Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Can't DRM Docs Fast Enough
grcumb writes "As part of the DoJ Anti-trust settlement, Microsoft was ordered to provide freely available documentation for its communications protocols. InfoWorld is reporting that not only are they late in delivering the required APIs, but it's because they want to convert everything to the read-only Web Archive (MHT) format, which can only be viewed in MSIE. InfoWorld reports that, "In July, Microsoft said it would complete revisions of the documentation required by the court in the autumn, a season generally reckoned to include the months of September, October and November in North America, but may now have to extend work on a beta or test version of the new documentation into December...." So we have to wait longer for a format that makes the content harder for developers (developers! developers!) to use. Maybe they didn't read the documentation ..."
Or are they just trying to look slick?
The opposite of progress is congress
The might make them available only in printed form, and only to people who pay an admin fee of a few hundred dollars.
Ermmm yeah. What part of "freely available" means available only in MSIE?
The (Developers! Developers!) reference is about the Steve Ballmer Monkey Boy Dance.
to slither itself out of something they don't want to do but are ordered to b delays and tactics like this...they are supposed to make things freely avalable thats something they dont want to do but tey have to so they make it as much of a pain in the ass as posible for everyone...too bad the system is more bueracracy and less common sense...
It's mostly text and can be printed right? And then later (if anyone cares enough to do it) scanned into non-DRM documents...
So much for DRM lol
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
Microsoft said it would complete revisions of the documentation required by the court in the autumn, a season generally reckoned to include the months of September, October and November in North America, but may now have to extend work on a beta or test version of the new documentation into December..
Actually winter normally does not officially commence until around December 22nd. So they are quite within a reasonable timeframe to complete it in early December and still be done in autumn.
...Microsoft said it would complete revisions of the documentation required by the court in the autumn...
How can a company tell a court that they will finish something in a season? Shouldn't a deadline from a court ruling have a specific date attached to it?
Sorry, had to say that (again).
The current government is a
1) Republican administration
2) To which Microsoft was the third largest corporate donor.
This means that things like Department of Justice orders from *previous* administrations don't count.
May we never see th
If MS has to provide freely available documentation, and the documentation they provide is only accessable using IE....doesn't this mean that MS should provide me with a free Windows license if I choose to develop my Windows software on a Linux workstation? :)
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
Actually, if you search www.microsoft.com for drm and mht, you come up with NOTHING
Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
The antitrust suit from burst.com or whoever they are and the article recently mentioned pretty-much says it all with regards to Microsoft tactics.
They are like children always trying to slither and wriggle their way out of things. It's disgusting and dishonorable. What's worse is that the court system seems to tollerate it all too often. I'm not a lawyer which is probably why I have a pretty clear picture of "right and wrong" in this.
Basically, the court ordered them to do something and they failed to comply. The court should take action and not accept excuses. Freely available is freely available -- locking it down through format is not freely available and NOT what the court intended.
The current government is a
1) Republican administration
2) To which Microsoft was the third largest corporate donor.
This means that things like Department of Justice orders from *previous* administrations don't count.
I don't like the DoJ's soft-on-microsoft attitude either.
But would you prefer it if a Democratic administration couldn't decide to soft-pedal decisions made by, say, the appointees of Bush's administration?
You know they will. They always have.
Sauce for the goose IS sauce for the gander. So let's not get partisan over it.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
They wanted to strip out all the Word history by converting formats in case any of the documents started out as a thank-you note to Darl.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Well, based on the description in the link labelled 'read' in the article, it isn't much of an improvement.
.ZIP file with a document file and a PKCS signature file for the document. Provide a quick downloadable program that can verify them under windows; people using other OS's should be able to figure out a way of verifying them with the tools they have available easily enough.
I don't see why they need to be encrypted to be signed, that's overkill. Just supply them in a
Microsoft will make themselves look good by saying they are doing it for the customer. the people that don't know will sing their praises
So why don't these fools who are trying to hack Fairplay do something useful in the fight against unreasonable DRM and turn their attention towards MHT.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
If it is tampering they want to prevent, they could publish the SHA(1) digest of the files, or sign the MHTML documents with PGP or GPG.
... how many years now?
An even simpler(*) solution would be to write documents in plain text, and sign that. An approach that has been used on Usenet for
-- Damian
(*) Simpler from a technological point of view. Not simpler to apply for people unaware of the distinction between Microsoft Word documents and plain text and ignorant of existing digital-signature conventions.
Doesn't Microsoft own a publishing company called, "Microsoft Press"? MS seems to be able to produce large books (hat usually sit in shrinkwrap boxes and are typically found in the Windows administrator's cube. Maybe MS could take a small break from printing books nobody reads to printing books required as part an important anti-trust settlement.
They should be thankful that I am not the judge in this case. When a company has a technical publishing department and can't provide timely techical documentation then that is CONTEMPT!
While most of us here dislike Microsoft and even more distrust them this isn't that big of a deal.
It's *just* a readonly format, and it is documented..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Microsoft now provides a tool that removes all metadata from Word documents. They are not doing this because of any metadata fiasco.
Rights-Managed HTML, yet another MS proprietary method to "embrace and extend" a known open standard.
RMH is a subformat of Microsoft's Rights Management System (tm). Yes, that's right, it's called RMS . How's that for doublespeak?
You've got to give them some credit for the creatively sinister solutions they come up with. This reminds me of "Microsoft Would Settle For The Children."
If only they put so much innovation into their software...
The trusted software would prevent the trusted OS from allowing printscreen to work. The trusted hardware could check to ensure that the code hasn't been modified and that a tamper-proof certified monitor is attached. Then the subliminal patterns in the scan codes could inform your DRM enabled digital camera that it cannot take a photo, or if it does, to attach the appropriate DRM status on the resultant photo.
Of course you would only use a trusted camera on your trusted computer because nothing else would work.
Hardware companies would only get the certifier keys if they produce nothing but trusted hardware. The marketplace for non-trusted hardware being minimal since "only pirates need that stuff", conventional recording devices will fade into history.
Finally, yes, you could just write it down and key it back in, but your trusted software places your identity in your documents so that if you redistribute them, they'll have a fingerprint to find out who did it... and if you do manage to produce an untrusted document... no trusted computer will open it since it is not trusted.
DRM is a long term plan.
Come on, mods. Up this one - the parent of it is at 5, but this (or the other reply that clarifies that Microsoft is proposing DRM-encumbered documentation) needs to be visible too. It's not plain MHT format that Microsoft is trying to use.
It has almost nothing to do with the format being one that (for the moment) only internet explorer can read. It has everything to do with the fact that the documentation is in a format designed to lock out free software. (I can't imagine that the license for Microsoft's DRM developers toolkit would allow one to release implementing code in source form)
I suspect that Microsoft has already done the engineering and is just trying to figure out how to spin the egg they'll get on their face when this happens. I'm sure the word "terrorists" will somehow be involved.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Gates has always said that there isn't any judgement that he won't ignore (okay, so not the exact quote, but it is the intent).
Why is anyone surprised by MS actions?
The crock is that the law only applies to those who can't afford to get out of it. For Gates and such, laws are only inconveniences.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
Just make the shareholders liable for the criminal actions of the corporation. Simple, easy to implement, and more than sufficient.
Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.