Microsoft's 'Naughty or Nice' Patent Application

theodp writes "Those of you worried about Microsoft's stance on network neutrality won't find much comfort in the software giant's just-published patent application for systems and methods to facilitate self regulation of social networks through trading and gift exchange, which classify users as good or bad and call for network bandwidth to be reduced for those deemed 'less desirable.'"

Comments

Net neutrality ONlY for natural monopolies

[interiot]

The only thing net neutrality should ever be applied to are situations where a natual monopoly (last mile companies) or other monopolies exist. eg. Where you have one entity who has the power to degrade another entity's bandwidth simply because the other entity is performing better than them.

In most other situations, market/social forces will usually make the right result come out.

Took a while...

[Macthorpe]

...but I did find the part where bandwidth is mentioned as an asset that can be controlled via this system.

While you can look at it one way and say this is just a logical extension of rewarding 'good' users, the fact that the system can be used to punish 'bad' users and explains nothing about how this definition of 'good' and 'bad' will be determined makes me more concerned for the people using such a service.

I bloody well wouldn't.

Slashdot infringes

[LaughingCoder]

Here is the first claim of the patent:

"1. A system that facilitates self-regulation of a social network comprising: a network monitoring component that watches user behavior on the social network; and an asset allocation component that allocates or re-allocates one or more assets among one or more network users based at least in part on whether the user behavior is desirable."

As I read that, the Slashdot moderation system infringes. The "network monitoring component" is the editors and the moderators. They "watch user behavior on the social network". The "asset allocation component" is the karma, which affects how broadly users' messages get seen. Lastly, "based ... on whether the user behavior is desireable" is obviously a big part of the moderation system (flamebait, troll, are ways to discoiurage undesirable behavior).

Re:Confused?

[Jugalator]

It seems MS won't be negotiating with AT&T to reduce bandwidth for "bad" users or anything, so I can't say network neutrality is affected one way or another. As for some users on Microsoft's services getting less bandwidth from their own servers because Microsoft wants that, well, who cares? If you don't like their service (and given the quality of Microsoft's stuff, you likely won't), just don't use it?

I can't see anything in the article saying the network owner will start reducing your bandwidth for YouTube if you were a "bad" user on Microsoft Service X in this patent. You'd only be affected if using Microsoft Service X by Microsoft themselves. Like another way of punishing users than downmodding on Slashdot, but perhaps better applied to high bandwidth media content. Shouldn't Microsoft has the right to dedicate their server resources like they want?

My problem is mostly about companies paying actual network owners to get improved quality of service which could affect users in totally different ways than this.

AC

[just_another_sean]

So how long unitl Anonymous Cowards lose bandwidth on /.?

For that matter does this mean my karma might buy me more bandwidth?

Re:Prior Art

[Cruise_WD]

And of course there's http://freenetproject.org/ which added with 0.7 darknet mode - a network supposed to be based on an already existing social network, which automatically awards tokens to connections based on their behaviour, which controls their bandwidth and frequency of requests.

There's so many prior art examples of this it's just silly.

only if you're in econ 101

[Anonymous Coward]

only if you're in econ 101 do market forces "usually" make the "right" result come out.

there's a reason why phrases such as asymmetric information and channel management exist. and why poor people pay more for the same services as rich people. it's called marketing, appropriately enough.

weeeee. market forces!! they created the current patent system, moron, along with pro-business new jersey laws, and self-regulation schemes. not to mention redlining, and zipcode based insurance, and new products paying for space at grocery stores, and mail-in-rebates, and manufactured 'minutes' plans, and all sorts of other interesting little quirks and inefficiencies that occur when you don't have anywhere near perfect competition. Companies know and understand this and that, even in cases where the market will eventually 'deal' with problems, improvements in the market can be delayed again and again by managing the product and policies appropriately.