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.
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.
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.
- 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.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
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.
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.
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.
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.