Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

80% of MS Server Protocols Are Unpatented

Posted by timothy on from the minefield-aerobics dept.

perlow writes "ZDNet blogger Jason Perlow and Centrify's Tom Kemp discover that 80 percent of all Microsoft server protocols are un-patented. What exactly then, did SAMBA license? Are Microsoft's patent and intellectual property threats simply the growls of a paper tiger?"

41 of 136 comments (clear)

  1. Microsoft Tax by Tuoqui · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...is what they licensed

    --
    09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
    +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
  2. As a wild guess... by Goaway · · Score: 3, Informative

    Perhaps they licensed the 20%?

    1. Re:As a wild guess... by PMuse · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's a little like licensing a sewer system in which nothing is patented except the toilets. That last 20% makes all the difference in the world.

      --
      "We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
    2. Re:As a wild guess... by bazald · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well that is a weird analogy. Just to play devil's advocate, if someone wanted to license a sewer system, what possible use could they have for accessing the neighborhood toilets, from the direction of the sewer, no less?

      --
      Insert self-referential sig here.
    3. Re:As a wild guess... by SL+Baur · · Score: 5, Funny

      Google has the patent on toilets used for a server protocol. See http://www.google.com/tisp/index.html

    4. Re:As a wild guess... by gnick · · Score: 4, Funny

      Some of their patents are on extremely useful ideas. For example, a few years back, they patented a method for allowing user processes to perform actions with Administrator privileges. Don't you Linux fans wish that you could license something like that?

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    5. Re:As a wild guess... by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps if you wanted to implement a system where nonsubscribers had limits to the volume or frequency of their flushes?

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    6. Re:As a wild guess... by grcumb · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's a little like licensing a sewer system in which nothing is patented except the toilets. That last 20% makes all the difference in the world.

      I don't know where you live, but in my world the toilets are the first 20% of the sewer system, not the last. I really wouldn't want to have it any other way.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    7. Re:As a wild guess... by ozbird · · Score: 4, Funny

      ... what possible use could they have for accessing the neighborhood toilets, from the direction of the sewer, no less?

      Uh, "backdoor access"?

    8. Re:As a wild guess... by colinrichardday · · Score: 2, Informative

      It sounds more like the setuid bit, which was patented by ATT (now in public domain).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setuid

    9. Re:As a wild guess... by Buchenskjoll · · Score: 2, Funny

      You lost me there. Could you please do a car analogy?

      --
      -- Make America hate again!
  3. It makes sense ... by utnapistim · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... afterall, to patent them, they would need to describe them :)

    --
    Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    1. Re:It makes sense ... by KiltedKnight · · Score: 3, Funny
      You're making the assumption that even they know exactly what their protocols do, too.

      --
      OCO is Loco
    2. Re:It makes sense ... by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't there that myth that some win95 code was ported to win98 just because nobody knew what it did?

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    3. Re:It makes sense ... by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful
      they would need to describe them

      These days with the patent office handing out patents like candy, you don't even have to do that. For instance, in the firehose there's been this story for a while http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=631632 "Flip Video Camera Maker Sued For Patent Infringeme" Regarding this patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5781788.PN.&OS=PN/5781788&RS=PN/5781788

      So without further ado, Claim #1 of the patent:

      1. A video codec, comprising:

      a single semiconductor chip providing for a video input connection from a camera and a video output connection to a monitor of decompressed data, and a transmit channel and a receive channel of compressed data;

      an interface connected to the chip for external connection to a separate frame memory dynamic random access memory (DRAM) and that provides for interim storage of incoming and outgoing video data; and

      a video compressor/decompressor disposed fully within the chip and connected to compress video information received from said video input connection for output on said transmit channel, and connected to decompress video information received from said receive channel for output on said video output connection;

      wherein, said compression of video information is by spatial de-correlation of intraframe information and temporal decorrelation of interframe information, and said transmit and receive channels have communication channel bit rates reduced by quantization and variable length coding
      So. Based on that, how does one compress video using a single chip (the patent has absolutely NOTHING about its implementation)? Being able to show that might make it actually look like the company actually invented something, instead, rendered to its most basic element, the patent says "anything that does stuff using only one chip plus DRAM" which is something an 8 year old could come up with, without even knowing what DRAM means.

      The patent office has long since slid past allowing "crap" to churning out patents of "pure unadulterated bullshit".
      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    4. Re:It makes sense ... by Amouth · · Score: 2

      if you ver played with writing VXD's.. then you would better agree that that isn't exactly a myth.. no one person could posiably know what some of that shit did

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    5. Re:It makes sense ... by sed+quid+in+infernos · · Score: 2, Informative

      So. Based on that, how does one compress video using a single chip (the patent has absolutely NOTHING about its implementation)?

      The claims generally do not contain information that tells someone how to use the invention. Instead, the patent specification must include disclosure sufficient to allow a person with ordinary skill in the relevant art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. If known, the best mode of implementing the invention must be disclosed in the application. Neither type of disclosure typically occurs within the claims.

      In the patent application you linked, there is a section called "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS" that contains extensive instructions on implementing the invention. It includes pseudocode, numerous diagrams, and other technical data. Whether it is enough to allow someone in the field to compress video using a single chip, I can't say. But it's significantly more detail than the quoted portion of the claims in the post above.

      It's very possible that large numbers of patents are gaining approval without containing sufficient disclosure. But the evidence of that does not exist in the claims of those patents, and arguments based on the claims themselves that don't even acknowledge the disclosure of the preferred embodiments hinder the cause of patent reform.

    6. Re:It makes sense ... by Saxmachine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So. Based on that, how does one compress video using a single chip (the patent has absolutely NOTHING about its implementation)? Clarification: do you mean "How does one take this description and turn it into an implementation?" or "How does one implement such a basic and obvious task without infringing on this patent?"
  4. Ok U'm stupid today by sm62704 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should a server protocol be patented? A patent should be for something you don't want copied. If I were selling servers I'd want to interoperate with clients and other servers.

    Oh, Microsoft. Never mind, my bad.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:Ok U'm stupid today by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, a trade secret is for something you don't want copied. A patent is for something where you want to make money off of the copies.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Ok U'm stupid today by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Now, why would you want to do THAT?

      Interoperating with other clients just leads to other software on your client machines, stuff like OS X, or Linux for instance. Not good for Windows sales. Not to mention that you would have to disclose all the nastiness of the protocols to 'let' them work. Not good.

      Not to mention also that you could well be enhancing other server OS makers' market share, say, for instance you were willing to let the Novell Client for Windows actually work properly with your Windows servers. This would just those crazy kids over at Novell to keep at it, improving NetWare and making Windows look less good than it could look.

      And interoperating with other servers? Bah! (wiggle your paw here for effect.) Why on earth do you want any other server OS to even *appear* useful? It shouldn't be interoperating with your Windows servers, forsooth! They'll get the idea that other servers are even possible, and customers will start using other servers for special purposes, you know, like print spooling, or simple file sharing, e-mail, web serving, database hosting, even authentication. Why, Windows servers wouldn't even be necessary then...

      This was pretty much settled in the 90s. Windows took many opportunities to drive stakes in the hearts of every server OS competitor out there, by breaking their own protocols, not disclosing the accurate APIs of networking with Windows, sometimes even making claims about how some servers 'couldn't' work with Windows.

      And you only need to patent the 20% (maybe just 5%) of the core protocols to deny the world any useful interoperability. You know some Windows Server marketing type was lying awake at night knowing how many Server 2000 machines were out there in 'mixed mode', letting all manner of competitors co-exist happily. Arghh!!!

      You're not stupid today, just a litle naive. You're not alone, and it doesn't cost too much more to be that way when it comes to servers. I sense you are coming to your senses, a veil is being lifted... :-)

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    3. Re:Ok U'm stupid today by Kjellander · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except, in the case of real inventions, like a toaster for instance, you only have to deal with a couple of patents if you want to build a new one.

      With software patents, you have to deal with every single patent on software ever, and there are more patents issued than you can read in say, a year. And there are more to come.

      And what is the difference between patenting an algorithm and patenting "1+1=2"? The fact that math wasn't patented 2000+ years ago is a good thing for you and me.

  5. It only takes one... by eison · · Score: 4, Insightful

    99% could be unpatented, it only takes one patent to ruin you.

    --
    is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
    1. Re:It only takes one... by Minwee · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...and despite repeated requests, they won't tell you which one actually is patented. They will only say that you have infringed upon it.

  6. WTF? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ZDNet blogger Jason Perlow and Centrify's Tom Kemp discover that 80 percent of all Microsoft server protocols are un-patented. What exactly then, did SAMBA license?

    Is this article trying to present me with the logic: 80% of protocols are un-patented, therefore SMB is un-patented?

    Because I don't see how that follows at all. Is SMB part of the 80% or part of the 20%? If you want to know what SAMBA licensed, why don't you just ask them? I'm sure they'd know...

    --
    Comment of the year
    1. Re:WTF? by jez9999 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd wager dollars to donuts that it isn't patented

      Really? I'd be a bit more confident than that. Donuts are pretty expensive compared to the dollar nowadays...

      --
      == Jez ==
      Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
    2. Re:WTF? by ischorr · · Score: 4, Informative

      I agree, it does seem like they're trying to imply that there's only a 1 out of 5 chance that anything related to the Samba technical detail licensing is patented.

      Here is a relevant link:

      http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/ - The Samba licensing announcement.

      The announcement has a lot of ambiguities (and IANAL), but it appears hey agreed that:

      1) Samba Team members would receive access to protocol documentation. This information would only be available to Samba Team members, and available only under NDA
      2) Access to information would not restrict CODE that could be produced using this information
      3) It does not provide any patent coverage.
      4) However, Microsoft would provide a list of patents covering the protocols used by Samba, and keep the list updated. This provides Samba folks a way to understand exactly what methods to avoid - which infringe patents.
      5) Microsoft agreed that any patents not detailed in this list and found to be infringed cannot be "asserted" by Microsoft.

      Presumably, there are items that MS will provide for #4, so there are patents that relate to Samba.

    3. Re:WTF? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right. The PFIF agreement contains a section called "Exhibit A", which details all the protocols covered by the agreement, including the SMB and CIFS protocols.

      Note that Samba 3 does not just implement SMB -- it implements CIFS, MSDFS, several challenge-response and key-exchange protocols, Microsoft's extensions to Kerberos for ADS integration, some stuff to support point-and-print, etc. In addition, Samba 4, which focuses on being an ADS server, implements several more important Microsoft protocols required to support serving ActiveDirectory.

      Samba does a LOT more than SMB, as you can see.

      However, the list isn't a comprehensive list of protocols that are covered by patents. As you say, they're not licensing the patents, they're just providing documentation under NDA and agreeing not to sue and to indemnify against third-party suits.

      That being said, I really doubt that SMBv1 is patented by Microsoft. It originates with the unholy IBM/Microsoft marriage, and even then, it's derived from some old DEC protocol. I doubt very much that anybody has any patents on SMBv1 that have survived to date.

      --
      My blog
  7. This is Protection Money by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Funny

    To keep Ballmer from tossing chairs at Andrew!

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  8. Shipping code precludes patenting by dpilot · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is obvious, but since nobody has said it, and since this specific topic hasn't come up yet on other /. patent discussions...

    IANAL, but...

    Shipping your product is equivalent to publication. It start a timer, 1 year in some places, 6 months in others. You have to have your patent applications into the office within that time, or the art is considered "published" and can never be patented. The definition of "shipping" can be pretty darned nebulous, as well. Sending out a beta with a regular NDA is also probably considered publication. You've got to get quite a bit more serious about the restrictions to have a hope of preserving patent rights, from what I understand, and it fact it may be just plain impossible, once it goes out your doors.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  9. Wikipedia to the rescue by mikehoskins · · Score: 2, Informative

    If I'm reading Wikipedia correctly, SMB1 is an IBM invention, while SMB2 is Microsoft's, but with backward compatibility. If that's true, it's murky gray...
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Message_Block

  10. Re:I hope someone will tag the OP as flamebait... by zappepcs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well, actually Mr AC, it doesn't have to be skewed against MS. As it happens, it is nearly always skewed against MS because historically speaking, MS has always been screwing other people. Did your grandma ever tell you that story about the little boy who cried wolf too much?

    MS has extinguished competitors, acted unethically for long enough that people don't trust MS to have done anything right or correctly. That's normal people. /. users hate MS even more because it's fun, and well... MS earned it.

    Bad news always travels farther and faster than good news. MS would have to do a lot of good things to reverse their reputation. So that's how it is. No matter what the story is actually about, if it involves MS it will be expected that MS has fucked up again somehow.

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
  11. Same Old Microsoft Crap by HermMunster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anything that threatens their desktop or server OS market is a target of the most obscene threats, even those that could result in criminal prosecution if they were ever discovered to be done with malice in order to protect their monopoly.

    Threats are Microsoft's business of the day. That's their plan for the future to thwart off all competition to their desktop OS. No matter that they begged, borrowed, and stole 90% of the ideas that went into it. If you can't compete any longer you litigate, or threaten to in order to have customers potentially switching to the competition stop in their tracks.

    Those in their right mind knew this was just blather from the Ballmer, but it is enough to get companies re-examining their plans.

    You can't trust Microsoft and you can't trust that they won't try to patent what they have failed to patent so far. Nor can you keep them from changing things once you have developed around them. You all saw the sheer bullshit with the ISO so you must understand that they are far more devious than this in other areas. We as the watchful eye haven't had a chance yet to gaze into their other practices, the real practices that keep people locked into their technologies.

    --
    You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  12. Yes by CSMatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are Microsoft's patent and intellectual property threats simply the growls of a paper tiger? Yes.
  13. Ok, this just gets dumber and dumber... by TheNetAvenger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The 'Protocols' have ALWAYS been fairly open for MS Server products.

    The part that SAMBA is licensing and NEEDS to license is when they are implementing features normally found in Windows Server that are not open.

    Off top of my head I would guess these would be:

    ACL & Security
    Group Policy Features
    Domain Features
    Roaming Profiles, etc.
    FS Search Network Queries ala Vista/Windows Desktop Search

    etc etc etc...

    The freaking communications and protocols are never been a big MS secret, as they are just evolutionary methods, it is the guts that SAMBA also tries to provide that has always been 'reverse engineered' and is now 'licensed' instead.

    Geesh...

  14. Patented = Documented by EXTomar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I always thought the classic reason why a company wouldn't patent a proven technology is to avoid documenting it. To file for the patent you would need to document critical detail and behavior which could be something the competition could read up on and build new products on the idea. Or in other words, if they never file for the patent they never have to claim it exists. Keeping it off the books keeps it obscure and keeps it theirs.

    1. Re:Patented = Documented by deander2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      you obviously haven't read many recent patent apps. not describing implementation details is the norm. (often the patent holder doesn't even bother coming up with an implementation...just hopes to piggy-back on the work of real engineers)

      --
      http://kered.org
  15. Re:Samba Licensing... by ratboy666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The "protocol" used with the flat-head screw driver is a slit. There are two parts - the screwdriver (which can be patented) and the screw (which can be patented). The slit (protocol)?

    As you pointed out, a coin can be used instead of the screwdriver. And the receptor may be something other than a screw (say, a snap-tab).

    Is the slit itself patentable?

    --
    Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  16. I knew that by Ozric · · Score: 2, Funny

    OH wait.....

    I misread, I thought it said unexplained.

    My Bad

  17. Re:MS protocols by Allador · · Score: 2, Informative

    Large companies like MS and IBM dont generally collect patents so that they can stop other people from using or licensing them.

    They collect them so that they have a weapon to use against other companies, both in offense and in defense.

    There are so many nonsense patents out there that just about every product could be considered to be in infringement.

    So if something comes up, and IBM says to Microsoft, you're using one of our patented ideas, you'll need to pay us. MS then comes back with, Oh but you're also using 20 of our patented concepts.

    Let's negotiate a patent licensing agreement.

    Whoever has the most or the best patents ends up being on the winning side of that dollar figure.

    And until the patent law changes, businesses have no choice. If you dont have a patent warchest, then some other company that does have one will be able to bully you. It's a defense mechanism in that sense, and absolutely necessary for large companies like Microsoft.

    I'm not saying its right or good, but in the current legal environment, it is necessary.

  18. The Samba team have NOT licensed any MS patents by Neil · · Score: 2, Informative

    The summary is misleading or mistaken.

    The Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF) made a one-off copyright payment of 10,000 Euros to Microsoft in return for documentation of the protocols. The PFIF is allowed to pass on to the Samba developers information gleaned from the documentation, and the Samba developers are allowed to release source code based on what they have learnt.

    MS were required to offer this deal to all comers after they lost their European anti-trust legal case.

    The agreement requires MS to identify any patents that they hold which they believe relate to the protocols (this is so that the developers are not at risk of implementing something described in the documentation and finding themselves under legal attack based on a previously undisclosed MS patent).

    http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/

    MS offers a patent licensing program to go with the copyright licensing program, but neither the Samba developers nor anyone acting for them have taken that up (and couldn't even if they wished to - it involves per-copy royalties, which are GPL incompatible).