Slashdot Mirror
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."
This one was probably started by a intern lawyer at MS who's trying to impress his boss with "Look what I can do!"
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
...and Microsoft.
Perfect!
The Horsemen are drawing nearer,
On Law suits they ride,
They come to take your LIFE!
... and, more importantly, where do I input my credit card number? Microsoft worked hard for every patent they invented and deserve a right to protect it and earn financial reward for it... NOT!
MS seems to have caught SCO disease.
Maybe they will be patenting their idea of setting the QOS on all packets to realtime, thereby making the whole damn thing useless.
Douglas P. Price
And I thought the purpose of intellectual property was to encourage innovation. With talented people now forced to investigate potential issues, I can't see how IP does anything but slow progress. Time for revision?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
SCO doesn't have a deeeeeeeep pocket, MS does !
SCO doesn't have a huuuuugggeee influence over Uncle Sam, MS does !!
In fact, MS is more powerful than
MPAA, RIAA and RedSox combined !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
There seem to be a lot of rumours, but no real evidence that Microsoft will pursue this action. Getting control of TCP/IP as a protocol is a near-impossible challenge, even for Microsoft.
As another have pointed out, they could patent IP routing algoritms, but I think most of the apocalyptic vision predicted by this story is rather unlikely to ever happen.
At least, I hope so!
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!
Being the canny Scot that I am, I have used my inate ingenuity and now all my computers at home are linked together using TTCPS. Yes Two Tin Cans and a Piece of String networking is the way forward.
I have already spoken to Linus T. who will be imlementing TTCPS in kernel 2.8, but I have released some modules which can be compiled into kernels 2.4 and 2.6 right now. Those of us on BSD can try the Two Steel Cans and a Piece of Cord (TSCPC) protocol but I'm not sure about compatability.
I've also received a letter from SCO's lawyers claiming that the string I used was from their own private ball and I should cease and desist. To counter this I am using twine spun by my own mother from the wool of our own sheep. I still maintain that the string I was using was just like any other piece of string and as SCO has been unable to specify what length they have missing I am not too worried.
Some geeks over at www.ttcpsgeek.org have been experimenting with High-Tensile string and have achieved remarkable increases in bandwidth - expect this to be ported back into TTCPSv2, due for release at the end of February.
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.
Not only are their legal precedents shaky (to say the least), they didn't even bother to check their facts very well. For one thing, they refer to the "ping" program as "Packet Internet Groper (ping)". This meaning of the program's name is a well-known backronym of the original meaning which the author of ping stated had to do with the similarity to submarines.
Maybe this is a hint as to how much actual investigative work they have put into this spectacle.
- TCP/IP Take Court Proceedings over Intellectual Property;
- DNS Darl's Not Sinister;
- DHCP Devise Hazardous Corporate Patents;
- LPD Lawyers Paid Double; and, finally
- RIP Our IP
That said, I've never found any alternate uses for NetBIOS over TCP/IP. Or UPnP.Doing what? If you actually GO AWAY AND READ THE ARTICLE you will notice that it's one guys conjecture based on something he found on Microsoft's website. Nowhere does it say that Microsoft are claiming the entirety of these protocols for themselves (and I doubt they would). There is a good chance that Microsoft do own some algorithms for something related to these protocols. As an example, while it is unlikely that MS can claim DNS as their own "invention", they may well have some patents relating to Dynamic DNS and its integration with their Active Directory stuff.
And of course, when yet another of MS' asinine patents is discussed, the shills come out of the woodwork bleating the corporate line "Microsoft is only interested in using their IP defensively!".
I completely fail to see how this can ever be used for anything but to harass competitors. Not surprising, since this strategic direction was already outlined in a 1998 memo.
So this ought to shut up the MS shills for awhile (unfortunately, there is a large divide between 'ought' and 'will').
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
This is clearly, yet again, a story that is more about MSFT bashing than about anything real.
http://neokosmos.blogsome.com
November 5, 2004
Has Microsoft been trying to retroactively claim IP (intellectual property) rights over many of the Internet's basic protocols? Larry J. Blunk, senior engineer for networking research and development at Merit Network Inc., believes that might be the case.
[...]
I am not found of M$ like the next slashdotter, but, before 'we' start bashing M$ ... lets do it after we know the _facts_ :)
I mean,
Microsoft Offers to License the Internet
- vs
Is Microsoft Ready to Assert IP Rights over the Internet?is a big difference, that awards 'caution, biased story alert'.
I don't claim I know more than I know, and if you know you know more than I know, then by all means, let me know.
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.
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
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.
l =/library/en-us/randz/protocol/published_protocols _and_royalty-free_license_faq.asp):
And now they have.
From the FAQ (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?ur
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.
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.
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...
..a license is available from Microsoft under whatever rights it may have...
...royalty free but (perhaps partially) restricting and confusing license...
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
Did he inhale?
But I thought AL Gore invented the Internet?
Oh, come on. That joke hasn't been funny for 4 years. Maybe you could think of something new?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
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:
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.
"Thus, by signing the agreement as it presently stands, one might be agreeing to certain things gratuitously, meaning simply that the licensee agrees to give Microsoft continuing control over how the protocols are used," Peterson said.
This is exactly how the real world works. The worlds of politics, business, law, promotions, even employment interviews, are based on recruiting your support for agreements which can't be negotiated.
Wasn't this how BIll managed to get Microsoft's ownership of an early version of DOS for a minimal amount of money? I'd heard he got someone else to enter an agreement which recognized it as owned by Microsoft, but he hadn't actually paid anyone else that contributed to writing it (yet).
Well, and all the poor German children around the 1940s. They thought it was like playing mountaineer when they got to join Boy Scouts (or whatever the German equivalent is).
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
It is clear to anyone who reads the license itself (or, if you perfer english, the FAQ) that Microsoft is not trying to claim IP ownership over *any* of the protocols listed in the license. They specifically and clearly say this a number of times in both documents.
However, that doesn't mean this is totally benign. It is classic M$ policy to require the user to license technology from them whether they plan to profit from it, or restrict usage or not; it is better, on their view, to have consumers using their technologies under only a nominal license (the terms of which may be changed later, if need be) than under no license at all. Given that M$ clearly doesn't *know* what protocols they have what rights over, it may be that they're distributing a catch-all license, in the hopes of figuring out what their rights are later and locking them down.
However, as IANAL, this raises the question of whether such a hypothetical license is binding...can you ask a user to sign a license under an IP right that neither party can identify, and that may not even exist? Given that it doesnt even specifiy what it is that the user is licensing (it only effectively says what it relates to)...can this even be considered a real license?
caritj.org
This may be the big one folks. There is so much prior art for this that its not even funny. Not only that, this is the backbone of the world's economy and its rigorous enforcement may well wake up the world to the problem of broad software patents and bring about quick change to the patent system. May it be rigorously enforced for the good of humanity.
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.
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.
From the Microsoft License Agreement:
2. Enhancements and Updates
Other than any updates that Microsoft may publish at the URL location(s) for the Protocol(s) listed in Exhibit A, no other Microsoft enhancements or updates to Protocols and/or Technical Documentation are licensed under this Agreement. In the event Microsoft elects to make other such Microsoft enhancements or updates available, such enhancements or updates will only be licensed by Microsoft under a separate written agreement.
3. Licenses
3.1 Copyright License. To the extent Microsoft has copyrights in the Technical Documentation for the Licensed Protocols , Microsoft hereby grants You a non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-sublicensable, personal, worldwide license to make a reasonable number of complete copies of that Technical Documentation solely for use in developing Licensed Implementation(s).
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:
So in English, Microsoft is not claiming ownership of anything. They are just saying that they may or may not own something but you can license it from them anyway.
Additionally, this license offers no indemnifaction. Even if you license the 130 protocols listed from Microsoft, if there is a legal challenge on a patent, Microsoft isn't going to protect you (according this this agreement).
My last point is this does not cover Microsoft extensions or as them call them "updates" to protocols. Does this mean you are licensing whatever is in the public RFC from Microsoft and their version of the technical documentation?
It's all so strange.
Actually they did. They did know all about it but internet was free, something MS cant stand. They set out to build their own net, MSN Network. Since microsoft cant invent itself out of a wet paperbag their MSN network failed miserably. The internet took over almost instantly and MS had to do a 90 degree turn, something that took a while to do.
In short, MS did know about the Internet but since they hate "not invented/stolen here" they tried to ignore it as long as possible.
HTTP/1.1 400
He did, but apparently there was some debate over the matter. Some of the invention forms were incorrectly postmarked, others had pieces missing out of them, and still others claimed that Pat Buchanan invented the Internet. There was a big spectacle, but a Supreme Court decision called a halt to the deliberations and awarded creation of the Internet to Microsoft.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
If you actually execute the license agreement, you will be under all sorts of legal obligations to Microsoft that you weren't under before; for example, you need to put a notice into your software and you may be restricted in how you can sublicense it. And you get nothing from them in return because they don't actually own any of the protocols. This is not a "liberal" license, it's a license for suckers.
This license resembles the Sender-ID license and therefor makes Open Source implementations with this license very dificult. Please read the Apache Software Foundation's position regarding sender ID. Lawrence Rosen states:
Now, please have a look at the Microsoft license for these 130 protocols:Due to the similairities of the Sender ID license and this license I think, Open Source may never be able to live up to the requirements of this license. If it doesn't, it might not necessarily be at risk for litigation over whatever rights Microsoft might have, but Microsoft definitely gains the selling point of having legally unencombered implementations while Open Source has none.
As I said, IANAL. Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can comment on this subject. I hope I'm wrong.
The license contains some interesting clauses. For example:
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:
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.
...this license is referenced in the EULA for the next version of Windows, whether XP2 or Longhorn (or sooner in the next versions of various network enabled products, like MSN messenger). End user and PHB ignorance is they only way this scheme can work, and MS knows it.
Microsoft is essentially trying to do to the internet what SCO is trying to do to linux.
This license basically amounts to intent to defraud.
The answer, none. But the problem is, with the way current legal system operates, Microsoft (I'll not do the s => $ thingy, I think its childish) could just drag out the lawsuit until their opponent collapse under the legal fees. This is actually the most common tactic used by large coporation to destroy a smaller ones.
Second is that most small company would just settle and avoid the legal battle.
That's the threat. Not that Microsoft has a claim on TCP/IP protocol, but the threat that they actually have a claim.
I really wish US could adopt a IP (intellectual, not internet one) system that gives an enforcement expiration date. Basically, if you didn't enforce a patent after a period of time, the patent automatically expires (I think a country does this, not sure which).
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
if you are familiar with the OSI model, it can pretty easily explain any network
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model
Anyway, the microsoft "network model" appears to be the same for every protocol, and more or less has an easy swap Network/Transport area (or, the protocol used).
7 Application - Windows Application
6 Presentation - Kernel mode Executive Services
5 Session - SMB | WIN sockets
4 Transport - *see below
3 Network - *see below
2 Data Link - NDIS interface (driver)
1 Physical - Hardware
*these are filled in with anything MS offers as a drop in, wether it be IPX/SPX, APPLETALK, NETBEUI, or, in the case of my example, TCP/IP.
Now, to get all these to work "seamlessly" (yeah, right), microsoft made tie-ins so that they can all still use "NetBEUI" style names (the NetBios over TCP/IP for example).
Starting with Windows NT, microsoft began altering the normal steps for NetBIOS (you know, that \\computername thing?)resolution to "enhance" it the standard (most likely set by IBM when they came up with it), doing things they thought were more efficient.
Most likely they did this with everything else too (which explains "rights" to most of the protocols that would fill in layers 5 and up, including FTP, HTTP, SMPT, etc.), and in doing so, did something that required them to change the level 4 and 5 protocols, which alone would be enough to claim "rights" to their changes.
****I stopped reading other comments about 1 page into the 6 that are here now. Why? I'm impulsive... I did however search for the word "NetBIOS" to see if the exapmle was there, and it wasn't, so if someone already actually argued the changes they had to make in order to use NetBIOS for everything when nobody else ever does, then I'm sorry. Also, I'm lazy and didn't actually read that link, and instead relied on things I had to learn 3 years ago for the Network+. Yes, I know the OSI layer is an abstract thought more than anything technical, but it still shows the connection, and as such, maybe, in some way is slightly... on topic...even if completely unneeded in my point. I am not responsible for any injuries you may inflict upon yourself as a result of reading this. Ducks are kinda neat. They echo, though.****