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..."

Comments

This is different

[Anonymous Coward]

This time they bought the rights to the internet from the creator, Al Gore.

Re:This is different

[Stevyn]

But it's nothing without the key to the lock box that holds the key to the bigger lock box which contains the internet.

Re:This is different

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:This is different

[sh1ftay]

Defence of democrats... check Generic bash of Bush... check taking a joke too seriously... check Score:5, insightful.. check

Re:This is different

[idlake]

Your logic is flawed because you are resolving the reference "the Internet" incorrectly. Gore was referring to the Internet at the time he was making his statement, the commercially successful, widely used one, the one everyone was excited about. And he is correct when he claims that he was an important part in creating that.

Natural languages have unavoidable ambiguities; you should learn to resolve them correctly.

Re:This is different

[mik]

He did certainly popularize the phrase "information superhighway", while pushing a whole lot of tech legislation. And do not make the mistake of equating internet with arpanet - the whole point of "inter" was the merging of many disparate network into a logical whole... Anyway, much as I dislike it, in non-geek circles "internet" is www.

Re:This is different

[vena]

Unfortunately you're taking a narrow and blind line of reasoning here. Gore's statement in the Blitzer interview was directly referring to Gore's 1990 education bill, which had a huge impact on taking the small government project known as ARPANET into the wider scope we call today's Internet. but then I suppose you're a better authority on the subject than Vint Cerf (who backs Gore's claim and is infinitely more important to the creation of the Internet than you or me).

Re:This is different

[HBergeron]

An AC calling Vint Cerf a liar and claiming to know more then him about the creation of the internet.

how slashdot

and

how very sad

Re:This is different

[badmammajamma]

Al Gore understood the significance of the idea and got the Internet (as we know it today) funded. Which, if you know jack shit about anything, is as important as any of the technology involved. Quite simply, it's very possible it would still not exist today if it were not for his efforts to pour money into it.

He didn't create the internet anymore than Tim Berners-Lee did. One cog in the machine. Money is a very important cog.

In any event, Gore has been falsely maligned over this for years and, amazingly, it still continues today. The power of the soundbite.

Re:This is different

[yuri benjamin]

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.

Re:This is different

[AaronGTurner]

There is a significant difference.

The internet was a privatisation of ARPANET. Whilst we can argue about the finer semantics of what Gore said, as a 16 word summary of what he did, it is fairly accurate. Anyone wishing to delve deeper into exactly what he did should easily be able to access the additional information. Not also that he said that he took the initiative, not that he actually created it himself directly.

He was spinning the minor part of writing legislation supporting the Internet

And this is how he took the initiative. The legislation was an important part of ensuring that the internet occured in a timely manner. It would have happened anyway, but it might have taken longer, or might have damaged US economic development if it had meant that the USA was behind the curve on using the technology.

If he had said something wildly inaccurate like "I was responsible for ARPANET funding" or "I wrote the first implementation of TCP/IP" then fair enough, jump all over him.

but fails to remark that it was large compared to any other engineering project ever developed.

In terms of funding I would be surprised if the funding in 1986 was of the level of engineering project like Apollo in real terms.

Re:This is different

[Raunch]

worse than that. Among non-geeks internet is that blue "e" icon that launches explorer.

I was told yesterday (by a woman who was reporting issues on a site that I develop for) that her browser is "Yahoo".

Basing you definitions of things like whtat internet means on non-geek circles is like, well (to bring this whole thing full circle) basing your definition of reality on what GB says.

I can't wait to see...

[hazah]

if one of those succeeds one day. I'm sure that when that day comes, I'll also see the general population running around aimlessly, in all directions, bumping into eachother.

What were they thinking?

[igny]

Is it really possible that such patents may be enforceable?

Re:What were they thinking?

[Sengoku666]

These days it would seem that if you have enough money anything is enforcable.

Re:What were they thinking?

[PHPgawd]

If the patent is based on one or more in-process IETF standards, then the short answer is "no way". There's no way they'd even grant their patents let alone let them enforce them.

Re:What were they thinking?

[Ankh]

When people get involved in developing a spec, and at the same time patent things that are necessary to implement that spec ("essential", as the patent lawyers say), and then submerge, wait until the spec is widely adopted, and then announce their patent, this is sometimes called a submarine patent attack.

It's partly to prevent these that we (W3C) have our patent policy, which requires all participants to sign an agreement saying (more or less) they agree to let people implement the spec without paying royalties, even if they own patents that would otherwise apply.

It's all a big mess -- and patents also don't fit well with the GPL, of course, and neither does our patent policy, although FSF participated and we did the best we could: the problem is that you might want to take, say, an HTTP server, and re-use the network code for some other server. But if someone has a patent on servers, to which they have granted royalty free use for HTTP only, you may now have to pay them a royalty for the code.

Patents are intended to encourage innovation by ensuring inventors get royalties. Unfortunately the current system seems to have some disadvantages.

Note: I have no idea whether the slashdot story is correct in this instance about this patent, nor, if the patent is essential to implementing IPv6, whether Microsoft plans to enforce royalties or forbid implementations.

Liam

Re:What were they thinking?

[Ohreally_factor]

They were granted the patent, but it won't be enforceable because microsoft didn't disclose the prior art. What is particularly embarrassing and points to the fraudulence of MS is that the people who's names where on the patent were also on the IPv6 committee.

There should be a very stiff penalty for knowingly filing a fraudulent patent application. Both monetary, and being prohibited from filing for any other patents for a period of time sounds about right.

Re:What were they thinking?

[inode_buddha]

" Is it really possible that such patents may be enforceable?

Yes. The key is to understand that in the US, patents issued are assumed to be valid until they are overturned -- which costs a *lot*.

Re:What were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. We are starting the age of Corporate Law. You will now have three types of offenses. Criminal, Civil, and unofficial Corporate (being a subset of Civil but controlled by money).

To be found guilty of a Corporate Offense, you only need to have too little money to defend yourself against a corporation than has alot of money. The actual offense is irrelevant. The punishment is relative to the pre-determined settlement contract with the corporation or the civil law of choice.

Don't believe in Corporate Offenses? How do you justify some of the actions of the RIAA, MPAA, and SCO? Some are valid, some are made up. Some people settle when they are innocent because it is cheaper than the legal fees required to defend yourself. Others fight, win, and still lose money. To be guilty of a Corporate Offense does not require a judge. It requires only getting the attention of a corporation's legal department.

Re:What were they thinking?

[Ankh]

Why not have your patent policy say that if you want to be part of the standard, you donate your patent to the public domain
The patent policy is only effective if the major patent holders in any given area participate in the development of the specification. So the patent policy is a compromise, a sort of uneasy truce, so that we can try to keep the Web free. If we ask too much of patent holders, they simply walk away. We lost some even with the policy we have.

It's not like there aren't a large number of strong computer scientists that couldn't create other viable protocols.
Success of a specification isn't just about elegance of design. If it was, I don't know that SGML, HTML and XML would have got very far. It's about widespread adoption. For that to happen, you have to have buy-in of the major players. Otherwise they go off and do something on their own and impose it on people, which they vastly prefer doing.

So you end up putting in features to support legacy systems (pretty much everyone does this -- remember GECOS constants in C?) and you end up trying hard to get the big players involved.

IBM makes over $4bn, as I recall, from licensing patents to other firms. It's hard to persuade them to give patents away. They're the largest in our business, but most other big organizations have large patent portfolios. They use them to fend off attacks: Oh, you want to charge us a royalty on our Gizmo because it uses X? Well, your gizmo uses Y, Z, W and P, and those are just as expensive!

The people bickering are lawyers with (generally) no interest in or knowledge of the technical details, so arguments go beyond technical details. The argument taht they get early experience is a good one, and it's a lot of why some of our (W3C) Working Groups have to be member-confidential: because some significant players wouldn't participate otherwise.

It'd be great to live in a world where everyone was honest and trustworthy and friendly and didn't wear shoes, but, unfortunately, we don't live in such a world. We can (and do) try to change the world,but until it changes, or while it changes, we also have to live with it as it is today.

That's a bit of a general answer, but I hope it makes things clearer!

Liam

Re:What were they thinking?

[Anonymous Coward]

When people get involved in developing a spec...this is sometimes called a submarine patent attack.

I'm literally sick from this one. I was at the IPv6 summit in 1998 and 1999. I talked with Microsoft's people, who were apologetic for having such poor implimentation in their IP stack for IPv6. They explained that while Microsoft Research folks were believers in IPv6, Microsoft proper didn't think it had many merits and refused to back it. Their stack crashed repeatedly (while Linux, Cisco and BSD folks had no problems playing well on the IPv6 network operational at the summits).

And now these followers are taking credit for the work of countless great people? Pretending to have actually invented it all? WTF???

I'm going to rip out Microsoft servers at work and treat them for what they are: intellectual property parasites. Nothing but thieves. I've laughed at the "worlds best marketers of mediocre software" jokes, but now it's personal. Those jokers admitted they were behind in 98-99. At Telluride in 99, they were embarrassed at how far behind Microsoft was in the protocol.

If you work for Microsoft, pay attention! Your company increasingly comes acrossed as nothing but a poseur in the technology community. Many of us have put up with MCSE pretenders. But now it's personal. Hang your head low, Microsoft grunt. Your credentials are a black mark in these circles.

Re:What were they thinking?

[bleckywelcky]

Anyone think this sounds familiar to the whole Rambus deal? Where Rambus was trying to push RDRAM to be the next standard ... while secretly patenting it behind everyone's backs. I knew an engineer/manager who worked for Rambus during that period. Once he figured out what was going on and that upper management wouldn't change their minds about being dicks, he quit.

Re:What were they thinking?

[Citizen of Earth]

Unfortunately the current system seems to have some disadvantages.

You'd better pray that nobody has a patent on understatements!

Re:What were they thinking?

[Savage650]

They are not patenting TCP/IP v4 or 6 they are simply patenting there process of self assigned IP addresses in a network with no IP addressing server (such as a DHCP server)

Bzzt! Self-assigned addresses is one of the major advantages of IPV6.

• computer generates a (random) link-local adress
• asks the local net "is this number taken?"
• if someone answers ("yes, that's mine"): retry from start
• link-local address is assigned

• computer asks the local net "any gateways out there?"
• all gateways (a.k.a. routers) respond, including their "global address prefix"
• computer combines his local adress with each of these prefixes to get all the the "global adresses" he will be reachable under

IPv6 has been drafted that way to overcome the hassle of network setup (not to mention the risk of misconfigurations when fiddling with address, netmask, broacast, DHCP, NAT, ...

With IPv6, attaching your box to the network will be as easy as "plug in the network cable".

For M$FT to try to (submarine-)patent this functionality is unethical even by todays standards.

Re:What were they thinking?

[dossen]

On ethernet it gets even better, since RFC 2464 (page 3) defines a way to derive a globally unique interface identifier from the MAC adress. The great thing about Ipv6, implicit in your post, is that multiple adresses on the same interface and in the same network works a lot better than with IPv4. That combined with the larger adressspace allows much more flexibility to put organisational and geographical structures into the routing topology (I seem to recall that the suggested prefix size for organisations/customers of ISPs is /48, leaving 16 bits of prefix to be used internally by that "user").

Re:What were they thinking?

[FireFury03]

Those jokers admitted they were behind in 98-99

They're still behind now - none of the standard windows services support v6 yet and there appears to be no way (under XPSP2) of manually configuring the IP address.

Compared to my Linux boxes, which have all but a few stubborn services running on IPv6. (I currently have to use v4 for Asterisk, Portmap and CUPS... which is stunningly bad given that CUPS is a new system but doesn't do IPv6 at all.)

Rambus did it first!

[Anonymous Coward]

They tried to steal DRAM, I guess Microsoft figured that it was worth a try for the Internet.

Slashdot and US Patent Office?

[XeroPurpose]

You see... the US Patent Office is alot like the Slashdot editors... more often than not, they get duped...

Re:Slashdot and US Patent Office?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just ask Jack S. Kilby, who filed the first patent for the integrated circuit, but Robert Noyce was granted the patent, despite the fact that he filed his patent way later than Jack. Jack got his recognition later on, but it just shows how things can turn out at the patent office.

Should we patent the transistor!?

[0xdeaddead]

While there is still time! PNP & NPN!!!!

All your IP Belong...

[monopole]

...to us

Re:All your IP Belong...

[ender-iii]

I want to be able to mod things "Funny... Last year"

Re : Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again

[Frankie70]

Can a topic title be modded as Troll?

umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 software,

[peculiarmethod]

12. A computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions for performing the steps recited in claim 1.

if I read this correctly, and I doubt I do (I hope I don't), they are trying to secure even CDs, floppies, usb cards.. anything that contains code that allows the negotiation of an ip address for the network running the IPv6 'like' protocol. whaaaa??!

There needs to be a penalty...

[Max Threshold]

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?

Re:There needs to be a penalty...

[bani]

prison terms sounds better.

Re:There needs to be a penalty...

[rokzy]

RTFA - they allegedly withheld prior art documents.

(yes not "proof" but as close as you can get without some kind of official investigation. after all, I can't proove to you right now that the Earth goes round the Sun but you know if you look you'll find it.)

Re:There needs to be a penalty...

[tialaramex]

This is a patent on link-local address autoconfiguration for IPv4 (not as the article misleadingly says IPv6). Many Linux, Mac OS and Windows machines use this feature, but none of them need it to use the IPv4 or IPv6 Internet, in fact it's a fallback for when Internet service is not available.

Microsoft told the IETF back in August 2000 that they had patented this and offered RAND + Royalty Free terms to anyone willing to reciprocate.

http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-499.txt

Software patents are an abomination, but this just seems to be a case of mis-reporting.

Re:There needs to be a penalty...

[Timothy Brownawell]

prison terms sounds better

Prison is way overused. Whatever happened to "have the punishment fit the crime"?

Tim

Screw you guys, we're going home.

[rokzy]

Let's all make our own internet and not invite Microsoft. It'll be great. With hookers. And gambling.

In fact... screw the gambling.

Re:Screw you guys, we're going home.

[EverDense]

Let's all make our own internet and not invite Microsoft. It'll be great. With hookers. And gambling.

In fact... screw the gambling.

Okay, sounds good, you screw "the gambling".
That'll leave more hookers for me.

This is a patent on software

[Michael Hunt]

Based upon my cursory reading of the patent, it appears to be just the sort of thing that the EU keeps throwing out, again and again.

Admittedly in WIPO countries (since the patent is registered in the .us and .us patent law allows these kinds of shenanigans) royalties may have to be paid, but the EU parliament's reasonably clear stance on such things should go a long way towards making sure that this patent is a dead duck in a lot of the civilised world.

Regardless, this sort of patent tomfoolery should be illegal. WIPO should (although this will never happen) declare a patent unenforcable under the terms of the Berne Convention should said patent have been undisclosed during a supposedly 'open' working group.

Not that this sort of behavior is exactly unexpected from MS. It's what killed MARID.

Re:This is a patent on software

[Michael Hunt]

MTA Authorization Records In DNS. It was an IETF working group.

Google for it.

Re:This is a patent on software

[Macadamizer]

Just ot be nit-picky, "Berne" covers copyrights, notpatents. There have been a number of rounds of "harmonization" of patent laws, the Uruguay rounds under GATT, TRIPs, etc., but Berne isn't one of them.

No diasagreements, just thought I would correct that one point.

Re:Given that ActiveDirectory uses DNS...

[XeroPurpose]

They have. Didn't you read the EULA that came with the Internet?

Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC

[Nova Express]

I would like to say that this has no chance of suceeding, but unfotunately there's already one example of a company (Rambus) having their people attending a standards committee (JEDEC) in public while working to patent the same technologies in private. And they almost got away with it.

Re:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC

[Michael Hunt]

A much closer precedent for this sort of tomfoolery was the IETF's MARID working group.

For those of you who don't remember, Microsoft allied themselves (and their Sender ID standard) with Meng Weng Wong/PoBox's SPF standard, to create a supposed uber-standard known as 'Caller ID' (SPF v2). Later on, it came to light that MS owned key patents on many of the methodologies which SPF2 and Sender ID used, and their patent license was abhorrent to many of the working group's participants. The IETF then disbanded the working group.

I'm working from memory, so I don't have much in the way of sources, but googling for "Microsoft MARID" should turn over a few stones.

Re:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC

[rudy_wayne]

What do you mean Rambus *ALMOST* got away with it?

Here's a news story from 2 days ago:
"Chipmaker Infineon Technologies and memory chip designer Rambus have reached a settlement in their closely watched patent infringement case.

Under the two-year agreement, announced Monday, Infineon will pay Rambus nearly $47 million for a global license to all existing and future Rambus patents and patent applications for use in Infineon products."

Re:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC

[Macadamizer]

But part of the reason for the agreement is because each side is likely spending $1 million + per month on legal fees -- sometimes its better just to cut and run. Especially in litigation, where even if you spend the money on the lawyers, you still may lose anyway. At some point you just make a business decision.

This was a nasty case anyway -- just a couple of weeks ago a judge smacked down Rambus for spoliation of evidence (read: destroying documents), and before that, Infineon got into all sorts of trouble for the same types of shenanigans...

Re:Unfortunate Precedent: Rambus & JEDEC

[Antique Geekmeister]

Their later standard is still patent encumbered. They're also now claiming all the SPF users as SenderID users, which is blatantly false. Looking at the SPF archives, it's fun to watch Meng try and make Microsoft sound like they were ever reasonable. It's like a battered child, making excuses for their molesting parent and pretend that the violations were their own fault while their friends, teachers, and social workers say "report them and get out of that house!"

Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again

[John Seminal]

This is why some things should remain in the public domain. It is like Joe's Brick and Morter company trying to patent roads, what MS is doing.

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.

Re:Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Again

[zotz]

"I bet if government ran the phone companies and telecom, we could get service for pennies on the dollar."

Don't be naive. You would lose your bet. In my country (The Bahamas) the government owns and runs the telco, electric, water & sewerage, airline, tv station, and radio stations. All monopolies for most of my life. Things are easing up a bit lately.

I hear figures that more than 20% of the workforce in the country is government employed. This has large economic effects sure, but also large political effects for a democracy.

Until the last year, the telco rate for a long distance call to Miami (roughly 185 miles from where I live) was 99 cents a minute. The electricity is constantly going out. In the summer, they load shed so you can expect a several hour plus outage on a regular basis. It is illegal (as far as I know) to go off grid and generate your own power if the power company can supply you (however poorly.)

If you have better that this, you don't want what we have.

Don't get me wrong, life is good here anyway. It is just sad that it could easily be so much better.

What I think you should want for a start is for your government to ensure no monopoly or cartel type foolishness. Then to properly oversee any markets where they are not fully free. (This probably covers more markets than most of us realise or think.) As to whether this proper oversite is possible, who knows. Anyone have and actual current or past examples?

all the best,

drew

http://www.archive.org/audio/audio-details-db.php? collection=opensource_audio&collectionid=JohnConst antakisdrewRobertsRainwaterBlues

In the old days, Corporations were disbanded

[WillAffleckUW]

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.

Hey, give them credit.

[Stick_Fig]

They're mad hax0rz of the patent office.

And the award goes to...

[mas5353]

The award for creating a sentence with the most obsessive use of IP goes to: M$! ...for an entry in their insidious attempt at trying to patent the internet. As quoted: "assigning an IP address from the IP address server to the host when an IP address server is available over the IP network; and immediately discontinuing use of the generated IP address when an assigned IP address is received from an IP address server available over the network." Oh man... I hope that this isn't copyrighted because I could get sued!

Re:umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 softwar

[kansas1051]

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.

Re:We win

[John Seminal]

Dude, that is all large gluttonous corporations. Their leaders suffer from avarice. The problem is, at some point, it is no longer about a company providing people with a service, it is about one man, or a small group, that gets very greedy. It is what happened to Enron, Arthur Anderson Consulting, World Com, and what is happening in boardrooms all across the USA. It is where competition stops producing new products, or lowering price, but where corporations get so big they use every resource they have to kill the competition.

BTW, didn't the courts order MS to be broken into 2 divisions, the OS division and the applications division? I thought that was going to be the solution.

Heh

[daveschroeder]

This time they bought the rights to the internet from the creator, Al Gore.

And that would especially funny, considering Al Gore now sits on Apple's Board of Directors.

Can't see why it's similar to IPv6?

[Jugalator]

The patent abstract:

A method and computer product for automatically generating an IP network address that facilitates simplified network connection and administration for small-scale IP networks without IP address servers, such as those found in a small business or home network environment. First, a proposed IP address is generated by selecting a network identifying portion (sometimes known as an IP network prefix) while deterministically generating the host identifying portion based on information available to the IP host. For example, the IEEE 802 Ethernet address found in the network interface card may be used with a deterministic hashing function to generate the host identifying portion of the IP address. Next, the generated IP address is tested on the network to assure that no existing IP host is using that particular IP address. If the generated IP address already exists, then a new IP address is generated, otherwise, the IP host will use the generated IP address to communicate over the network. While using the generated IP address, if an IP address server subsequently becomes available, the host will conform to IP address server protocols for receiving an assigned IP address and gradually cease using the automatically generated IP address.

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?

Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6?

[Michael Hunt]

Nope. Read the IPv6 specs.

IPv6 has an autoconfiguration mechanism whereby an IPv6 autoconfiguration server will spit out a 64-bit prefix (all local networks are /64s in IPv6), and a host will create an EUI-64 address to postpend to it, as a deterministic function of the interface's layer 2 address.

I'd find the RFC but i'm too lazy. Search for 'IPv6 autoconfiguration' on rfc-editor.org or google.

Have a nice day.

Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6?

[Sampizcat]

Based on ONLY reading the abstract in the post above, I'd have to say: this actually sounds like a good idea.

From my understanding, it appears to be DHCP (as someone mentioned earlier), but without the DHCP server. In essence, it sounds like the perfect thing for mom & pop at home who don't know how to give their computer an "IP Address" (what the heck's that?). Instead, just have the computer assign one itself (you'll notice they mention this is for small networks only, they even specify that it would be useful for "home network environment").

What can I say (never thought I'd say this) - but nice idea Microsoft.

Cheers all,
Sampizcat

PS. I run Linux at home, worked as a sys-admin for Unix and prefer *Nix over Windows any day. However, a good idea is still a good idea, no matter who it comes from.

Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6?

[parnold]

IPv6 has stateless autoconfiguration, where machines are automaticlly given ip addresses. The first 64bit s of the address is the network prefix and the second 64 bits is a padded form of the 48 bit MAC address.

This is the similarity to IPv6, although i don't think that this patent stateless autoconfiguration to be a problem, although courts oftern seem to missunderstand computer patent claims.

Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that this is what they are patenting
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/randz/protocol/apipa.asp

The relevant RFC for IPv6 autoconfig is
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipv 6-rfc2462bis-07.txt

The patent's argument claims to avoid prior art using the following statement:

The present invention overcomes the limitations in the prior art by ascertaining the absence of a network IP address server, such as a DHCP server, automatically generating an IP address, testing the IP address to determine uniqueness, and periodically determining if an IP address server subsequently becomes available on the IP network. In this embodiment, the invention may be used in a network that has or does not have an IP address server. Furthermore, it will give priority to the IP address server whenever present so that the generated IP address is only used when necessary.

Re:Can't see why it's similar to IPv6?

[Sampizcat]

I had a quick squiz through RFC1883 (http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1883.txt?number=1883) "Internet Protocol, Version 6 (IPv6) Specification" and all it appears to mention on the subject is:

"IPv6 increases the IP address size from 32 bits to 128 bits, to support more levels of addressing hierarchy, a much greater number of addressable nodes, and simpler auto-configuration of addresses."

Going into more detail and reading RFC1971 (http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc1971.txt?number=1971) " IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration" gives you the nuts and bolts of how it actually happens. Abstract says:

"This document specifies the steps a host takes in deciding how to autoconfigure its interfaces in IP version 6. The autoconfiguration process includes creating a link-local address and verifying its uniqueness on a link, determining what information should be autoconfigured (addresses, other information, or both), and in the case of addresses, whether they should be obtained through the stateless mechanism, the stateful mechanism, or both. This document defines the process for generating a link-local address, the process for generating site-local and global addresses via stateless address autoconfiguration, and the Duplicate Address Detection procedure. The details of autoconfiguration using the stateful protocol are specified elsewhere."

Two key points here: 1) Stateful autoconfiguration and 2) Stateless autoconfiguration.

1) Stateful autoconfiguration: Is where it uses a server. Ignore.

2) Stateless autoconfiguration: Does NOT require a server, but requires a router if you want more than just a link-local address. From the RFC:

" IPv6 defines both a stateful and stateless address autoconfiguration mechanism. Stateless autoconfiguration requires no manual configuration of hosts, minimal (if any) configuration of routers, and no additional servers. The stateless mechanism allows a host to generate its own addresses using a combination of locally available information and information advertised by routers. Routers advertise prefixes that identify the subnet(s) associated with a link, while hosts generate an "interface token" that uniquely identifies an interface on a subnet. An address is formed by combining the two. In the absence of routers, a host can only generate link-local addresses. However, link-local addresses are sufficient for allowing communication among nodes attached to the same link."

For the record, "link local addresses" are defined as:

"an address having link-only scope that can be used to reach neighboring nodes attached to the same link. All interfaces have a link-local unicast address."

So, essentially, it looks like MS is getting VERY close to what this RFC states, although they seem to be allowing more than just a link-local address without needing a router.

Cheers,
Sampizcat

For the lazy: patent text

[Frodo Crockett]

Inventors: Ford; Peter S. (Carnation, WA);Bahl; Pradeep (Redmond, WA);Khaki; Jawad Mohamed J. (Redmond, WA);Burns; Greg (Carnation, WA);Beeson; Frank J. (Seattle, WA)

Abstract: A method and computer product for automatically generating an IP network address that facilitates simplified network connection and administration for small-scale IP networks without IP address servers, such as those found in a small business or home network environment. First, a proposed IP address is generated by selecting a network identifying portion (sometimes known as an IP network prefix) while deterministically generating the host identifying portion based on information available to the IP host. For example, the IEEE 802 Ethernet address found in the network interface card may be used with a deterministic hashing function to generate the host identifying portion of the IP address. Next, the generated IP address is tested on the network to assure that no existing IP host is using that particular IP address. If the generated IP address already exists, then a new IP address is generated, otherwise, the IP host will use the generated IP address to communicate over the network. While using the generated IP address, if an IP address server subsequently becomes available, the host will conform to IP address server protocols for receiving an assigned IP address and gradually cease using the automatically generated IP address.

Assignee: Microsoft Corporation (Redmond, WA)
Application Number: 57135
Filing Date: April 8, 1998
Publication Date: August 8, 2000

Claims:

What is claimed and desired to be secured by United States Letters Patent is:

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.

2. A method as recited in claim 1, wherein the network identifying portion of the generated IP address is chosen to be 10.

3. A method as recited in claim 1, further comprising the steps of: determining that an IP address server is not present prior to selecting the network identifying portion of the IP address; and ascertaining if an IP address server later becomes present over the network.

4. A method as recited in claim 3, further comprising the steps of: assigning an IP address from the IP address server to the host when an IP address server is available over the IP network; and immediately discontinuing use of the generated IP address when an assigned IP address is received from an IP address server available over the network.

5. A method as recited in claim 3, further comprising the steps of: assigning an address from the IP address server to the host when an IP address server is available over the network; and gradually discontinuing use of the generated IP address when an assigned IP address is received from an IP address server available over the network.

6. A method as recited in claim 3, further comprising the step of assigning an IP address from the IP address server to the host

Sounds like automatic static addressing

[codepunk]

Wow the just patented the network startup scripts
on unix machines.

Missed the boat

[pavera]

Ok, the article, the pubpat guy, the slashdot editors, everyone's missed the boat on this one.

While this patent is not quite brilliant, it's not ipv6, this is a patent on the "automatic addressing" function in windows ME, 2k, xp, etc, where if your network card has link, but can't find a dhcp server the system auto-assigns an address from like a 169 or something subnet that MS owns.

This patent has absolutely nothing to do with ipv6 further, I believe MS was the first to do anything like this, even now they are (unless maybe apple does it now too... but I don't think they do either). Anyway I've never seen the feature actually be useful, mostly it is an annoyance, but it's not ipv6

Re:Missed the boat

[Shamashmuddamiq]

I think this is what you're referring to:

auto-ip

Automatically assign an address on the 169.254.0.0/16 network if no DHCP server is found. Continue making DHCP requests every 2-4 minutes until DHCP server does respond...

Re:Missed the boat

[MacDork]

Apple stole it then

No actually, I believe part of the 1997 settlement between Apple and Microsoft included cross licensing of patents. I think the deal expired after 5 years though, so I would imagine they've licensed it, as they did one-click shopping.

am I missing something?

[spir0]

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.

Re:umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 softwar

[Anonymous Coward]

You are reading this line incorrectly. It is not a claim for any sort of computing device. It is merely one of several (at least 12) points about their invention. These dozen clauses are ANDed, not ORed.

Back in the day, patents were not allowed on any sort of software at all. So, the convention arose of describing the entire process of the invention, including its realization on a general purpose computer running some software. Without this description of a concrete implementation, the patent application would get rejected. This text is essentially boilerplate for inventions that happen to be implemented with a general-purpose machine and some peripherals rather than a dedicated single-purpose machine with a hardwired "program".

Software Patents Would Not Be So Bad

[MCTFB]

If not for the fact that they lasted so long. Hey, if Microsoft did not patent the internet, then some other company which exists solely for the purpose of extorting money out of other companies with patent lawsuit threats would have done it.

I myself have been personally involved in the patent process for reasons I can't mention here, but I have learned through it all that more times than not companies such as Microsoft file or acquire patents for defensive reasons much more often than for the purposes of bullying the small guy with threats of litigation.

I mean, what if Microsoft or Amazon.com didn't file some of these ridiculous patents and somebody else did, then sued Microsoft or Amazon.com or [INSERT GIANT MULTINATIONAL SOFTWARE COMPANY HERE], and this company was able to extort millions, perhaps billions of dollars from these big companies by abusing the patent system. I mean, if you are a patent-squatter what is the point of wasting your time suing a small fry when you can go for the Big Kahuna.

But the worst thing about all of this is that unless you defend your patent in court, you lose it. So, whether Microsoft or Amazon.com wants to defend their patents or not against a company which may have technology that is related to their patent, they are forced to sue those companies anyways.

In addition to health care costs for businesses, high corporate taxes, weak anti-trust laws as well as poor enforcement of them, I would say our ass-backwards patent system is one of the major poisons of starting a technology business in the United States these days.

I am no fan of oursourcing myself, but as a business owner of a software company myself, you sometimes have to ask yourself how the hell are you supposed to compete in the world marketplace when the laws and regulations in your own country AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THOSE LAWS AND REGULATIONS is rigged entirely in favor of multinational corporations which really don't even have any national loyalty to any particular nation, yet due to the weakness of democratic republics around the world where votes can easily be bought and sold, small business owners in the technology industry either have to play by the rigged rules of the big companies or not play at all.

Technology patents may seem like a huge problem when it comes to stifling innovation in the United States and around the world, but unfortunately they are just a small problem in a giant sea of problems that exist due to well-intentioned ideas such as patents being corrupted by giant amoral companies and the soulless people who run them.

I patent...

[the eric conspiracy]

misreading an article about patents, and then submitting the erroneous conclusions to Slashdot who will then exercise their editorial bias against patents and post it as news.

Which TLD are you from?

[Cap'n Steve]

"(since the patent is registered in the .us and .us patent law allows these kinds of shenanigans)"

You just referred to an entire country by its domain. Wow, just wow.

I'd like a vacation in England, but I can't seem to find the .uk anymore. Is .co a British state or what?

Humor based on a falsehood

[VidEdit]

"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.

Re:Humor based on a falsehood

[CptNerd]

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.

You mean a priest, a rabbi and a horse didn't walk into a bar one day?

Re:Humor based on a falsehood

[DavidTC]

I'm glad I'm not the only person who remember him going on and on and on and on about the damn 'information superhighway'. (At the same time Hillary was babbling about 'health care reform'.)

When I first heard people claiming he'd said to have invented it, I was thinking 'I don't know if he did that, but he sure wouldn't shut up about it before we had one.'.

I swear, this country has the attention span of a gnat sometimes.

Hey, remember when Gore had plans to send movies and TV shows on demand into people's homes using the information superhighway, and everyone who knew anything about computers thought he was crazy? Now, of course, the MPAA would come down on him so hard...

BTW, we're almost one month short of the 10 year anniversary of the private internet. April 30, 1995, NFSNet was sold and the government no longer owned the net.

Re:umm.. they're trying to secure all IPv6 softwar

[Macadamizer]

Back in the day, patents were not allowed on any sort of software at all. So, the convention arose of describing the entire process of the invention, including its realization on a general purpose computer running some software. Without this description of a concrete implementation, the patent application would get rejected. This text is essentially boilerplate for inventions that happen to be implemented with a general-purpose machine and some peripherals rather than a dedicated single-purpose machine with a hardwired "program".

Exactly -- this is called a "Beauregard claim," from the case in re Beauregard where someone first tried to patent software using claim language of this type.

Nowadays, since we can directly patent software via business method patents, this claim language is somewhat superfluous, but a lot of patents still use it -- who knows, if they ever overturn State Street, maybe this claim language will save some patents...

has done neither, yet.

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:has done neither, yet.

[TheRaven64]

In the UK, and (I believe) the EU, filing a patent must be the first disclosure of anything that is patented*. You can not submit something to a standards body, for example, and then later try to patent it. In fact, you can not tell anyone without an NDA if you expect to patent it later. The US system, on the other hand, allows you to file a patent some time after disclosure - an approach which is wide open to potential abuse.

* Note that reciprocal treaties with the US provide a loophole for this.

Give microsoft credit for some ingenious activity

[spagetti_code]

1. Sit in on many of the standards committees.
2. As the committee begins to discuss ideas, patent them behind the scenes
3. Dont implement standards properly (IE, Office, TransactSQL...), but do implement own proprietary protocols/specs/language correctly.
4. Scare people away from standards using patents
5. Profit!

I mean - these MS guys sat on the standards committee knowing that they had already attempted to patent what the standards committee was discussing. I bet they didn't disclose that to the committee! Dishonest - but brilliant.

Even for Microsoft, this one reeks.

Having said that, you can understand why Microsoft are claiming patent territory - they have been smacked around pretty badly by software patents in the past. I wonder how many other gems are out there waiting to be discovered in amongst the 3000 or so patent apps per year MS puts forward.

Re:Re : Microsoft Tries to Patent the Internet Aga

[pohl]

I think we need a "refreshingly direct" mod option that would +1 truthful flamebait.

Chill out

[Augusto]

> 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.

Re:Chill out

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounded like he, like most politicians, was trying to take credit for it.

Maybe so, but it was well-deserved credit. Even Vint Cerf, widely considered one of the Internet's main creators (if not its "father") said so:

http://www.politechbot.com/p-01394.html/

That's cool

[Starji]

by the time IPv6 becomes used widespread the patent will have expired.

Re:Give microsoft credit for some ingenious activi

[spagetti_code]

Further to this...

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:

Collecting the patent royalties could add millions to IBM's net profits. In 1995--the last year IBM released figures--the company took in $650 million from royalties on all patents, software and hardware alike. Insiders say that senior managers believe IBM could collect $1 billion a year from its patents

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.

After I take over the world [somehow]

[Random832]

step 1: write lame slashdot comments about how the world should be run
step 2: ...
step 3: as listed below:
Software patents will only last eighteen months.
Only novel ideas will be patentable. Pointer comparison IsNot novel.
Any attempt to claim something that was being done before the patent was made public is patent infringement, will automatically invalidate the entire patent in question.
Any attempt to popularize a patent without disclosing the fact that it is patented, with the intention of collecting royalties later, will also result in automatic revocation.

Enforcibility is not relevant

[Corpus_Callosum]

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.

Why do you always assume "kill and inhibit"?

[NekoXP]

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

Re:Why do you always assume "kill and inhibit"?

[Macadamizer]

Alternately, is there a way for the inventor to decare a patent "in the public domain" much as an artist can with copyright?

35 U.S.C. 253 Disclaimer.

Whenever, without any deceptive intention, a claim of a patent is invalid the remaining claims shall not thereby be rendered invalid. A patentee, whether of the whole or any sectional interest therein, may, on payment of the fee required by law, make disclaimer of any complete claim, stating therein the extent of his interest in such patent. Such disclaimer shall be in writing and recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office, and it shall thereafter be considered as part of the original patent to the extent of the interest possessed by the disclaimant and by those claiming under him.

In like manner any patentee or applicant may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted or to be granted.

Re:What next?

[Cheapy]

No, for some geeks there is no chance of being screwed.

On the other hand if you meant assimilated...

Re: Can a topic title be modded as Troll?

[weighn]

my thoughts exactly.
A story I'd like to see:
Slashdot posts non-sensationalist, accurate headline relating to Microsoft story

Interesting link

[ChatHuant]

After reading TFA I read the actual patent (well, what I could get from the legalese). And, from my (admittedly limited) understanding of IPv6, I couldn't see the issue. So I went to check the fine links in the FA.

Surprise, the name of the guy that came up with the original complaint sounded familiar.

So I did a Google on it, and found the article I remembered (he's mentioned somewhere close to the end).

Looks to me like a lot of FUD.

Slashdot has been punked

[humankind]

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.

Re:Slashdot has been punked

[angio]

Not really. See claim 1 of the patent:

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.

And compare it to RFC1971 and RFC2462, where they define the creation and testing of link-local addresses. The patent seems to cover things outside the scope of IPv6 autoconfiguration, and IPv6 autoconfiguration goes beyond the patent to specify how to do router-based autoconfiguration, but there is a distinct area of overlap at claim 1.

Hey, look at the bright side...

[Spy der Mann]

Someday, Microsoft will own the IETF, Internet Society and W3C. We'll be screwed.

If that happens, Internet Explorer will be 100% standards compliant! :D

Re:Except he didn't

[DavidTC]

Um, all those have been rebutted quite a while ago.

Love Canal quote, when Gore was trying to inspire some kids:
A girl wrote [Gore] that her father and grandfather suffered mysterious ailments she blamed on well water that "tasted funny."

"I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. I looked around the country for other places like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal. Had the first hearing on that issue," Mr. Gore said. "That was the one that started it all...We made a huge difference and it was all because one high school student got involved."

He never said he discovered anything was wrong there. He said he looked for places where something was wrong, and investigated it. Um, duh. That's part of what the government does.

He was just making the point that he started a series of congressional investigations because of a single young girl, not that he was Captain Planet and can detect pollution from hundreds of miles away. Because he was talking to a bunch of kids, trying to get them politically active. Some people would have told a lie there, or a story like the boy who stuck his finger in a dike, and no one would have thought the worse of them for that. He related an actual story of a teenager who, in essense, caused the creation of Superfund.

As for Love story:
Gore, indeed, along with his roommate Tommy Lee Jones (I've always rather expected someone to call him on that 'lie' also.), were the basis of the male characters in a Love Story. Tipper was not the basis for anyone, but Gore had read a newspaper article which had misstated the author as saying she was. This article actually exists, and it does indeed say that. (Actually, technically, he said that he'd read a newspaper article that said such, so nothing he'd said was even false.)

So the Love Story thing was mostly true, and partially repeating something he'd read in a newspaper that was false.

And can I point out that both those comments were not made to the public? Love Canal was to inspire a bunch of kids, kid who couldn't even vote. Love Story was when he swapping stories with reporters on Air Force one, and he spent like ten seconds on it. I think that shows how much 'falsehoods' had to be searched for. (I'm amazed you didn't bring up the union song joke, too.)

The internet thing, however, was made to the public, and has already been covered here.

not so much IPv6 as IPv4 link-local addressing

[keithmoore]

Reading the patent claims this doesn't look so much like IPv6 (and certainly not a fundemental part of IPv6 - it resembles IPv6 stateless address autoconfiguration, but only vaguely). What it looks like is IPv4 linklocal addressing, which has shipped in both MacOS and Windows for several years, and is a draft that is either just about to be approved or has already been approved as a standard. See draft-ietf-zeroconf-ipv4-linklocal-17.txt The really unfortunate thing is that linklocal addresses are quite useful on isolated networks, but are really harmful to applications unless they're turned off when a computer has a "real" address assigned by manual configuration or DHCP. And from a quick reading the patent would appear to apply to any implementation that turns off linklocal addresses under such conditions.

followup: licensing terms

[keithmoore]

It took awhile to find it, but this turned up under IETF's IPR disclosures page: http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/MICROSOFT-499.txt

So...

[LittleBigLui]

IPv4 is outdated.

IPv6 is 0wnz0r3d.

Good thing we have IPv5 to switch to.

Prior art for v6

[mikeborella]

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1971.html

The claims may be more valid for IPv4 autoconfiguration where the host chooses one an address range in the 169.254/16 range.

The prior art for v6 is very strong and obviously pre-dates this application.