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..."
This time they bought the rights to the internet from the creator, Al Gore.
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.
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
You see... the US Patent Office is alot like the Slashdot editors... more often than not, they get duped...
While there is still time! PNP & NPN!!!!
...to us
Can a topic title be modded as Troll?
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??!
** "It's not my job to stand between the people talking to me, and the ones listening to me." -- Pego the Jerk
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?
Let's all make our own internet and not invite Microsoft. It'll be great. With hookers. And gambling.
In fact... screw the gambling.
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.
.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.
Admittedly in WIPO countries (since the patent is registered in the
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.
You're doing it wrong.
They have. Didn't you read the EULA that came with the Internet?
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
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!
How long must we be a victim of fate and circumstance?
As long as it takes to change our minds.
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.
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.
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!
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
"The newly born animals are then whisked off for a quick run through a giant baking oven." --heard on Food Network
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
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.
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".
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.
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.
"(since the patent is registered in the .us and .us patent law allows these kinds of shenanigans)"
.uk anymore. Is .co a British state or what?
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
"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.
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...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
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.
by the time IPv6 becomes used widespread the patent will have expired.
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.
We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
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 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.
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.