Microsoft Offers to License the Internet

NW writes "According to an eWeek story Microsoft is beginning to assert IP rights over 130 protocols including many basic Internet protocols including TCP/IP, DNS, etc. The story originates with a mailing list post to the IETF's IPR list."

Comments

Re:MS & TCP/IP

[Harassed]

I wish people would stop jumping to conclusions! The author of the original document states that there is no mention of specific patent numbers so we don't know that Microsoft think they have any rights to the core TCP/IP, DNS or any other protocols.

As one of the first followups states, however:

"Keep in mind that even though the core protocols haven't changed that
much, actual TCP/IP deployments have drastically changed since the
early 80s. Efficient packet forwarding algorithms (which are
necessary in Gigabit networks and beyond) are certainly subject to
patents today."

There is nothing to stop Microsoft (or IBM or anyone else for that matter) developing such algorithms and patenting them. Before you all go off on your anti-Microsoft tirades, please make sure you have all the facts and not just conjecture!

Re:Before the M$ Bashing Begins

[kasperd]

If people would just stop talking about things they don't understand, things would get a lot more quiet. First of all almost everybody who use the term TCP/IP don't know what they are talking about. Because if they knew what they were talking about, they would use the right term, which is often one of the protocols IP, ICMP, UDP, or TCP.

Packet forwarding have nothing to do with TCP. It happens in the IP layer, the efficiency is obviously also to some extent affected by the lower layer protocols. But not the higher layers like TCP. But mostly efficiency of forwarding is an implementation issue, and not a property of the actual protocol.

To make things even worse a new term was invented to confuse people, and it is also called IP. Since this term covers a nonexisting concept it is in our best interrest not to use it. IP means Internet Protocol, any other use of that abreviation should be avoided. Unfortunately a lot people errornously use the term TCP/IP about the Internet Protocol.

Some confusion can be avoided by actually specifying the version number as well and say IPv4 or IPv6 rather than just IP. But for god's sake, make sure you use the right terms, or you will just cause even more confusion.

Closer look

[MadFarmAnimalz]

I think the level of implied evilness in this matter is overplayed. Microsoft aren't denying that these standards are not exactly theirs exclusively to play around with.

Reading the FAQ, it looks more like some arcane clot of lawyers came up with this one to cover [Microsoft's|developers'] butts from ???. (can't figure out what the lawyers were trying to accomplish).

Specifically, this:

Q. I noticed a number of these protocols are available for license via other avenues - for instance, under license agreements promulgated by members of a standards setting body. If I already have rights to implement protocols (e.g., under other agreements), do I also have to sign a royalty-free license?

A. No, unless you wish to obtain rights available under the royalty-free license that are not available under other license agreements you may have.

There. They are acknowledging that you can use the protocols anyway without signing this license agreement.

Strange move, but not evil if I read things properly.

Re:How can I pay?

[igrp]

Microsoft didn't invent this game though. They're just playing it. And as usual, they're a tad bit late and have to play hardball to catch up with the competition. And of course, as usual, they throw at a lot of money at the (perceived) problem (which, sadly, I have to admit has usually worked for them in the past more often than not).

IBM has been doing this for decades and they are exceptionally good at this. The difference is that, at least at this point in time, they do not actively do anything with their patents - at least not beyond the point of what's necessary to keep them. They just keep filing new patents to keep their asses covered. And, in a way, they have to do that to ensure the survival of the company. Think about it: it's way cheaper to just file for and receive a patent than to challenge somebody else's patent and to try and have that invalidated (something that hardly ever happens). It also helps with ligigation. If another company is suing you, you first check your database to see if they have violated one of your patents.

And to give you an idea of what I'm talking about, check out this quote from IBM's IP & Licensing website:

In 2003, IBM received 3,415 U.S. patents from the USPTO. This is the eleventh consecutive year that IBM has received more U.S. patents than any other company in the world. In addition to delivering these innovations through its products and services, IBM maintains an active patent and technology licensing program.

And, believe me, they're covering all their bases (last time, I checked they had 23k+ active patents and they have some exceptionally good lawyers). Please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying IBM is the bad guy here. I like the fact that they're supporting Linux as much as the next guy. I'm not even saying what they're doing is inherently evil. I'm merely trying to point out that patents are becoming a priority issue everywhere and that it's becoming increasingly important to CYA.

Part of DOJ settlement

[Keeper]

This is part of the DOJ settlement requiring Microsoft to license communications protocols essential for 3rd party software/operating systems to interoperate with Windows. No matter how stupid, trivial, or ancient, they're required to license them.

And now they have.

From the FAQ (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url =/library/en-us/randz/protocol/published_protocols _and_royalty-free_license_faq.asp):

Q. When I sign a royalty-free agreement for these protocols, what am I licensing?

A. The list of protocols under this license includes protocols for which documentation has been published, and that Microsoft has implemented in Windows client operating systems to interoperate with Windows server operating systems (up to and including Windows Server 2003). However, just because a protocol appears on the list does not mean that Microsoft is the owner or sole owner of rights in that protocol or its documentation. What the royalty-free license does is ensure that a license is available from Microsoft under whatever rights it may have in the published documentation and/or protocols on the list.

Re:FUD

[davecb]

Not just FUD, but also lock-in. Please see the warning at the Samba Development page: In order to avoid any potential licensing issues we also ask that anyone who has signed the Microsoft CIFS Royalty Free Agreement not submit patches to Samba, nor base patches on the referenced specification.

Anyone who voluntarily licenses, for example, eating fish, must then abide by the fish-eating license (:-))

--dave

The Real Problem

[justin_speers]

First off, everyone should read anonymous_cowherd's comment above before panicking or engaging in any premature Microsoft bashing...

Second off, before everyone starts ripping on evil corporations and patents... let's not forget that the evil Government creates the environment that breeds bacterial scum like SCO.

In other words, engage in some activism. Help out the EFF, fight software patents in Europe, do whatever it takes to stop this problem at the source: Evil Government...

Re:Al Gore

[itsNothing]

The record shows that Mr. Gore did a lot more for your internet connection than you're giving him credit for. Mr. Gore didn't invent networks or protocols or browsers. He gave you commercial-free bandwidth.

The most recent IEEE Spectrum (Nov. 2004) has an article about their success in predicting technology over the past 40 years (it's their 40th anniversary issue).

The 1989 entry (pg. 79) is The Internet. The text:

Sometimes all you have to do is unlock the barn door--the hourse will amble out, and the cart will follow. When it came to the horse that would turn into the Internet, Bob Lucky wasn't worried about where it would go--he just wanted to be sure he was along for the ride.

In September 1989, two years before any commercial activity on the Internet and four years before the graphical Web, the plucky Lucky, then a Bell Labs research director and still Spectrum's in-house sage, wrote: "A bill bending before the United States Congress, sponsored by Senator Albert Gore Jr. (D-Tenn), would authorize the construction of a nationwide gigabit network to connect educational and research institutes. The issue that keeps being raised is: what would a user do with a gigabit data link?"

Lucky's answer was simple. "We are not very good at prediciting uses until the actual service becomes available. I am not worried; we will think of something when it happens."

At that time, 56K was sufficient for research; those home users who existed were getting by with 300 to 1440 Baud. (Even today, many users still survive on dial-up.) Of course, someone would have gotten the idea to fund a high speed network for commercial use. However, it almost certainly wouldn't look like the one that got funded for educational and research use, though. Necessarily so, it would have been immediately organized to generate an ROI for the investors who paid for it. Who knows? Maybe SPAM would have been called: COMMERCIAL CONTENT?

Gore's contribution wasn't technical, but if you've been paying attention you'll know that the technical problems are almost always the easiest to solve. The Internet as we know it today wouldn't exist without high bandwidth, inexpensive data pipes, and Mr. Gore generated the cash to have those built. I think he deserves a little credit for the significance of the contribution he made.

Re:FUD

[davecb]

I wasn't: I'm quoting the Samba team's warning against contributing to Samba while having signed an agreement about the other protocols.

-- dave

Re:FUD

[anonymous cowherd (m]

However a follow up to TFA states:

Keep in mind that even though the core protocols haven't changed that much, actual TCP/IP deployments have drastically changed since the early 80s. Efficient packet forwarding algorithms (which are necessary in Gigabit networks and beyond) are certainly subject to patents today.

This would still be true, even if MSFT did not offer to licence these protocols! Furthermore, by not having a licence to a protocol which MSFT has legitimate patent claims on, you effectively deny yourself the ability to use that protocol. That is, unless the idea of a horde of MSFT lawyers beating down your door looking to extract licencing fees you could have avoided by licencing the protocol for free.

I'm not saying anybody should licence TCP/IP from MSFT. Far from it. MSFT clearly has no legitimate claims on ipv4, because the patents would have expired by now anyway, as TFA very clearly states. (Well, that, and MS Windows' ip stack was basically ripped out of BSD.)

If your lawyers have reviewed any possible claims MSFT has on a given protocol and determine that there are no valid ones, then there is no reason to licence it from MSFT at all. If MSFT does have a valid claim, then this licence is probably the best you're going to get out of them for free. If you want more, you'll have to licence it the normal way, which involves spending some dough.

Re:Hold your hourses!

[SilentChris]

Good, you've RTFA. Now go all the way and RTFL (read the f*ing license). Apparently the guy in the eWeek story didn't.

"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."

In other words, "We don't own any of this. We use it. If you use MS software to access these protocols, here's the (extremely liberal and almost nonexistant) 'license' to do so." Nothing to see here.

TCP/IP Term

[Anonymous Coward]

Go read TCP/IP Illustrated, volume I, by W. Richard Stenvens (one of the best technical book I know). The term "TCP/IP" is used to speak about all "the TCP/IP protocol suite", so it is about IP, TCP, UDP, ICMP, bgp4, ospf, etc.

Re:Unsafe intercourse

[R.Caley]

MS seems to have caught SCO disease.

MS had it first, and they probably caught it from Apple -- remember when Apple were threatening to sue people (including MS) they claimed had copied the interface Apple had nicked from Xerox?

Suckers may be born every minute, but the scams stay the same. Back when the first animal evolved a mechanism to mark out a territory it opened an ecological niche for a mimic to pretend to own territory it hadn't had to work to get and hold.

Re:FUD

[SilentChris]

Um, read the article. And the license. All you did was read the Slashdot headline.

If you read the license, you would've seen this:

"Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details."

In other words, "We don't own or have any legal rights over any of this stuff. We're, instead, pointing you to the public domain."

If anything, the license is a complete absolution of any legal rights, and is instead a classification method. MS management probably asked "where does public domain stuff fit into our licensing schemes" (since everything at MS is licensed). The lawyers turned around and said "Nowhere." "Well, write a 'license' anyway, even if it doesn't do anything." If it was ever brought up and court, opponents could actually use the thing against MS and say "look, you absolved any possible legal ownership over these". If nothing else, this "license" is a good thing.

Re:FUD

[davecb]

I think you're misunderstanding what I said: the Samba team is concerned about anyone contributing who was legally bound to an agreement with Microsoft. Anyone bound by that agreement who contributes, taints the Samba source code.

Samba implements a protocol which was analyzed "off the wire", and so is not legally encumbered by a license. They wish to stay that way.

Which protocol? Every protocol.

--dave