Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patent Envisions Free Computing
Dotnaught writes "A Microsoft patent application published on Thursday shows the company contemplating free computers and software for its customers. It suggests 'a service provider such as a telephone company, an Internet service provider, or a leasing company may provide computer systems or components to users at a reduced charge or for free in exchange for targeted advertising delivery.'"
Patents are never filed because someone plans on doing something.
they're filed because someone wants to stop someone from doing something else. this is the case here. I hope it doesn't get accepted.
Actually, I like everything about this idea except for the words "targeted" and "advertising".
Seriously, if the offer is that someone can data-mine everything on my PC and send me lots of pop-ups, spam, and flash banners, then no thanks. If computers are really cheap enough to make this business model viable, then I'd just as soon buy the really extra-cheap computer myself anyway (if it's cheap, why not?), which means the business model still wouldn't be viable.
This is patently absurd!
Seriously, consumers need a lobby just dedicated to patent law reform. First step, outlaw patenting business plans and most intellectual property. Second step, open up the process so anyone can prove prior art and throw out a patent application on those grounds. Third step, go back to requiring a working model of anything physical to be patented.
So, a patent. Wonderful. Has it occured to anyone that they might not use it? That they might not have any intention of using it? Perhaps it's just so, that if anybody tries to do it, they will have to pay royalties? Did anyone think of this before they said "stupid...never work..."?
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
My guess is Microsoft is just patenting vague advertising-revenue stuff to block others from patenting it. This does not mean Microsoft actually plans to move to advertising instead of paying for software.
This is incredible! I think it is absolute genius to take ownership and control away from the consumer and put it in the hands of big business!
Why should you own your own computer, your own OS, your own software, your own data, etc. when you could be told what to use, what to do, how to do it, when to do it, and allow others to basically own your personal data!
Anyone else here old enough to remember when the PC was about decentralizing computing, taking control of your own data, and empowering yourself? This was Micro$oft's big selling point against IBM.
This is also why cell phone applications suck even though phones have multiple megabytes of memory, high resolution color screens, etc. that computers didn't even have a decade ago.
Now things have gone full circle and we are back to handing everything back over to big business. Only today that also includes a lot more personal data, choice, control of one's destiny, etc, etc.
Then again the general public doesn't seem to care about protecting their personal information, personal life, DNA, etc.
Giving away software and services and making money through ads?
At any rate, I'd view this as a "defensive patent". One they don't want to implement, but to keep someone from implementing it instead. Exactly what patents were NOT intended for.
My only hope is that with the abuse of patents, some people will start reconsidering the patenting process. Or maybe the whole system altogether.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Rather than misunderstanding like you say, I think most people on here are smart enough see through the smoke of the grossly-obfuscated language used in most of these patents. With the recent patent news, I think most people by now are aware of items #1 and #2 that you mention. But then we get to item #3, which is where the problem lies. If you understand technology and/or are highly literate, as is the case for most Slashdot readers, you can read the claims for many of these patents, see through the obfuscatory smoke, and realize that what they describe is either something that is blatantly obvious and/or something that has been done before.
For example, the portion of Microsoft's claims that you included above can be summarized as follows:
A program that runs on a customer's PC, letting the customer opt-in and select how they want their ads delivered, stores information about the customer, and then delivers the ads according to what information has been collected from the customer.
Just the fact that these companies would even dare to apply for things like that should naturally be enough to set off alarms. So I believe most people do in fact understand quite well what is going on.