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."

Comments

Go go Microsoft

[Yetihehe]

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.

Well thank goodness I won't have to worry...

[blankoboy]

about this as Microsoft has lost me as a customer going forward. Vista was the last straw for me. I'm sticking with XP and seeing where the OS world takes me next. Either OSX, if it is ever released officially supported for the PC (yeah, I'm not holding my breath) or Linux (probably Ubuntu) once they get their polish on.

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?

DRMing OS modules

[DrYak]

Microsoft's logic :
- 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... ...if they haven't already moved to the hypervisor layer by then.
- 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...

Somewhat Orwellian?

[name*censored*]

Years and years ago, people would have vomited IN TERROR at the thought of paying so much for firstly the hardware, then the OS, and then applications, then the internet connection, and then the electricity, and then having ads on the screen that they've paid for, and then paying more for content/plugins for the applications, and then paying more when the system breaks down from all the bloat to have it upgraded. Oh, and this cycle repeats itself every 2 to 8 years. This octuple-dipping nonsense smacks of 1984 - people are slowly being more and more screwed over whilst not doing anything about it; and attempts to do are looking nigh impossible. Microsoft wanting to be cut in on the hardware installation process makes sense (at least from an incredibly evil standpoint) - users have demonstrated for years that they're willing to put up with spending thousands of dollars to make their computers work. Having said that, it's a little stupid of Microsoft to do this on the launch of this particular OS - there haven't been any features (that I've heard) that makes this a must-upgrade-to OS in comparison to XP (Microsoft seem to be entirely using their momentum as a monopoly for this one); especially since they've released a 64 bit version of XP, which XP-packrats will jump to when applications start to switch to 64 bit and 32 bit CPUs fall fully into obscelence.

What would be nice is if Microsoft's OS department was in the same boat as Microsoft's XBOX department - since there's fierce competition between PS3 (Mac?) and Wii (*nix?) we haven't seen a single "let's screw with the consumer" initiative by any of the three.