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 ..."

8 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. DRM, What?! by digerata · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm not sure what the article is talking about. As far as I know, there is no DRM in MHT files. If there is, MS is retrofitting some scheme to it.


    MHT and MHTML files are actually really cool and its too bad other browsers don't support it. (Or in Mozilla's case, support it outside of the mail client.) I wonder if its just because MS came up with the idea? (AFAIK)


    The format is *extremely* useful for things like demo'ing a web site or portions of a website on a frequent basis to different people. I work for a company where we are constantly updating our demo server with new accounts, constantly creating new subdomains, etc, just to allow a client to view the site in their browser securely. We need to be able to take premission away from them after the demo period is over, as well as, make sure unprivledged users don't see the content.


    This could all be solved by storing the mhtml archive of the web content in our digital asset management system. Administering that is much easier that setting up new domains/users/etc.


    But alas, nobody supports it.

    --

    1;
  2. Why accept document in MHT? by Zangief · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the judge demands that the documentation for Microsoft APIs is open an available for everyone, how is delivering said documentation in a form that only IE can read, meeting the judge demands?

  3. Re:MHTML is RFC 2557 by Threni · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't we just need one machine on the net somewhere to which we can submit these encrypted (for want of a better word) documents and which returns a HTML equivalent?

  4. no chance..... by zogger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...that they would get a contempt of court citation, but they deserve it.

    None of this corporate nonsense will end, and it will continue to get worse and worse, until the law is readjusted to reflect that only named individual human beings have personal rights. Corporations avoid a lot of "guilt" by hiding behind the artificial person legal construct. It's beyond loony, was insane when it was aquired, now it's out of control and has lead to defacto fascism, let's call it what it is.

    And I blame the law/justice/court system just as much in this mess as the corporations.

    "Microsoft" should have never gone to trial, it should have been named humans, completely responsible for their decisions.

    Here's a thought, a mass protest by millions of people having a nationwide "incorporation day", flood the system with incorporation papers and lawsuits, a tidal wave of paperwork shuffling, patent applications, copyright registrations, and so on and so forth. Get every human to be part of their own friends and family corporation, watch the system grind to a halt, THEN maybe we'll get some change. Take every single tax break corporations get, fill out the paperwork. Why should they get all the tax break perks, and avoid personal responsibility? Sue the pants off of every large existing corporation out there, find little picyaune laws you can use. Patent everything possible, no matter how obscure. Challenge "no warranty" EULAS in small claims court all over. Serve every PHB out there with papers detailing your employment status, make them sign off to you on every single decision. They balk, sue em. Hand your own puchase contract to every shopkeeper out there when you go to buy something, demand they sign it for the sale.

    They want stupid, inane, ridiculous, society choking crap busywork and laws I say give it to 'em!

    Completely drown them in their own corporate/governmental/so called "legal system" paperwork BS.....

  5. They're doing this because... by jenns · · Score: 5, Interesting
    They're doing this because Donna Payne from Payne Consulting Group gave a talk at Microsoft in which she downloaded some Word files from their website and showed them the network shares and tracked changes that showed up in the metadata of the document.

    I saw that metadata and I must admit that seeing the last 10 authors, the fact that MS folks had crashed no less than 2 times in the document itself, and seeing the revealed tracked changes that showed up again as a result of the corrupting document was a real hoot. Apparently the folks at Microsoft were somewhat horrified...

    --
    Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily this is not difficult. -Whitton
  6. Re:What's wrong with PDFs? by NaugaHunter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, technically they did comply, but they made it as difficult as possible for everyone involved.

    Isn't this contempt of court? Like showing up to pay a fine with pennies in a jar?

    --
    R: That voice. Where have I heard that voice before? B: In about 365 other episodes. But I don't know who it is either.
  7. Signs of things to come? by hcob$ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I believe this is probably the first shot over the bow... so to speak. I see this, and other M$oft tactics, as a sign that they are getting ready to use the DMCA (and hopefully the IDUCE act if it *GASP* get's passed) to bully the wayward explorers that have moved away from them to the Open Source Initiative. They will end up wrapping EVERY file that is created through their programs in some for of DRM/File Encryption so that they can sue the pants of anyone who writes an import program, like Open Office and all the other Office "Compatible" suites. I think this is a step in the wrong direction that needs to be stopped before Microsoft has the right to deny the CIA or the President the right to view a document simply because it was created by Microsoft Word and they want to view it in open office.

    The really scarry part... All the above coupled with "Trusted Computing" and you no longer own anything you create, you no longer own a "lifetime" license to the software you purchased, hell you don't even really OWN your hardware at that point............

    And people wonder why geeks view M$oft as such a bad company. It's a perfect example of the damage that can be done by an entity that has a monopoly on the system.

    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
  8. Wha? by soloport · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just because you don't pay money, doesn't mean it's free.

    That's the dumbest thing I've ever read... ...oh, wait.

    Reminds me: My dad was a missionary to various countries in South America -- he spoke fluent Spanish. One day a fellow preacher came by, from the US (Estados Unidos), to give a grand Protestant sermon to the mostly Catholic-born natives. The title of his sermon (in English): "The Difference Between Righteousness by Faith and Justification by Faith". (Yes, humans often quibble over the finest of details.)

    He had to take a seat, aghast and flabbergasted, after just ten minutes into his 90-minute sermon, when his translator (mi papa) explained to him that, in Spanish, there is only one word (Justicia) for his two words, Justification and Righteousness.

    Freedom, sir... I'll take Freedom over Free, any day.