Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again
sebFlyte writes "In what is described as yet another example of how patents can kill or inhibit standards, a patent has come to light that was granted to Microsoft in the year 2000 that looks surprisingly similar to IPv6 (the next-gen IP standard that is starting, slowly, to be taken up in some parts of the world). And several Microsoft engineers, named on the patent just happenned to be part of the IPv6 group for the IETF..."
Is it really possible that such patents may be enforceable?
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
Can a topic title be modded as Troll?
There needs to be some sort of penalty for filing fraudulent patent applications like this, and it needs to be something more than financial. Microsoft should be prohibited filing patents for a period of time. Ten years sound reasonable?
There are some things that only the public, aka government can do, that we can't trust private companies with.
I bet if government ran the phone companies and telecom, we could get service for pennies on the dollar. How much cost does it take to lay down the infrastructure? How much does it take to pay executives rediculous bonuses? Lets cut out the greed. And at the same time there will be public review.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
for acting against the common interest.
Their charters were revoked.
Nowadays, this no longer happens, sadly.
However, considering that IPv6 is by virtue of creation a Government-owned (and hence Public) Patent, it would only be possible for MSFT to have an enforceable patent on a particular application or device that uses IPv6. Naturally, all this assumes (incorrectly) that the government will take action to enforce its rights and patents, which appears not to be the case in the USA.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Now I am far from a lawyer, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that if Microsoft successfully patented IPv6, then they could demand that they get compensated for any implementation of ipv6. Which means that to use ipv6 under Linux, for example, you'd need to play royalties to Microsoft.
Wouldn't Microsoft like that? People who choose Free Software still have to pay Microsoft for the right to use it...
Way to miss the point (hint: humor) and try to drag everyone into a politcal debate on GW bashing. GG
Matt
You have 1 Moderator Point! Use it or lose it! Is that a threat? -vapid
You are ocrrect that the claims of a patent determine its scope. however, the claim you cited is a dependent claim [the ... of claim 1..] so it will include all the limitations of claim 1. Thus, to infringe, a program must at a minimum include:
1. In a host that has been connected to a network that does not have an IP address server and is not connected with any network having an IP address server, a method for automatically generating an IP address for the host, without another component of the network being required to transmit, to the host over the network, an IP address of said other component, the method comprising the steps of:
without the host having received over the network any IP address of another component of the network, selecting a valid network identifying value as a network identifying portion of the IP address for the host;
without the host having received over the network said any IP address of another component of the network, generating a host identifying portion of the IP address for the host based on information available to the host; and
testing the generated IP address for the host for conflicting usage by another host on the network and determining that no conflicting usage of the generated IP address exists.
A program that doesnt perform each of the above steps, or their equivilent, would not infringe this claim, or any claims that depend therefrom, such as the dependent claim you quoted.
Now that bear pretty much zero similarity to IPv6, which is among others: expanding address space over IPv4 while being somewhat backwards compatible for a transition period, improved IP packet modularity for less overhead, new hierarchical infrastructure for improved routing support, built-in IPSec, improved quality-of-service (QoS) support, improved support for ad hoc networking, and improved support for extensibility.
That abstract seems to me that this is... well, something entirely different?
Is it even a protocol?? "A method and computer product for automatically generating an IP network address"... Huh??
Can someone clarify the huge similarities here to me that makes this big news?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
MTA Authorization Records In DNS. It was an IETF working group.
Google for it.
You're doing it wrong.
Wow the just patented the network startup scripts
on unix machines.
Got Code?
but upon glancing over the patent, the abstract completely contradicts the complaints that this patent has received.
It is nothing like IPv6. It sounds like a zero-config DHCP.
The reason girls and Windows users don't understand UNIX is because all the documentation is in Man files.
Al Gore was not in Congress when ARPANET started (1969), nor was he in Congress when the initial contracts to BBN (to create ARPANET) were awarded in 1968. (Nor was he in Congress when the original research funding occured in 1962.) He was not in Congress until 1976. Logically, he took no initiative in creating the Internet because it was already created by the time that he was sworn in, and the term "Internet" (vice ARPANET) was popular by that time. Conclusion: the statement "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet" is false.
"Way to miss the point (hint: humor) and try to drag everyone into a politcal debate on GW bashing."
No, I didn't miss the point. I actually did find it amusing. However, it is a joke based on a falsehood and the joke perpetuates the falsehood.
Falsehoods and Urban Legends spread because individuals don't take the responsibility of double checking information before repeating it. Calling attention to the false premise of your joke is a first step in stopping the propagation of a falsehood. It is a small step, but even the longest journey starts with a single step.
As for GW Bashing, it is relevant because spreading the claim that Al Gore was a serial "exaggerator" was part of the Republican talking points in the 2000 election. The falsehood that Gore had claimed to have "invented" the internet was a popular refrain from Bush supporters. Now it is relevant to point out the immense irony of claiming that in a contest between Bush and Gore, Gore was the liar.
Given revelations about what the Bush administration knew about the claimed purchases of metal tubes and the yellow cake by Iraq, that Bush would seem to be the serial exaggerator, if not outright bald-faced liar.
The problem is that MS is taking a page from rambus. Basically, attend standards groups and then steal ideas and patent them, so that in the future they can sue. Back in 2000, MS had already figured out that they would not be able to maintain their monopoly (even illegally). So now they wish to use the legal system on their side. First thing is to change the system so that it works for them. Easy enough to do. There are plenty of politicians to be bought. Then aquire as many patents as fast as possible. Of which they are doing both.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I think we need a "refreshingly direct" mod option that would +1 truthful flamebait.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
> No, I didn't miss the point. I actually did find it amusing. However, it is a joke based on a falsehood and the joke perpetuates the falsehood
It sounded like he, like most politicians, was trying to take credit for it. We all know the urban legend behind this, but no matter how many times people post the snopes.com entry on it, it doesn't mean that is wasn't a poorly worded phrase and funny to cite.
- sigs are for wimps.
Keep in mind that there has already been shown to be *signficant* revenue in licensing patents - its an awesome business model.
Create the patent (this does involve research and work and inventiveness). Then let other people productise it, take the risk, sell it and pay royalties to you. (Profit!!!)For example:
Thats chickenfeed to what MS has paid out in patent licensing in the last couple of years.My prediction: When the MS bottom line starts drooping, the patent suits will begin.
The patent system needs to be completely overhauled. In fact, for the same reason, it appears the US legal system needs an overhaul as well. To bad it is basically impossible. Here is the problem:
In patent law, all you need is the ability to claim infringement (hell, you can use a completely unrelated patent if you have a weaker opponent). Once you can get your toe in the door with the courts, it becomes about money. The more money you spend on lawyers, the longer the case will drag on and the more it will cost your opponent to defend himself (or in the case of a real patent lawsuit against a rich corporation, the more it will cost your opponent to prove his claim).
Because most individuals and corporations cannot tolerate the massive legal bill of a head-on IP conflict with a rich opponent, in the majority of cases, the weaker opponent must settle. The result? It makes no difference who is right, it only matters who is willing to spend more.
Today, it has become like that in practically every segment of the American legal system. This is nothing more than glorified corruption and all it does is serve to ensure that the wealthiest individuals and corporations are untouchable. To add insult to injury, it ties up our tax funded court system, so we end up partially financing the corrupt activities of the wealthiest individuals and corporations.
I don't know how it would be possible, but something is needed to correct this imbalance. There should be SEVERE damage recovery for defendants that are shown to be innocent to account for their time, money and suffering of being dragged through the courts. There should likewise be SEVERE amplification of damages for corporations and individuals that put up massive, expensive legal defenses and are found guilty. Perhaps there should also be some means of capping expenditures on both parties (e.g. Corporation sues individual - legal expense cap for both parties limited to spending power of individual).
The whole thing sickens me.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
The flaws in the software patent system have spawned a whole new kind of patent
filing; that with which to PROTECT things so that OTHER unscrupulous assholes
don't patent them instead.
Imagine if a fairly original idea was had, but it was SO obviously done. Patent
it. Patent it NOW. Otherwise when someone has the same idea in the same week
and they patent it, they will f**k you in the ass in 9 years when you finally
finish your software.
Case in point;
Apple, IBM and Motorola have patented many algorithms using AltiVec units in order
to protect the vector unit from unscrupulous "inventors". If the vectorisation of
an algorithm is patented by someone else, they may choose to charge extortionate
fees for the licensing, at which point to effectively use a processor you first
have to buy it and then pay some unrelated company a fee. This is obviously
unacceptable.
IBM and Novell have been doing exactly the same for Linux in the past years too.
SGI have patented a few things in OpenGL in order to protect the API.
These uses of software patent law IMPROVE matters, not "kill and inhibit" software
and progress.
Microsoft here have basically repatented their own "AutoNet" idea (the use of a certain range of IP addresses to give to network cards if DHCP isn't there, no
other address protocol can be found, and an ARP check tells it's not already in
use). It's defined in prior-art style in RFC1971 for IPv6 (1995/1996) so the patent isn't "enforcable" per se by any company (Microsoft couldn't hope to use
it to extort money).
This is so obviously a cheap legal protection tactic, which any IP lawyer worth
is salt would suggest to the engineers defining the standard. Patent it now before
some prick does it for us.
Neko
After reading all this it seems that Slashdot and Ziff Davis have been punked by a sleazy group trying to hawk "Linux litigation insurance" by spreading FUD over MS's encroaching patent processes. The actual patent is nothing like IPv6 in the first place.
much as I dislike it, in non-geek circles "internet" is www
worse than that. Among non-geeks internet is that blue "e" icon that launches explorer.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
0. Hear about device ABC being developed by XYZ
1. File Patent on ABC
2. Submit 'Black Box' Prototype with ??? innards
3. Steal details from XYZ
4. Profit!