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

Brilliant!

[Gothic_Walrus]

I see someone's finally figured out how to have an entertaining Slashdot thread.

If you post a link to the patent instead of an article, you're virtually guaranteeing that no one will read the fucking article, let alone understand it! And just think of the wacky hijinks and hilarity that are bound to ensue from there!

Re:Brilliant!

[AndersOSU]

Not only that but also toss in a red herring about net neutrality - just to fire people up a bit. As far as I can tell the patent application (of which at least I read the claims, BTW) only applies to social networks. If you are on someone elses network I have no problem with them controlling quotas, content, etc.

A terrible idea

[damburger]

Having the members of a community reduce a persons presence on an website? Slashdotters would never stand for such a thing, surely.

(PS pls mod me up!)

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.

Re:Took a while...

[glesga_kiss]

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.

Never used p2p then? All modern p2p applications do this. For example, the ed2k protocol maintains a list of clients on each box. Whenever you download from someone, it remembers that. When it comes to uploading, the application checks the user against the file and jumps the queue if you have received from them in the past.

Rewarding those who give back is nothing new. The slashdot moderation system is an example of this. Jeez, even customer loyalty schemes are an equivalent in meatspace. There's a lot of prior art on this sort of thing.

Confused?

[pubjames]

What has this to do with net neutrality? They are talking about social networks. I don't see anything about reducing bandwidth in the article. Way to muddy the waters Slashdot editors!

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.

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:Slashdot infringes

[kthejoker]

Uhh - if something exists before the patent, it's called "prior art", not infringement.

Tyranny of the masses

[Colin Smith]

Yay! That way we can stamp out anything but the average, the mediocre and the banal.

Re:Ha, bloody ha.

[Pharmboy]

if ($comments =~ "linux" || $comments =~ "gnu"){
    $bandwidth--;
}

It's a website moderation system.

[Deathlizard]

From what I've read from the patent, it sounds like it's some sort of moderation system for a website (social networks. Like myspace and MS's own Live Spaces site). Basically, it rewards productive users of a site while punishing trolls and spammers.

Although the patent is questionable, (it sounds similar to the Slashdot Karma System to me) it doesn't sound like something that will be used for net neutrality.

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?

Evil bits

[Gax]

This seems like a variation of the old evil bit idea.

Many ISPs and social networks already use similar criteria to guide subscribers on correct behaviour of the network. My ISP imposes restrictions on the bandwidth I can use every month and when I can use it during the day (a maximum of 10Gb@peak time every month). Many bit torrent communities also specify that you have to share at least the amount of data that you have downloaded, to deter leechers.

Re:limitation

[EXMSFT]

Companies don't file for patents. Individuals who work at those companies do (the company just often picks up the tab, runs the process, and simply asks the signer(s) to sign over exclusive rights to the patent). So you would have to somehow constrain the ability for individuals at a company to be eligible for patents, even if their employer was willing to file them.

Re:Will it work on Linux/Mac?

[Fearless Freep]

What happens if a lot of Linux/Mac users give Microsoft a bad rating.

I don't think enough Linux and Mac users could give enough bad rating to MS for it to matter

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.

Not only that

[BlackCobra43]

As if I wasn't a total outcast before, now I get to be e-rejected by VIRTUAL people! Awesome!

Heh. Prior Art? You're read it.

[TrebleJunkie]

Somebody submit Slashdot's comment moderation system as prior art. Go ahead. I dares ya.

*chuckle*

Anyhoo, just what we need -- more technologically-enforced tyranny by majority.

Prior art.

[auroran]

I'm sorry Microsoft but, Santa, has had prior art on this one for years.

Re:limitation

[SCHecklerX]

How about we just eliminate software and business method patents, and require working models for physical devices within a certain timeframe of issuance of the patent?

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.