Microsoft Patents the Mother of All Adware

An anonymous reader writes "Ars Technica has an article on the mother of all adware patents filed by Microsoft: 'It's such a tremendously bad idea that it's almost bound to succeed. Microsoft has filed another patent, this one for an "advertising framework" that uses "context data" from your hard drive to show you advertisements and "apportion and credit advertising revenue" to ad suppliers in real time.' Ars discusses this disturbing concept, which was originally unearthed by Information Week and we first discussed last week."

Comments

"Context data"

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

I wonder, if my hard drive is filled with pirated Microsoft software, will they show me advertisements for The Pirate Bay?

Re:"Context data"

[creepynut]

That's ok, anyone who was a real Empornium member has moved onto Cheggit.net since Targetpoint bought E. ... so I've been told.

indeed

[PunkOfLinux]

this is a horrible idea. Using the client's whole computer, hard drive contents included, to sell ads is just wrong.

Re:indeed

[morgan_greywolf]

this is a horrible idea. Using the client's whole computer, hard drive contents included, to sell ads is just wrong.

I think you guys are all getting the wrong idea. Microsoft isn't likely to be so much as implementing, as much as being in the patent license business. IOW, the plan is to sue adware producers for patent infringement, driving them away from producing the adware that plagues their operating system products. They might license it to a select few companies who do adware that doesn't screw up someone's entire OS, but I think the general goal is to get rid of adware through brute force rather than fixing the technological problems that allow it to proliferate.

Re:indeed

[morgan_greywolf]

Oh, and screwing Google over probably (via Google Desktop Search, which would violate the patent), probably doesn't seem so bad to Microsoft, either.

Re:indeed

[morgan_greywolf]

I'm not a Google fanboi. Check my posts. I'm as quick to criticize them for their negative actions as anybody. And I'm just as quick to praise them for bringing useful tools to the Internet. If Microsoft is out to screw Google, it's no skin off my nose -- it's not like I own any Google stock. But Microsoft does have a history of using patents to threaten and beat potential competitors into submission, and I'm very much against that, no matter which of their competitors they're playing dirty pool with.

Re:indeed

[Lord Apathy]

Windows for absolutely anyting into a such an ad-infested crap-fest that even their most ardent supporters would abandon them

I wouldn't go that far. I'm willing to bet people are so stupid they would use it even if they had to pay for it. Just because it has mickysoft written on it.

I'll even give you another example of ad-infested crap-fest that people will pay for, TV.

Re:indeed

[MightyMartian]

If the technology is already around and being used, then it can't be patented by Microsoft.

Re:indeed

[morgan_greywolf]

And, um, exactly when has this stopped them (or any other tech company *cough*Amazon*cough*) from obtaining a patent before?

Re:indeed

[suitepotato]

I think you guys are all getting the wrong idea. Microsoft isn't likely to be so much as implementing, as much as being in the patent license business. IOW, the plan is to sue adware producers for patent infringement, driving them away from producing the adware that plagues their operating system products. They might license it to a select few companies who do adware that doesn't screw up someone's entire OS, but I think the general goal is to get rid of adware through brute force rather than fixing the technological problems that allow it to proliferate.

It would be a great thing if this is true and really, I want to believe it. No one loses more than Microsoft every time someone else screws up something that happens to run on their OS. On an irregular basis Turbine's Dungeons and Dragons Online client crashes my PC's sound system drivers so badly that my machine blue screens. MOST Slashdot people would reflexively blame Microsoft for that, but neither the client nor the drivers were written by Microsoft. Do I or anyone else blame Red Hat when I have trouble getting third party screen savers to build and work right on the newest iteration of Fedora Core? No.

If anything, using the IP-infringement cudgel against the miscreants would be priceless. It's like designing bioweapons before your enemy gets them done so you can get a headstart on the process of designing blocking agents and cures for them, negating them before they can be deployed, but (mostly) without the messy prospect of them being deployed by your side. That being said, Microsoft might use this to their advantage with IP-mismanagement vis a vis multimedia and the ongoing war over fair use, but then again, Microsoft WROTE Windows so if they wanted to root kit their own OS, they could do it a dozen times over on multiple levels to the point that the OS was one large trojan dedicated to monitoring everything you did and really, would they get far with that given that if a third party fouls up their bugtesting, no one blames that third party and instead just whines that Microsoft sucks?

If anything, the paranoia towards Microsoft works towards making this patent and sue the miscreants thing a big win for us and Microsoft as we get the biggest dog on the PC block throwing its legal weight against the schmucks who write malware and we get to see Microsoft taking these threats seriously and instead of being reactionary and patching, actually being proactive and offensive, taking out the people who write these things. Sure, it could go wrong, but then, it always could.

Re:indeed

[StarvingSE]

Does Microsoft intend to pay each of their users to act as little personal ad servers? Seriously, if MS is wasting cycles on my CPU indexing my data for keywords so they can show me some ads, I want to be paid for that CPU time. It's not their hardware.

If this comes to fruition, I am never using another MS product again. I will deal with not being able to play my favorite games, it will be well worth it.

Best news all day

[ajs]

We can only hope that this makes it into an early service pack for Vista, and that Microsoft announces it poorly, resulting wholesale defection of their corporate user-base to Apple and Linux-based desktops.

Re:Best news all day

[colonslashslash]

http://pidgin.im/pidgin/home/

Adblock?

[saibot834]

Fortunately nothing changes for most geeks, because Adblock filters most ads. :)

If We're Going To Patent Software...

[thomas.galvin]

This is one of the rare times that I approve of a software patent, for two reasons:

1. This patent will prevent other people from doing the same thing, and
2. If MS actually does this, more people will leave Windows behind.

Re:If We're Going To Patent Software...

[SirSmiley]

I recently went to Feisty Fawn from XP/Vista. I've dabbled in linux many times but never kept it around. I finally went and did the switch because I have a PS3 for games (mainly playing ps2 games and renting the ps3 ones).

I could not be happier...vlc plays my movies, im comfortable with the odd command line (apt-get install vlc-player) i have azureus and limewire...all is well :D I do work on the side for people on their pcs and its amazing how many request me to get rid of vista and put their old xp back on once theyve gone and upgraded....keeps me in business!

my laptop is still xp though! (for some reason I have issues on occasional live video streams for instance all the ones on proelite.com (mixed martial arts). I am happy for the fact that i come home, turn ubuntu on and just use it...i dont have microsoft telling me what i should and could do....im a convert and i have samba sharing up my movies folder to my xp media pc in the basement (itll be linux once i figure out how to reliably get my tv tuner to work)

Prior Art

[goombah99]

Isn't this exactly what Google Desktop and Google Mail and Google Cookies do?

Re:Prior Art

[KoldKompress]

Apart from Google can't make it an integral part of your Operating system.

Re:Prior Art

[Constantine XVI]

AFAIK, Google Desktop data stays on your machine unless you have Search Across Computers on, and GDS doesn't serve up ads to you.

Re:Prior Art

[goombah99]

Apart from Google can't make it an integral part of your Operating system. Why can't google have Kernel extensions? Even without a kernel extension, why can't the software search your user data? It's certainly doing it just that since it's forming search indicies. And since it can search across computers it is shipping these back to a central server. So I fail to appreciate your point.

Re:Prior Art

[Anarke_Incarnate]

Get over the stupidity that Novell somehow is in bed with MS. They made an agreement to indemnify their users. They are not shills for MS and told MS and Linux users explicitly that MS is full of crap (OK, figuratively) and that Linux is not infringing on any MS patents.

If you want to be a troll, be a smarter one. Otherwise, stop using Gnome, KDE, SAMBA, the kernel and a shitload of other products that Novell contributes PILES of money and development to or be considered a hypocrite.

Novell does support the F/OSS community. They fought SCO and were doing what they thought was a good idea for their user base. I frankly don't think they deserve the backlash they are getting. Get over it.

Re:Prior Art

[networkBoy]

Rather than modding I will respond...

Specifically Google has an exchange that reads: We'll give you software applications, remote disk space, and e-mail. In exchange anything you use our services for we will parse for key[words|phrases] and serve you an ad or two. This is how you agree to pay for using our services.

Now... if Microsoft were to come out with an OS that was free as in beer in exchange for taking a percentage of your screen for ads then it would fall under the same overall principle, aside from the disk space portion. If the ads were as inoffencive as Google's text ads, I may even consider it. My gut feeling, however, says otherwise, and if I have to pay for an OS then looking at my files as anything other than blocks of bits to store on a disk and optimize for space will happen over my dead computer.
-nB

Re:Prior Art

[erroneus]

Could that be what they have in mind? A free OS I mean?

Re:Prior Art

[Ucklak]

[microsoft_speaking]

Well, you only paid for a license to use our software based upon our terms.
We're changing the terms of the license. Pray we don't alter the terms any further.

[/microsoft_speaking]

Re:Prior Art

[MontyApollo]

This patent would block Google Desktop from serving up ads. I think that might be the point.

Re:Prior Art

[SL Baur]

Now... if Microsoft were to come out with an OS that was free as in beer in exchange for taking a percentage of your screen for ads That's exactly how it would work. Give away a free computer with a free O/S + applications in exchange for hosting the ad software. The advertising could probably be made targeted enough that they could pay people to use such systems and turn a profit. After all, plenty of people in the US buy into the "Who cares about privacy, I have nothing to hide" line.

The only thing interesting to me about this article is whether the patent is general enough that malicious viral adware now constitutes a patent violation. Along the same lines, I wish Microsoft had patented email spam so they could now be suing email spammers for patent violations.

Re:Prior Art

[karmatic]

Microsoft:

Here's this OS. You see, it's a $1200 OS. You have 2 choices:

1) $600 + adware. See, you get a discount, so it's OK for us to spy on you.
2) $1200, without adware.

Ethically, it's no different from what google is doing. You are selling your privacy to them.

Let's take this a different way:
Here's this OS. You see, it's a $600 OS (with adware). You have 2 choices:

1) $600
2) $600 + $600 adware removal fee

Why is it that people who would think the first version is a good idea, would be incensed at the second?

Re:Prior Art

[KoldKompress]

Yes, but you've willingly used G-mail, knowing full well that they search it to provide contextual ads. What I'm trying to get at, is that Google can't update your PC via Windows Update/Synaptic Update Manager etc. to include adware. Microsoft can do it, via Windows Update.

We know they use the Windows Update for less-than-necessary programs, such as the WGA.

Re:Prior Art

[node 3]

Novell really f'ed up by making that deal with MS, and they deserve to be criticized for it.

Otherwise, stop using Gnome, KDE, SAMBA, the kernel and a shitload of other products that Novell contributes PILES of money and development to or be considered a hypocrite. That doesn't make any sense for three completely different reasons.

1. Hypocrisy isn't defined as using something you criticize. Or do you only use, consume, purchase, support, etc, things which you have absolutely *no* criticisms or reservations about?
2. Even if one were to decide to boycott Novell over this, why must that extend to open source projects that are freely obtained from parties who have no affiliation with Novell whatsoever?
3. goombah88 heavily implied he doesn't use Linux. So even if what you claim as hypocrisy *is* hypocrisy (it isn't), he wouldn't be guilty of it anyway!

I applaud Ubuntu (Canonical), RedHat, and all the others who had the integrity and good sense to decline MS's offer. I similarly am highly disappointed that Novell did not do the same. But I don't hold that mark against them as sufficient cause to refuse to do business with them, let alone the even more ludicrous response of boycotting everything, even open source projects, which Novell has contributed to in any way.

Maybe you should take your own advice:

If you want to be a troll, be a smarter one.

Re:Prior Art

[Nahor]

[it] will happen over my dead computer

They knew that. It was the first phase in their scheme:

1) install Windows on as many machine as possible.

And now that the "Year of Linux Desktop" is coming, they are going to the second phase.

Re:Prior Art

[killjoe]

>. What was this deal regarding? If you don't know, then shut up.

Nobody knows. It's secret and neither MS nor Novell will publish the agreement.

Do you know? You sound like you work for Novell so perhaps you could leak it here. It would be the ethical thing to do.

Re:Prior Art

[The One and Only]

Back in the heady dot-com days of 1999, there was an ISP, PeoplePC, that would give you a free PC if you subscribed to their ISP. Also, you would be served ads 24/7. Is Microsoft resurrecting a bad idea from the 90's? Should we expect Bob 2009 and Hammer pants for Ballmer?

Re:Prior Art

[sumdumass]

You just raised an interesting point about this. How will it comply with HIPPA rules and regulations. How about Finacial privacy laws? where will the disclosure be at and most importantly, Will you be in violation of any of those regulations if you use an MS os that has this in it?

I'm also wondering how long before this implementation would get hacked and people will be able to pull personal information from a computer without installing a worm or a Trojan or some piece of malware first. I wonder who would be liable in a situation like that. If MS's secure operating system was able to be hacked because they are attempting to use their monopoly status in order to gain entry and market share in an industry they weren't part of (spyware) and your credit card was used without your permision, would it be you stuck with the bill? Would it be the credit card companies? Would it be whoever the purchase was made through? Or could it eventually come back to Microsoft?

Less of an interruption???

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

According to the patent application, "The benefit to the user is the perception that the ads are more relevant, and therefore, less of an interruption."

For me, ads that look more like the content that I actually want to read are more of an interruption because it takes me longer to differentiate between the important content and the crap.

Capture, milk, rinse, repeat

[pieterh]

Microsoft has such a cynically exploitative view of the market that they truly prove that large corporations can be psychotic.

While the rest of the economy maintains some kind of pretense of "ethics", Microsoft seem to have decided that not a single rule counts. They mock the EU's anti-trust actions, they rape the ISO process, and they screw their loyal customers more often than that guy in Oz.

No-one is going to shed a tear when they are up against the wall.

Re:Capture, milk, rinse, repeat

[Citizen of Earth]

Microsoft has such a cynically exploitative view of the market that they truly prove that large corporations can be psychotic.

You just need to look at the third world (and Middle East) to understand that in the absence of accountability, the most cynically and paranoid psychopathic entities are the ones that become the top leaders. The free market is supposed to provide the accountability and the democratic government is supposed to insure the free market and The People are supposed to insure the democratic government, but the government has been infested by the psychopathic corporations. It's up to The People to correct the government, but they are asleep at the switch.

Re:Capture, milk, rinse, repeat

[phildo420]

Which is what makes this awesome.

They have patented targeted pop-ups. So, being the evil corporation they are, won't they sue all advertisers that use pop-up advertisements out of business?
If we're lucky, Microsoft will go all Microsoft on the online ad-agencies and knock them out of the competition, or buy them up. In which case, Microsoft will produce buggy ad-software that doesn't correctly display ads, they'll lose their clientelle, and problem solved = no more ads for the pop-up blocker to block!

On the flip side...this is one of those cases where you would almost expect them to get it right. But again, it is Microsoft.

No

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

According to TFA:

"The software would also free advertising from its traditional browser yoke. "A word processor may display a banner ad along the top of a window, similar to a toolbar, while a graphical ad may be displayed in a frame associated with the application. A digital editor for photos or movies may support video-based advertisements," the patent application says.

So no, Adblock in its current form wouldn't do squat.

Re:No

[trolltalk.com]

"The software would also free advertising from its traditional browser yoke. "A word processor may display a banner ad along the top of a window, similar to a toolbar, while a graphical ad may be displayed in a frame associated with the application. A digital editor for photos or movies may support video-based advertisements," the patent application says."

Prior art: The original Realplayer. Freeware products have been doing this for more than a decade. It was a dumb idea then, its a dumb idea now.

Re:No

[griffjon]

Privoxy, on the other hand, may quickly be able to prevent this hassle. Or a well trained firewall. Or, of course, using an OS that spends its cycles providing you with utility, productivity, information and eye candy, rather than advertisements. But who'd want that?

free oS in the offing?

[dotpavan]

not sure that "paying" users (both corporate and average Joe sixpack) would be forced with these ads.. it seems (guess work) MS "might" come out with a free OS and bank on the ad-generated revenue to compete with Linux (and other OS) and reduce piracy in the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) nations. remember the ad-based OS launched in Brazil?

this might be the mother of all adware, but MS might get to say "who's your daddy?"

Re:free oS in the offing?

[Control Group]

I seem to remember ad supported internet, which didn't really go anywhere.

That depends on your definition of "go anywhere." NetZero the organization is still around, but NetZero the 100% ad-supported ISP model is no longer extant.

Re:free oS in the offing?

[dreamchaser]

Advertising to people who can barely afford a computer and can't afford one with an OS probably isn't all that lucrative.

no way

[hardtofindanick]

Clearly MS won't follow this since it does not fit their business model. Like most of their patents they are patenting this so others wont be able to do it easily.

Re:no way

[Prof.Phreak]

Like most of their patents they are patenting this so others wont be able to do it easily.

Indeed. Google desktop is just one step away from stepping into this patent.

Hmm...

[MeanderingMind]

Another reason to avoid upgrading to Windows Vista I guess.

Seriously, I understand that there's a certain amount of information that needs to be passed to Microsoft from Windows in order to fascilitate auto-updates, and maintain their (somewhat silly) protection against the "ship of Thesius" computer upgrade. That's all well and good, and understandably within the jurisdiction of the OS.

Scanning my harddrive for its contents in order to advertise to me is NOT something that is within the bounds of an OS's MO. This is an invasion of privacy.

Oh no!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no! My Windows machine screen is full up with porn advertisements

Re:Oh no!

[trolltalk.com]

"Oh no! My Windows machine screen is full up with porn advertisements"

You mean that their "ad framework" is an unpatched copy if Internet Explorer? I think there's a LOT of prior art on that one, from drive-by installs, malware, viruses, trojans, etc.

..if it's done right...

[KeyThing]

Wouldn't it somewhat prevent other people from creating the same sort of Adware? If it gets approved, would MS send a floor of lawyers over to some Adware company and demand payments for infrigement? Would lawsuits or potential lawsuits scare enough of these scumbags (not the MS Scumbags) away from the business?

This shall be an interesting one to follow.

If MS wants to shoot themselves in the foot

[grasshoppa]

...I say let them. There is no way my organization would ever stand for this sort of data mining; They'll leave windows far far behind before this happens.

That said, for a company of MS's financial strength, filing a patent is a trivial process; Therefore they will patent what they think of and consider it a resource to be used for whatever purpose at a later date. I highly doubt they actually have plans to put this in an OS.

I've been wrong before of course.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Belacgod]

You'll have agreed to this in the EULA. Under the section where they reserve the right to install whatever updates they like.

I don't think this is going into Vista

[lena_10326]

It seems apparent to me Microsoft is filing ad patents because they intend to release a free or almost free version of a Vista-lite that's loaded with ad serving software to cover the expense loss. Inserting ad malware into their flagship product would be suicide. They're not that stupid.

Microsoft probably intends to compete with free Linux with a free Windows OS.

Yes, they will but...

[neoshroom]

I wonder, if my hard drive is filled with pirated Microsoft software, will they show me advertisements for The Pirate Bay?

Yes, you will get advertising for The Pirate Bay, but don't be fooled -- every other computer near you will get advertisements for the BSA.

Re:Yes, they will but...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"Yes, you will get advertising for The Pirate Bay, but don't be fooled -- every other computer near you will get advertisements for the BSA."

And then I'll start getting advertisements offering to have Jack Abramoff simultaneously lobby for and against my defense.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Soko]

You'll have agreed to this in the EULA. Under the section where they reserve the right to install whatever updates they like.

Oh, that'll fly.

*in the nebulous future*

Me: Well, in order to get the latest security update, we have to install the service that scans our hard drives in order to provide targeted advertising.
CIO: What? Repeat that.
Me: Ummm. Well, Microsoft's latest service pack installs a service that gathers information from the files on your hard disks in order to provide more targeted ads an-
CIO: Like FUCK it does. I don't fucking care how you do it, block that fucker from running. You go do that now - I'm calling our Microsoft rep to have a little chat...

As far as I can see, this will die on the vine.

Amen!

[iknownuttin]

Frankly, I'm in favor of having all of my advertising porn themed

Damn straight! Do you know how hard it is to find hairy, MILF, natural boobs and stocking porn!?!

Noooooo. They either (most of the time) shave it, have young chicks, chicks with the cartoonish big boobs, stockings and shaved, etc.....

Sorry, I don't want my porn to look like child porn - I want grass on the infield AND wrinkles AND stockings AND real boobs. God, who the fuck came up with today's porn!

Re:Don't give your dribe to M$

[fr4nk]

especially because I never gave permission to M$ to read it
Well, if you actually have the software mentioned in TFA installed, you most likely have accepted to some sort of EULA or contract allowing it to use your data...

This is good

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Just like no sane criminal wants to compete with the Mafia, yet will work against cops, I can imagine that Microsoft will squelch freelance adware/malware vendors in a way the authorities cannot.

Re:More reasons

[solevita]

Let's hope someone gets this bad boy working under WINE.


/Sarcasm

Maybe for different versions of Windows

[flanksteak]

This strikes me as too intrusive for anyone to accept on a paid piece of software, but maybe MS is considering someday giving Windows away for free in exchange for the user having to watch ads? They already know that people pirate their products and no matter what they do, someone will crack the piracy. Someone will probably crack the ad stuff, too, but Aunt Tillie may not mind if she can get a cheap box that let's her send email and exchange pictures of her rose bushes and grandkids.

Or MS will give up the "cripple your unlicensed windows copy" and just turn on ads if you fail WGA. Piracy problem solved. Download it and watch ads, or pay us and don't. Either way you can still surf the web and play solitaire.

I suppose there's also the possibility of using something like this on kiosks or other public and/or shared terminals.

There has to be more to this than just sticking ads on licensed copies of Windows.

Not "patented" but "applied for a patent"

[Anonymous EPA]

There is a world of difference. Anyone can apply for a patent for anything, no matter how old or obvious, and their application will be published - even in the US now that US patent law is like that almost everywhere else. If I filed a patent application for a cheese sandwich, it would be published, but I doubt it would be granted.

Routine publication is a Good Thing. It gives others who know that the alleged invention is not new (there is so-called "prior art") the chance to bring it to the attention of the examiner. It also means that applications in other patent offices can be sought out (easily and for free using esp@cenet) and opposed if need be.

Crying that someone has patented something just because they have an application published is not a Good Thing. It is crying wolf, and has the potential to make people take no notice of the really important bad patent applications.

I agree that the idea stinks, but I do not know whether it is better a free-for-all or something that MS can limit to itself.

The above is why I choose to be an *anonymous* European Patent Attorney - I handle patents for software implemented inventions. I do not like all of them (and sometimes tell my clients so) but it is a legally made living.

Adding a few words

[Andy_R]

Given that patents can be awarded for '(existing idea) but on the internet', I wonder if the formulation '(existing idea) over my dead body' is also allowable?

Might Not Be Evil

[logicnazi]

Sure implementing this patent would be pretty damn evil and intrusive IF it was just foisted on the public. However, we have no reason to believe MS intends to do anything of the kind.

For starters they may be patenting this 'technology' (it's kinda obvious) defensively to prevent other people from implementing it (even as an 3rd party addition to windows). Alternatively they may be planning to offer special free computers to people who agree to be subject to this sort of invasive advertising. I don't like the idea myself but if other people are fairly informed and want to get their free computer anyway why should I tell them they shouldn't?

Conclusion.

[neoshroom]

The only thing between us and quiet dinners is a patent on telemarketing.

The only thing between us and world peace is a patent on warfare.

And, the only thing between me and a karma deficit is a patent on insightful commentary.

Re:Conclusion.

[another_fanboy]

The only thing between us and annoying patents is a patent on patenting.

I've grown to despise advertising

[Floritard]

I stopped watching television altogether a few years ago, aside from the occasional SNL when I remember it's on (yea I know, SNL isn't funny, save it). I just find the commercials really disgusting. Whenever I do catch tv now, say when I get bored of staring at my thumbs while visiting relitives, the ads really make me queasy, physically not figuratively. Something about the rapid ramp up of music and the incessant talking, those earworm jingles. There's no silence between commercials anymore, not even a small blip. One just feeds right into the next with their micro-plots and wild changes of tone. It bothers me that so much talent and work goes into making something so disposable. They're really engineered at a fundamental level to get into your mind and stay there, and I think that's something way more insidious than most people realize.

The other day I went into best buy and bought a $30 bluetooth adapter. The cashier asked if I wanted a $10 2-year warranty on the thing. I firmly declined and as she went on explaining the benefits of this program I felt less and less happy to be shopping in a brick & mortar store. The cashier was just doing her job but I still wanted to strangle whatever marketting exec makes them do that. I find generally all advertising really off-putting anymore. I know what the hell I want to buy, I don't get sold things. I'll take a psych test to prove it. I know it works well on lots of sheeple, but let me opt out damn you.

My point is, I'm getting pretty hostile to marketting, and as far as I can help it I won't have any more business with MS if they engage seriously in this strategy. There's enough spam out there, it really doesn't belong anywhere in a fundamental part of an OS.

Google Block. More M$ FUD on the Way.

[twitter]

We can only hope that this makes it into an early service pack for Vista, and that Microsoft announces it poorly, resulting wholesale defection of their corporate user-base to Apple and Linux-based desktops.

We can only hope this is what Ballmer means by M$ services. The whole crapware industry that Softies point to when it comes to Dell selling gnu/linux is prior art, but that has never kept M$ from claiming invention.

A more disturbing possibility is they only obviously implement this on crappy free ware versions of Windoze and then claim Google is violating their patents. This would be both a FUD and judicial assault, much like the SCO case. They will, of course, continue the worst practices themselves while claiming innocence and smearing everyone else.

Does anyone need more evidence to abandon non free software?

Re:microsoft to users

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"involving your ass with some ascii: Microsoft -> you (pre-patent) ( o ) microsoft -> you (post-patent) ( O ) any questions?"

Are you saying my fluffy bunny tail will get even fluffier after the patent? Woohoo!!!

Isn't it obvious?

[Control Group]

I suppose it could just be me, but it sure seems obvious what they're doing here. They're trying to acquire a patent defense against Google. Google's raking them over the coals about desktop search - and it's pretty clear how Google would go about making money off desktop search: targeted advertising.

So Microsoft is trying to get a defensive patent to prevent Google from leveraging the OS as an ad-serving mechanism. The proximate motive for this is, I believe, probably to use as ammo against Google in the current dispute, and certainly in the inevitable near- and mid-term disputes.

Which is not to say that MS itself won't implement a tech like this in some fashion at some point, but I'm in agreement with some other posters that it will be a free/cheap version of Windows. They're just not short-sighted enough to try and shovel this into the enterprise; it would be the end of Windows upgrades for business if they did.

Re:Let me get this straight

[Target Drone]

Microsoft will likely not use this anywhere except their home edition, and they will probably reduce the price of the OS to make it a little more palatable to consumers

I used to work for an ISP that offered free Internet but you had to run their app that displayed ads while you were connected. After the dot com crash advertising rates were too low and they offered two different services. A $7/month with ads and a $10/month with no ads. All of the customers took the $10/month option. It seems that people are wiling to tolerate ads to get something for free but if it's a pay product then they'd rather pay more to get it without the ads.

So if Microsoft uses this they should give Windows/Office/whatever away for free.

Thank you for your offer, but screw you

[tepples]

Microsoft:

Here's this OS. You see, it's a $1200 OS. You have 2 choices:

1) $600 + adware. See, you get a discount, so it's OK for us to spy on you.
2) $1200, without adware. 3) Thank you for your offer, Mr. Gates, but intercourse you, I'm buying a $1000 PC and installing Ubuntu.
4) Thank you for your offer, Mr. Gates, but intercourse you, I'm buying a Mac.

Trusted Network Connect

[tepples]

Microsoft can't make it part of my operating system. I won't let their system anywhere near my hardware. And within a decade, the two high-speed ISPs in your area won't let any OS that hasn't been digitally signed by Microsoft Corp or Apple Inc anywhere near its last mile because free or cracked operating systems fail its Trusted Network Connect tests.

Re:Trusted Network Connect

[wirelessbuzzers]

I don't understand you people. It's a possibility that open-source software soon won't be able to play mainstream movies. (It can't legally play them now, IIRC, but that doesn't stop anyone.) Linux already can't run most commercial software, at least not without messy and dubiously-legal WINE hacking. But ISPs cutting off network services? Websites refusing to connect to open source browsers or operating systems? Laptops that block Linux installations? These are exceedingly unlikely.

Why? Because all ISPs, all computer vendors and most websites have a strong commercial incentive to allow users access, regardless of their software. You pay your ISP for a connection, and in general they don't give a shit how you use it, as long as they're not missing an opportunity to upsell you. Computer vendors want to sell you hardware; they don't care what you run on said hardware as long as they don't have to provide tech support. Commerce websites don't care what you're running as long as you buy stuff. Other websites care that you're not running an ad blocker, but that's about it.

Of course, Microsoft could bribe or blackmail these guys, but that'd get shot down faster than you can say "RICO". There are enough Linux sympathizers in the corporate world to bankroll the lawsuit, too.

Palladium has been around for two years, and all we've seen with it is enterprise security. Yes, they'll probably use it for DRM eventually. I know, you have to be vigilant, but that doesn't mean you have to be paranoid.

And yes, I run Linux.

Re:Trusted Network Connect

[tepples]

all ISPs, all computer vendors and most websites have a strong commercial incentive to allow users access Residential Internet service providers also have a strong commercial incentive to keep malware off their networks and off their other customers' PCs, and if Trusted Computing proponents manage to convince e.g. Comcast and Verizon that Trusted Network Connect can do that, then Trusted Network Connect it is.

Computer vendors want to sell you hardware; they don't care what you run on said hardware Tell that to Sony Computer Entertainment, maker of the PSP handheld computer.

Who says you will get a choice in the matter?

[jmorris42]

> 3) Thank you for your offer, Mr. Gates, but intercourse you, I'm buying a $1000 PC and installing Ubuntu.

Nice sentiment but take a moment to consider what the actual offer will be:

Option #1, the Dell M-Box, brought to you by Pepsi (this month, next month another sponsor....).

Plays mainstream media. Meaning everything on sale at Best Buy/Walmart in the movie, music and games depts. Cable TV will be delivered through it. Allowed to connect to the Internet and perform E-Commerce, required for E-Voting, filing your taxes and renewing your driver's license. Can run Microsoft Office, required to interchange documents via Microsoft Hotmail, the only approved mail service since they merged with the Postal Service. The only way to transfer content to your iPod. (Even in a total distopia I can't see the Zune beating the iPod at this point.)

Not allowed to run any unsigned binaries.

Option #2,

Buy a PC on the grey market and install Ubuntu. You can run anything you like but you won't connect to the Internet with it, at least legally. There will be hacks to allow basic IP access but no major website will allow you to connect because your browser won't bear the mark of the beast. Generate too much traffic out on the dark net and you will get noticed so P2P will be right out. Warez will of course not cease, just return to face to face exchange of really high capacity media, Linux will of course be part of that warez scene since after the Patent Wars any useful program will be in violation of at least one and therefore illegal to traffic in and also comply with the GPL.

Now, how many people will actually pick Option #2? They won't even have to police the gray market too hard, no more than they pretend to fight the War on Some Drugs. Just the social stigma of being outlaw will keep it safely contained to a ghetto.

Re:Who says you will get a choice in the matter?

[tepples]

Nice sentiment but take a moment to consider what the actual offer will be:

Option #1, [a video game console.] Option #2, [a PC as we know it, running GNU OS. The vast majority of web sites will be made compatible only with video game consoles.] Given the number of businesses whose servers run Solaris, BSD, or GNU operating systems, how would this fly?

Microsoft Hotmail, the only approved mail service since they merged with the Postal Service. United States Postal Service is a public utility. Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. How would this fly, except perhaps under President JEB? And how would it fly for communication between the United States of America and other countries?

Linux will of course be part of that warez scene since after the Patent Wars any useful program will be in violation of at least one IBM distributes pieces of a GNU OS for its servers. Those pieces under GPLv3 come with patent licenses. And how are you sure that the patent wars won't end with the majority of these patents invalidated on account of obviousness given the prior art or just plain reading on prior art?

Re:Google Block. More M$ FUD on the Way.

[Macthorpe]

Yes, because Apple are the epitome of niceness. They've never locked anyone in to a format, platform or device.

Re:What's with the anti-advertizing knee-jerk?

[wm_brant]

Advertising is visual pollution. It is meant to catch your attention i.e., distract you from what you were looking at. I don't have enough time already to do the things I want without being interrupted by advertising.

If I want to research something, I will. If I want to buy something, I will. But I am going to buy something, I will choose the product I want, based on the results of my research. I deliberately ignore advertising because it is inherently biased. It's the visual equivalent of propaganda, and I do not listen to, nor watch, nor read, propaganda. If you like to watch propaganda, please feel free, but it's not for me.

I watch -- maybe -- about 3 hours of television a week, and it's never the same show. And I still find the ads repetitive, repugnant, and counter-productive -- I find that I actively dislike the companies that try to grab my attention to sell me something that I either already have, don't want, or don't need.

I also don't listen to radio and I rarely notice the ads in newspapers and magazines. I block ads in my browsers, and keep my computers adware-free.

If you feel the need to buy the latest of a never-ending stream of 'gotta-have' (not!) gadgets, please feel free to let marketers manipulate your emotions so you feel you cannot live without their product. And, by the way, has owning any of those 'gotta-haves' *really* make you happier after the initial warm and fuzzy feelings leave?

FWIW, I once spent a few hours working with the Amazon recommendation system to try to get it to recommend something that I was actually interested in. I entered a fair number of the books I own, the DVDs that I own, and other things that they sell. End result: it never came up with a recommendation that I thought was worthwhile, or I didn't already own. Then I went back, and removed all my ratings, and never looked at the recommendations again. I'm a complex person. My wife -- despite trying for many years -- could never find a gift for me that I really liked. No computer-based system will ever be as good as she was, which wasn't very good.

I recognize that my values and attitudes are not held by many. However, they are *my* values and attitudes, and I will stick with them. If M$ thinks I will *ever* buy a system with crapware like they are trying to patent in it, they are wrong.

Looks like Linus, OS X, and Google (if they are planning to build an OS) will be picking up lots of market share.

    -- Bill

In your bizarre, paranoid fantasy

[jaypaulw]

In your bizarre, paranoid fantasy when does Apple stop making computers? Amongst a million other issues.

I think it's called a "false dichotomy"

JP