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?"

23 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 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.
    6. 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"?

  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 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. 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
  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.

  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. 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
  10. Yes by CSMatt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are Microsoft's patent and intellectual property threats simply the growls of a paper tiger? Yes.
  11. 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.