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

Before the M$ Bashing Begins

[OverlordQ]

I think this follow-up to the post in the NG fits nicely:

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.

Re:Before the M$ Bashing Begins

[Guy Harris]

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.

As might efficient packet discarding algorithms, as per their listing the Discard Protocol as one of the protocols you can license from them.

That strongly suggests to me, at least, that they just enumerated protocols Microsoft implements but didn't invent solely by themselves (or didn't invent at all), and threw them into the list, perhaps on the theory that it's better that other organizations and individuals spend time figuring out what stuff might be covered by patents owned by Microsoft than that they spend time figuring out what public protocols actually are covered, in part or in whole, by some Microsoft patent.

Re:How can I pay?

[metlin]

You think you are scared?

You're not scared enough -- MS has _tonnes_ of patents in the WIMP area, which several Operating Systems use.

MSR has been filing patents left right and center, in various areas such as Graphics, AI and what not. They even have people working on areas of Information Theory in Quantum Computing and what not.

A search on Delphion shows that about 7,542 patents have been registered in almost every conceivable area of computer science.

I was hoping that MS would not take this stance, but I guess this was inevitable.

Re:How can I pay?

[mfearby]

What scares me is that Australia will probably end up with copyright and patent laws the same as the United States (which is part of our "free trade" agreement). I guess I can always renounce technology and go back to reading books and using pen and paper, but then, I'm sure Amazon has a patent on "a mechanism for the immediate and periodic loan of printed material from a central repository" (meaning I can't borrow library books, unless it takes more than one step :-)

Fuck, Someone's going to be pissed

[theolein]

I sit here using my Mac, open the MS page listing all the protocols that MS wants you to sign a licence agreement for, and lo and behold I see that Apple File Protocol is the first on that list. I think Apple might have some fun with it's lawyers on this one.

I also wonder just how arrogant, dumb and just plainly disconnected from reality you have to be to start licencing protocols that Microsoft had absolutely nothing to do with, such as DNS, DHCP, TCP/IP etc.

And the microsofties on this board wonder why people refer to MS as M$ or slam the company constantly.

MS is a bunch of criminal bastards. Fuck them and may they burn in fucking hell.

FUD

[anonymous cowherd (m]

This FAQ entry referenced by TFA makes it pretty clear that MSFT is not claiming ownership of anything with this:

Published Protocols And Royalty-Free License FAQ 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.

MSFT is not, as TFA summary indicates, "licencing the internet," in any meaningful way. That would imply that MSFT owns or controls what it is licencing. Further, TFA itself states that "a significant number of protocols date from the early 1980's," so, "here is no reason to suspect that Microsoft has any patent rights to these early protocols (such as the TCP/IP v4 core protocols). Further, in the unlikely event that applicable patents may be discovered, they would have likely expired at this point."

This is clearly, yet again, a story that is more about MSFT bashing than about anything real.

Re:FUD

[radtea]

TCP/IP is included on the list of licensed protocols.

"So what?", you may say.

Well...

The Recitals (which is the part of a license agreement that amongst other things lays out what property the licenser owns and is willing to license) declares that the licensee wants to license these protocols "under any applicable intellectual property rights that Microsoft may have"

But...

There is no conceivable scenario in which Microsoft could have any rights to TCP/IP whatsoever.

So why is it included in the agreement?

This would be like my company, whose products use XML parsers, licensing the XML standard to our users. It would be bizzare on the face of it, and such a contract would be in my view very poorly written. Good contracts contain just what they need to contain, and nothing more. Microsoft's lawyers probably know this.

So why exactly did they invest the effort into creating such an extensive list?

This story is not about Microsoft bashing. It is about a very strange license from a very powerful company, which should give us all pause.

--Tom

One stop indemnification?

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one will welcome the day we can read a story about how Slashdot editors have finally decided to read the text of the submissions, and at least scan the contents of the offered links.

Re:Part of DOJ settlement (confusing)

[KontinMonet]

..a license is available from Microsoft under whatever rights it may have...

Of what use is this license to the ordinary Joe? If MS terminates the license after 30 days, then what? Does Joe have to re-license the use of all 130 protocols elsewhere? And is Joe aware that there may be rights that are no longer valid making him have only partial rights to documentation and protocols? And, under the terms of the license, no improvement to the protocols is allowed either even if MS has no rights in that particular protocol.

Perhaps MS should have named it a ...royalty free but (perhaps partially) restricting and confusing license...

Terminate your licence to use Appletalk?

[dbIII]

The licence does state plainly that MS can terminate it, and states plainly that Appletalk is covered by the licence.

It is not within Microsofts power to do that - so why is this document not considered fraud?

Also, MS offers no form of warranty and accepts no liability, so this licence is completely worthless in any case.

License is not benign.

[PolR]

RTF, yes M$ does not claimn ownership of the protocol. But they won't tell they don't own it either. If you have signed the licensed, would your lawyer advise that you can take the chance?

The license contains some interesting clauses. For example:

3.4 Reservation of Rights. All rights not expressly granted in this Agreement are reserved by Microsoft. No additional rights are granted by implication or estoppel or otherwise. By way of clarification, in order for a third party to distribute a Licensed Implementation as part of its third party branded products, such party must be authorized to do so by You and must also execute this license and comply with its terms.

Here we have an obligation for licensee to license their implementation of the protocol and require third parties to enforce the license as well. This obligation exists even if M$ has no right to the protocol in the first place.

Another funny clause:

3.2 Patent License. To the extent Microsoft has Necessary Claims, Microsoft hereby grants You a nonexclusive, royalty-free, non-sublicenseable, personal, worldwide license under those Necessary Claims to use the Technical Documentation for the Licensed Protocols to:

(a) make, use, import, offer to sell, sell and distribute directly or indirectly to end users, object code versions of Licensed Implementations only as incorporated into Licensed Products and solely for the purpose of conforming with the Protocol as described in the corresponding Technical Documentation, and

(b) to distribute or otherwise disclose source code copies of the Licensed Implementation(s) licensed in Section 3.2(a) only if You (i) prominently display the following notice in all copies of such source code, and (ii) distribute or disclose the source code only under a license agreement that includes the following notice as a term of such license agreement and does not include any other terms that are inconsistent with, or would prohibit, the following notice:

"This source code may incorporate intellectual property owned by Microsoft Corporation. Our provision of this source code does not include any licenses or any other rights to you under any Microsoft intellectual property. If you would like a license from Microsoft (e.g. to rebrand, redistribute), you need to contact Microsoft directly (send mail to protocol@microsoft.com)."

Yes M$ admits they might not have a patent, but they don't tell you if they have one or not. So read clause a). It says you can distribute the licensed protocol only as a Licensed Implementation. Do you take the chance and distribute an open source implementation? If M$ happens to have a patent afterall, you are in violation. You may have good chance to challenge the patent and invalidate it, but then you are up for a trial and the contract may be found enforceable for the time period before the patent is invaludated. What would the company lawyer advice? What a PHB will decide? This is called chilling effect.

Now look at clause b). As a licensee you are required to tell the world that M$ has rights to the protocol, even if it might not be the case.