News.com, Bill Gates announced a new software development architecture with a pretty low key name - the Global XML Web Services Architecture. According to the story Microsoft previewed four new specifications that it claims it will submit to standards bodies after a review period. The specs go by the names WS-Routing, WS-Referral, WS-Security, and WS-License. If Microsoft really discloses the way future Microsoft web services will work it should be possible for open source solutions to use them. Kind of makes you wonder where the catch is?"

Comments

AD ARMA, TROLLS! 10/30 == ULTIME TROLL TUESDAY!!!

[TRoLLaXoR]

Tuesday, October 30, will be the date of an unprecedented Troll Tuesday!

On October 30th, beginning at 0800 EST and lasting until 2359, I ask that you write an original story, essay, joke, ASCII image, etc. regarding Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda and post, post, post it all over Slashdot!

So far 20 trolls of varying degrees of infamy have signed abord this ground-breaking project-- will you?

Email me at trollaxor@mac.com with questions or suggestions!

October 30th, 2001: the Troll Tuesday of the Millenium

The catch

[Anonymous Coward]

None. But what will happen is that everyone will be busy implementing these protocols to the letter but not even thinking that maybe implementing simply the protocol is insufficient. Microsoft will then provide extended services built upon these protocols and make their product much more attractive to developers and users.

Then the non-Microsoft implementers will bitch and moan about how Microsoft used its monopoly power to crush them.

Re:The catch

[Anonymous Coward]

... while at the same time bitching and moaning about government regulation.

Re:The catch

[RupW]

I don't see what your point is.

If you're saying that Microsoft's implementation of the standard protocols will probably be better and more useful than anyone else's, then I don't see what the problem is - that's just normal competition. Chances are Apache will embrace any new XML-based internet standard anyway, so any MS implemention won't be competition-free and it's up to interested people to make sure Apache's implementation (or whoever's) can hold its own.

If you're saying that Microsoft will extend the protocol for their own good then I don't think they will - they're not adverse to pushing a technology simply for the greater good.

Take SOAP, for example: a distributed RPC mechansim without any platform ties. Microsoft didn't need a new distributed RPC mechanism for Windows only environments but they still contributed a lot to the SOAP standard and development. It wasn't purely developed by Microsoft. It has been proposed to (adopted by?) the W3C. It has its drawbacks, but as a text-based XML protocol it's a pretty good standard.

But what good is a standard if no-one implements or uses it? Worse still, what good is one standard if everyone else only implements a different one? Microsoft can use their market presence to ensure that all Windows systems are bundled with a free, easy-to-develop-for and standards compliant SOAP implementation.

Microsoft have made no move to crush Developmentor SOAP (but then Developmentor were in on the standardisation and Don Box give Keynote addresses for MS), nor have they attempted to crush Apache SOAP or any of the dozens other SOAP implementations out there. Yes, perhaps they are trying to shut out other XML-RPC mechanisms in favour of SOAP, but in this case I think that they are attempting to unify the world simply for the greater good.

Re:The catch

[Anonymous Coward]

The point I was making was that Microsoft is making an effort to be as open as possible about interoperability here, but those who seek to bash them will find their chance when other implementations of these protocols pale in comparison to whatever counterpart Microsoft is offering.

Re:The catch

[Anonymous Coward]

Patents are open for anyone to see. Please tell us which ones you think Microsoft holds that are tied deep in these specs.

Or are you just making stuff up?

Re:The catch

[Samus]

While patents are open for anyone to see they are not open for anyone to implement. You cannot for instance implement the compression used in gifs unless you license it from Unisys.

Re:The catch

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I know. That's not the question.

What patents does Microsoft hold or has pending that are necessary to implement the protocols they have introduced as specified in the above article?

What protocol cannot be implemented without obtaining a license from Microsoft?

Re:The catch

[Samus]

Its all conjecture on my part. I base my prediction upon their past practices and leaked documents (Halloween). If M$ held a patent in a key protocol they could refuse to license or charge and exhorbitant amount to license it to an open source project. This would eliminate any effective opensource/free software competition. Even if they did license it M$ would still get a chunk of change from its competitors.

Re:The catch

[RupW]

If they will, as the article hints, submit these to the W3C then bear in mind that Microsoft helped draw up the W3C's Patent Policy which requires a 'Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory' license.

The catch

[Samus]

The catch will be patents in key areas of the technology. MS has talked about using patents to fight open source before. Refer back to the Halloween documents if you need a refresher.