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?
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!
"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.
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
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.