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: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 :-)

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.