Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Applies To Patent DRM'ed OS Modules
wellingj writes "Microsoft has applied for a patent that sounds on the face of it like it ought to improve OS stability and reliability: the patent proposes to modularize device drivers much like Linux does. But, going further, Microsoft would apply DRM to these modules — as Groklaw puts it, 'using modularity plus DRM to restrict and contain and enforce.' The net result is that you might have to pay extra for OS hardware support. Things like USB keys, DVD-ROMS, Raid drives, and video cards might not be supported out of the box. LXer indulges in some dystopian speculation."
I for one would really like for this to happen. At the same time drivers for linux would be painfully(for microsoft) free. And almost for device manufacturers. They wouldn't even need to make drivers for linux, just open source existing drivers and many people would make linux version for free just to have these devices compatible with their beloved system.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Is there anything else left to DRM?
The best test environment is production. - Me
chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
DMCA makes it illegal to 'bypass' the access controls required to add functionality. So Microsoft can charge a fee for every piece of hardware that needs to be supported. Okay, maybe nobody could be that greedy and unscrupulous. Then again...
My personal wish is that all the contributors of the various Linux distributions would put together a core team and put their combined strengths behind Ubuntu. They could finally slay that ugly DRM dragon in Redmond. A boy can dream, right?
A drm-protected blackbox with credit card reader as dongle for software. Like in the old day of the videogame halls, you have to pay for the time you play - or work - with your software. Would make it easy for the companies to sell their software, the xould be freely distributed, shared and downloadet, because the software runs only by paying to start it. Ehm... how much does a worldwiede patent proposal cost?
Those who want to run a proprietary OS get to pay for one.
Suppose, for example, that you want to use the latest and greatest video card. You already pay for the drivers - there's a reason why cheap video cards crash the system more often than expensive ones. Now, apparently, you'll need Microsoft's permission to write drivers for your own device. So now you get to pay a little more for hardware and drivers.
Perhaps one of the last compelling reasons to use Windows is hardware support. Every PC device made today comes with Windows drivers, and most can be installed by even non-technical people. Take that away, and there's not much reason for the average user to run Windows - Linux is more stable, and does things like email, websurfing, and document editing just as well, or better than Windows, and at a fraction of the price.
This is great for Linux. I would love to see MS apply DRM to drivers. The first time I can install HW under Linux that doesn't run in Windows, I'll know that it's the beginning of the end for MS.It's a nice patent. One which would never get implemented by an astute company. Honestly, now that Windows costs more than the machines on which it runs, I'm wondering where they could possibly go with this.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
This sounds like a replay of IBM's MCA system, where devices were 'signed' and wouldn't work unless the system recognised their 'credentials'. I wonder if this could count as prior art, although the 'software module component' would probably allow it to slide by.
The net result is that you might have to pay extra for OS hardware support.
Or perhaps your hardware manufacturer will have to satisfy Microsoft for the "right to let users run its hardware".
I don't see much other use for this. I've never heard of a hardware manufacturer charging its customers extra for a Windows driver.
Looks like another tool for a monopoly, and not much else.
I don't recall using a scheme like this for the OS, pre se, but haven't there been applications that were distributed on a CD which provided basic functionality but had additional functionality code of some sorts ("module"?) on the CD that could be activated after paying a fee to the publisher, who would then send a key to unlock the added functionality? Extrapolating this to a web enabled model doesn't seem to be an unobvious step.
Neither the specification, nor the Information Disclosure Document (That only references two MS co-pending patent applications) seem to even suggest any incremental functionality for pay type schemes. I would think that such prior art functionality unlocking schemes, would be relevant background information in considering the question of obviousness and, at a minimum, ought to have been cited by MS as related prior art in order to satisfy their duty to dislose relevant prior art.
I can't find the reference to any of these schemes since I have something else to do now; anyone recall something like this?
Someone at MS comes up with an idea for DRM drivers. MS decides to patent it, because their policy is to patent any patentable invention.
As a result, Microsoft is now going to start charging everyone who ever uses Windows for the right to use drivers, or something. Come off it. There's no indication they're even going to use this, and they're certainly not going to make it mandatory. They could lock out driver developers in all sorts of ways without relying on DRM if they wanted to. They prefer to have a wide selection of competitively priced hardware because they need hardware sales to sell their software.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I suspect this is much less about charging money for drivers (though it could be an additional step to charge money for OS add-ons). I think this is supposed to be an anti-piracy step. In this way, not only does a person have to crack the serial number for the OS, the license activation, and the WGA piracy detection...now they are also forcing you to crack the DRM mechanism preventing you from installing drivers for your hardware.
I have to give them credit. The serial number, license activation, and WGA software were all really obvious and easily broken protection methods...but this one would possibly be pretty tough.
I think another comment was on the right path, suggesting that this will drive a lot of people off of windows and onto linux. All MS is doing is cutting down on the number of pirates using windows. Less users means less people pirating and using other software on windows. Less pirates using the software also means more people who are telling all of their friends about a different (and legal) way to have free software. Obviously, as more people switch away, it's that many more people that will also encourage their friends to switch. If microsoft ever uses this technology on actual drivers and not just special case software, it'll likely drive people away at a pretty alarming rate.
- Nobody would know what RTFA meant if it didn't need to be said all the time
They do this kind of stuff on the Xbox360 already, with nickle and dime'ing you to death to get extra content for games. Mostly content that other platforms get for free, Xbox360 players sometimes have to pay for. Notably from EA.
While not the same issue, the similarities, and the fact that 360 is Microsoft's console, and the marketplace encourages this type of behavior, almost seems like M$ went "Hey, if this works with our console, why not with our OS?".
In the end, the only thing that matters is how much fun you had.
This strategy (modular OS, pay for extra features) only works if the MS modules are judged to be worth paying for. If you're not locked in to MS (for example, if a Linux OS is a viable alternative for you), why would you pay for it?
Keep it up, Microsoft, you're only driving Joe User into the feathered embrace of the Penguin.
Will this work now? Given that Apple is running pretty much "standard" PC hardware now, any manufacturer who wants to also sell to an Apple audience will need to create drivers that work on a Unix-like system. As long as Apple don't sign up to the same (or any) DRM-for-drivers type system, then it will still at the very least, be possible to reverse engineer these. Surely?
It will end the same way like that one-click-url-like file links disaster they had in Windows98.
It will disappear.
Everyone who's interested in professional limitation of damage should follow the future Microsoft statements on this feature before it vanishes with the next SP or Windows release.
Microsoft's logic :
...if they haven't already moved to the hypervisor layer by then.
- customers who switch to Linux say they want, among other, modularity, freedom to tinker and configure their machine at will and possibility to strip out everything unneeded.
- other detractors of Microsoft's products and more specifically of Vista point out the confusingly high number of variants (1 for developing markets, 2 variants for homes, 2 variants for business, 1 additional "has everything inside" version, then add again the additional variant for European markets... )
- a lot of criticism was drawn, mostly from makers of competing products like anti-virus, browsers and media players, but also advocates for open-source alternative, that Microsoft forces it's own solution and doesn't leave enough room for alternatives.
Their conclusion :
- Just make 1 single version, the Starter one, and let everyone upgrade by buying additional functionality modules. (Witch will be even easier given the fact that they hope that Next-Gen windows will be ture-microkernel+servers and capatbility based). They'll stop complaining and will get everything they need true modules.
Their hope :
- Earn even more cash because of selling more modules.
- Try earning cash by selling license to competitors making alternative components.
The future truth :
- Most certain result : DRM will be cracked by virus/spyware/botnet makers and most malware will run as protected services...
- Most consumer pissed of because "Opening more than 3 windows", "Extending multi-CPU support from 4 cores to 8,16 or 32", etc... will be paying components regardless of technical justifications and artificial limitations.
- Either anti-trust suits by McAffee, Real et alii or clean-room reverse-engeneering by Samba et alii. will crack open the DRM infrastructure and Microsoft won't be able to restrict/make pay for 3rd party components.
- Most governments, corporation handling secret information, medical informatics staff, etc... complaining because the EULA states microsoft may at any time revoke the rights of any component and make it useless (HD-DVD devicekey-style) even if it is a critical one.
- Consumers pissed off because they have to re-buy again some components after just upgrading the RAM.
- Consumers pissed off by long chains of dependencies, requiring a lot of expensive upgrades from DirectX 12Pro to Hispeed BUS drivers Ultimate, just to be able to make backups of their data on a HD-DVD.
Results on consumers :
- more widespread adoption of alternative operating systems (Linux, *BSD, OpenSolaris, Darwin...) Specially in EU governments.
AND/OR
- People get only the most basic striped-done Windows version. And then use open-source and other free(beer) software to provide most of the additional components. To the point that a Debian GNU/BlackComb distros seems almost possible.
Side effect :
- Replacing the small striped-down central component of "Windows Starter edition" will be much more easier for Wine and ReactOS projects than their current goal of having to rewrite the whole system.
The only positive point :
- Cheaper starter addition (if open-source component are allowed/manage to provide the additional functionality)
- Less virus using bug exploits due to higher heterogeneity of the various components. But as said before, by then the virus will be either other system components (complete with faked license) or even a whole level above inside some hypervisor or VM wraping.
And all that's based on the assumption that Microsoft *will* be able to release a componentised successor. See what happened to WinFS and similar to guess what are the odds...
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
DRMed. What is it with slashdot and misplaced apostrophes anyway? They're turning up all over the place. They must be fleeing the Quebec language laws.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Er so you do know that all the versions of Vista ship on exactly the same dvd. The only difference is the license key. And you can upgrade anytime. Presumably they use some form of DRM to lock your Vista Home Basic from accessing the Ultimate edition features and will unlock it when you pony up the upgrade fee. Thats probably what this patent is trying to cover. A lot of it sounds like a patent covering next gen xbox 360/media center combos, in which case yeah the non-certified application install, and the module to add more memory make very good sense (fair is another story).
This entire thing is a bit for FUD and PJ ranting. I agree if MS implemented a lot of what they were talking about it'd be bad - so bad that they'd not get away with it. We're used to how OSes work by now - it'd be impossible to turn them into a subscription service. A lot of PJs piece is yelling about losing the right to tinker with your OS. Well you've a right to tinker - you just won't get very far. This is MS we are talking about - they never claimed to be open source. Might as well complain that a leopard has spots.
Now there is the worry that changes like this in software herald the general purpose PC is dying and all you get are specialized devices ala xbox 360 but I don't think this will happen. The PC is too useful and too many people use it already and know what benefits a programmable machine has. You'd have to get every electronics maker to stop producing it and get any person or CS department to not work on open source projects. Its not going to happen. There is a crowd of people who prefer specialized devices to PCs - they happily sacrifice the freedom to tinker anyway and the phrase "user" is apt for them. Most people shouldn't care about how a computer or an operating system or program works - they just want to do stuff with them. The "I don't want to to do anything - it should just work" crowd. I'd argue they've already bought into modular OS upgrades and are a lost cause.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
This is just Microsoft making sure that you can't run unsigned drivers. It will lock out (if they can do it properly) root kits and crappy device drivers. As someone who has worked with "expert" windows driver developers in the past, this is a good thing (e.g. people who have allegedly produced drivers for big companies cutting and pasting sample driver code in to production code despite the fact that the sample code explicitly details a load of cases it doesn't handle properly...).
I would have thought there is more of a question here as to whether this is a patentable idea, rather than it being of significance itself.
I hate to say it, but the Linux device driver model is inferior to Windows. Many device drivers directly access things in task_struct. Of course fields often change between Linux kernel releases. You ever wonder why nVidia drivers are so problematic across different kernel releases? Yes, this is no problem if every device driver is open-source and recompiled with each kernel release. Sorry, but the entire world does not accept open-source, including nVidia.
Windows isn't perfect, but the Windows 2000/XP/Vista device driver model is fairly good. For the most part, nVidia device drivers released in 6 years ago will still work with the latest "service pack" of Windows XP.
Furthermore, Microsoft has worked hard on static model checking of device driver code. Anything that gets Microsoft-certified (or whatever) has passed the static model checker.
"5. The operating system of claim 1, wherein the at least one add-on module enables installation of a non-certified application program."
Either:
1) You pay more for software because all your software has to be certified by Microsoft, or
2) You let Microsoft take away your right and sell it back to you - i.e. you pay for this add-on module, or
3) You crack it and live in fear of Microsoft pulling the trigger
And call a spade a spade.
Vista is not an OS, it is a Extortion tool for little whiney spoiled rich brats (content and computer industry) that want to force other people what they can do and what they cannot without taking any notice what the law grants what people can do.
I think Vista should be declared forbidden because it undermines the current legal system.
Sounds like this is how they plan to deploy 50 different versions of Windows. Somehow I doubt they'll intentionally destroy their own business, so the dystopia is very unlikely. Much more likely is that in cheaper windows versions, stuff like >2cpu support, >4gb ram, hd-dvd burning, and other premium features will be left out. This is just a way to make sure people can't just copy a few dll's to fully enable their reduced windows.
Unplug the alarm, it's no big deal, and it's already in Vista.
Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
Hah! Microsoft is "innovating" again. They applied for a patent to strip down their kernel and make it light, then to build support for extra hardware in the form of loadable kernel modules. (Putting all the arguments about monolithic vs. modular vs mach kernels aside) This would improve performance and efficiency. But they add an extra wrinkle: The modules will use Digital Rights Management which would allow for a model to charge money for access to drivers.
I suppose they are really innovating this time in that they took two existing concepts (kernel modules and DRM) and put them together for a new purpose (although not a technical one, but a business purpose). So maybe the quotes weren't warranted in the last paragraph. The real question is... will Windows users eventually really have to pay for drivers? Much like the CPU ID problems when the Pentium IV first came out, people were worried about being tracked via CPU ID. So the manufacturers backpedaled. At least for now.
My personal suspicion is that when these sorts of measures are implemented and a company responds to public outcry by saying, "OK, we won't use it", that what they really mean is "OK, we won't use it... for now". They will wait to quietly enable the functionality THEY want on YOUR computer when they've got you locked into some associated feature. Take DRM on the iPod for example. Let's say it's 1984 and CDs are just beginning to pick up steam with the buying public. But let's say that the RIAA was even more brazen back then than they actually were and they said the following:
"We thank you for your continued support of the recording industry and your understanding of the need to move from cassettes and their more out of date relative, the vinyl record. However, it has come to our attention that the quality of the digital audio discs that our members have been selling is enabling mass piracy by copying to chromium oxide and metal film audio cassettes. Although the cassettes do not provide the pure listening enjoyment of a genuine RIAA member digital audio disc, they do impact sales. One measure we've taken is the formal request to the blank audio cassette manufactures and the government to intervene by adding a small surcharge to the purchase of cassettes to compensate for the revenues lost to piracy. However, another measure we would like to take is the creation of an End User License Agreement. This agreement stipulates that you (the consumer) agree that you will not use any methods of copying your digital audio disc. It also stipulates that you agree to play said disc on no more than five digital audio disc reproduction mechanisms whether CD players or any possible future method of reproduction. Once you have played the disc on a fifth unit, you agree to purchase a new disc with the associated license to allow you playback on five more systems".
I don't think most consumers would have gone along with that back then. But, using today's DRM technology, Apple has managed to convince users that these limitations with iTunes and the iPod are OK because the benefits outweigh the negative aspects of the system. The music is cheaper. You get a more complete experience if you are using Apple products all the way through the chain. You have the instant gratification factor that you don't get by buying CDs on Amazon. And sure, you have the less-than-optimal option of burning your tracks to a CD, then ripping them into the format of your choosing. But in reality, iPod users have agreed to something they are cornered into agreeing to. So why do they do this? It's all in the approach. If MS tried to do this first, they would have gone a little overboard with the restrictions and just because they are MS, many consumers would have revolted. But the key here is that the best way to get people to agree to artificial and fairly negative restrictions, is to tie them in some benefits that would be enough to hook the user.
I can see that manufacturers would have a new area of revenue if they had a way to c
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
1. Apply for license to write network stack driver.
2. Open source your stack driver
3. Community uses driver to probe arbitrary hardware; all software accesses hardware by send/recv UDP or something.
4. ???
5. Profit!
Of course, then there's the inevitable folly of MS trying to write rules governing what you can and can't send down through the stack. I would think even the most braindead patent attorney would know better than to try that; but I've been wrong before.
Weren't there plans to have the Linux kernel driver interface somehow unified with Windows' ? If so, and this interface was relied upon (some graphics cards come to mind), then this could be bad for the future of Linux. I know, Linus doesn't like it, but he's not the only one who has something to say about it.
Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
I have so many people ask me for help with their older machines - both for support and OS installation. And most of the time it's a copy of Windows that they got from someone. (Granted, the machine probably originally sold with Windows, so it's morally gray if still illegal). And I always remind them of the legal status of their actions, and that there are legit alternatives. And nobody wants to hear it.
Just once I'd like to be able to tell them that no - there is no way to install that copy. YOU HAVE TO PAY THE $250 FOR IT! Either they'll be interested in trying Linux, or I'll be taking home a free used computer that they just pitched. I win either way.
Microsoft to add modular drivers to windows.
Its funny how every day microsoft are stealing more and more old ideas from Gnu/Linux and Unix in general, and claiming they are innovating.
I hope they'll get rid of the registry next.
Oh noes! You better keep that theory in check or else we're going to have to listen to a bunch of Apple fanboys whining about how Microsoft is ripping off Apple's ideas again...
If this goes through, we won't have to wory about anyone else making DRMed drivers.
Staring at a white background [on a computer screen] while you read is like staring at a light bulb — Maddox
Imagine a computer with all the restrictions turned on. The user gets a single unmovable 640x480 window and 300 Baud of bandwith from any device. It would run forever if it were not for the DRM trip bits and checks that require 4GB of RAM and a quad core processor to make the magic happen.
Vista is going to sink M$ for good.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
is why I will never willingly install vista, and will urge others to boycott it. microsoft is setting themselves up to be a HUGE target. as fanatical as some people are about their ideals and cultures, I envision the internet becoming a battleground, where a jihad against monopolistic software and media giants will be waged by those who will unite and stand up to them. Who will be the first geek martyr?
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000073
I'm guessing here, but I think this is more to prevent projects like Wine from being able to use Windows DLL's. I suspect it could also be used to further deny people the ability to run Windows in VMWare and other virtualization technologies without a high end expensive license.
If a DLL is drm'd, Wine won't be able to use it. It also means developers for things like VMWare can't decompile DLL's to see what makes them tick, so they can't make their virtualization better, and possibly make virtualization of certain hardware impossible or impossible to bypass, like TPM hardware.
So I believe it's to keep Windows, and it's applications off of Linux, Mac, and any future competitor.
This sig intentionally left blank.
As far as i know, the idea of combining two technologies to create a new one, is not patentable. Like a bed on wheels, whoopy!
When is this nonsense is going to make everyone realize that this sucks resources out of this nation, like a leech sucks blood.
--------
* Sigh *
VMS has so-called manifest files that verify the source signature and the integrity of the installation kits, offers product license-enabled integrated subsystems, and offers add-on license-enabled subsystems, and a modular and extensible kernel. There are pieces that allow MD5 for components, and packages that have explicitly verified the integrity of the installed software.
Certainly fodder for Prior Art claims, if somebody was trolling for lawyers.
So how do you chum for lawyers? Throw a bucket of stupidity overboard?
There is prior art all over this.
l e
Linux kernel does a string compare and sometimes won't load or take other actions if the module isn't GPLed. This is a form of DRM, as the kernel is imposing it's digital license requirements on extensions loaded into it. (i.e. they must be GPLed or it'll log it or refuse to load it depending on how it was built).
Basically some guy tried to get around this by making his license string "GPL\0Not really GPL" and he was caught. Linus then changed the code to check the entire string buf. There you have Linux kernel DRM, a hack around it, and a counter hack to stop the violation. That's a working and prior kernel module DRM application.
"The string comparison code used by the kernel at the time to determine whether the module was GPLed stopped when it reached a null character (\0), so it would be fooled into thinking that the module was declaring its licence to be just "GPL". The GPL directory referred to in the rest of the licence string was empty."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_Kernel_Modu
The world will not get better through technology. We must seek to be better people.
In general, if you read about a software patent on Slashdot, then the article was probably published because the patent holder declined to grant a license for use in free software.
Will this mean that ndiswrapper-like techniques will no longer work? Maybe that is Bill's point!
So how do I get relatives who buy me hardware for my birthday to check the hardware compatibility database if the specific make and model that I specified is not available in a local store? Non-profit institutions that rely heavily on donations, such as some schools, have the same problem.
They apparently think that they can ratchet up their profit infinitely.
Economics doesn't work that way.
Once these dolts are charging for every line of code in their bloated OS, people - INCLUDING corporations - will simply stop buying their product and switch to Linux.
Microsoft is already at nearly the tipping point for this with the ridiculous prices on Vista. Why do they think everyone is looking for "academic" editions of the product (as the comments attached to the "Vista install work-around" article proves)?
Microsoft is well on the way to pricing itself entirely out of business - just as thousands of businesses have done before.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
and how long before Microsoft start insisting that peripheral and I/O card manufacturers require that 'Vista-certified' vendor products only function when attached to DRM'd driver modules by making them put DRM locks on their products? To protect from use in non DRM OSs? To protect content owners from piracy... To protect them from competition.....
This would certainly make life more difficult for Apple, Linux and others. It should raise the red flag of monopoly again though too.....
-I'm just sayin'
This has probably been said, but... why is this a bad thing?
So Microsoft wants to shoot themself in the foot by doing yet one more thing obviously bad for the consumer. Meanwhile, they've copywrited this "innovention" - so now any future OS manufacturer can't pull the same trick, without paying Microsoft for the privilege. Hopefully it'll discourage the practice from catching on... I've always fundamentally been a Windows person at heart, cause it's what I'm used to, but who knows: now that Mac OS runs on Intel hardware, maybe I'll switch someday. Here's to hoping Microsoft patents every stupid, DRM-ridden "innovation" they come up with!
Couldn't this be an attempt at MS to actually make their OS more secure, by leveraging TPM to verify that trusted modules/applications can communicate with each other but not with untrusted ones in order to maintain system integrity? In the world of OSS, the same thing could be done, except of course the trusted modules/applications would be signed by the administrator, and any modules/applications not approved by the administrator would be ignored in communicating with these. Granted, that is probably not the way MS is applying things (they sign the modules/apps no doubt, or you must pay $$$ to have your module/app signed), but it is for security's sake.
Now, perhaps the whole reason behind this is so that when DRM on media is cracked, MS can say "OMG you cracked the same technology that is used to secure teh computars!!" and take you to court. That way in the court's eyes, the thing that protects media, and the thing that prevents all "teh virus/trojan/worms!!!" is the same thing. It's a much bigger offense to have compromised the integrity of many companies' networks than it is to just restore your ability to back up your personal movies/audio.
But to MS, now that it is in distribution (via XBox 360 and Zune) probably has a bigger reason to protect big media now, and if MS releases the only "crack-proof" DRM scheme (as in: you break the DRM and you are seen as a terrorist that is aiding others to "break into our country" via internet/networks or whatever since it's the same protection that prevents trusted modules/applications from being compromised) then wouldn't all big media companies send their money MS's way as well?
Twinstiq, game news