Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Patents the Crippling of Operating Systems
theodp writes "On Tuesday, Microsoft was granted US Patent No. 7,536,726 (it was filed in 2005) for intentionally crippling the functionality of an operating system by 'making selected portions and functionality of the operating system unavailable to the user or by limiting the user's ability to add software applications or device drivers to the computer' until an 'agreed upon sum of money' is paid to 'unlock or otherwise make available the restricted functionality.' According to Microsoft, this solves a 'problem inherent in open architecture systems,' i.e., 'they are generally licensed with complete use rights and/or functionality that may be beyond the need or desire of the system purchaser.' An additional problem with open architecture systems, Microsoft explains, is that 'virtually anyone can write an application that can be executed on the system.' Nice to see the USPTO rewarding Microsoft's eight problem-solving inventors, including Linux killer (and antelope killer) Joachim Kempin, who's been credited with getting Microsoft hauled into federal court on antitrust charges." Sounds like the mechanism by which Microsoft sells one version of Vista to all users, and lets users upgrade to higher-tier flavors of the OS after cash changes hands.
How can they patent this? Microsoft has all sorts of prior art.
Oh, wait.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
are going to have a field day.
They call this: Ransom
coffee | nose > keyboard
"Microsoft, Crippling Operating Systems Since 2005..."
They would rule the world with such a patent granted.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
The day Microsoft figures out a way to stop piracy of their OS is the day I switch to Linux.
There may be prior art for this in the mainframe or embedded-systems world.
Anyone think of anything?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2003/11/19/
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
Does MS actually think that *anybody* who makes an OS would want to do this (that isnt currently doing it, like themselves and.. anybody else?)?
As far as I know, the only real competition for Windows is MacOS and Linux variants...
It just goes to show how completely out of touch with reality they really are.
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
This is different than demos/shareware how?
Digital Sailor
They plan on implementing this on MS's new OS called: TIMMY!
Or does this read like the venture into a modularized price structure for an Operating System.
You want to Install Windows? $50
You want to Boot Windows? Another $50
You want to Install Applications? That'll be $100
You want to play Blu-Ray? That'll be another $50
You want sound on your Blu-Ray movie? Cough up $35
You want to use your peripherals? (Camera, webcam, ipod, printer, scanner) That'll be $10 per peripheral
After all, even the synopsis says "making selected portions and functionality of the operating system unavailable to the user or by limiting the user's ability to add software applications or device drivers to the computer' until an 'agreed upon sum of money' is paid to 'unlock or otherwise make available the restricted functionality.'", who's to say they don't want to make a Windows Core available for some low price, then add Multimedia capability as a $200 add-on, or Gaming Pack for $150, maybe a Video/Sound Editing pack for $300, or a Small Business Suite for $300?
Reads to me like MS is gonna kick the consumer in the junk, then take their wallet
You wanna know something. You suck!
ah, Billy Madison
Is the natural state for Microsoft code.
> 'they are generally licensed with complete use rights and/or functionality that may be beyond the need or desire of the system purchaser.'
If the functionality is beyond the purchaser's need or desire, why do you need to lock it away from them? If they have to pay you extra for that functionality, doesn't that imply that they really did need and desire those rights or functionality.
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
What id funny is how, when it comes to security, their OS is too much open (need to run in admin mode to be usable). They want to close it, but to restrict the user, not to make it more secure!
Also, how long will the public accept this ? This may be a very dangerous game, considering what happend woth the DRM debacle in the digital audio distribution.
... but it definitely isn't in other areas.
A number of NAS and SAN vendors ship products with features disabled on the OS until you pay a 'licensing fee' to unlock the features. NetApp, Isilon, and EMC/Clariion are just some I can think off the top of my head that do this.
Technically, it isn't quite the same as say, unlocking Windows 7 Ultimate from the Home version, but it's fairly common practice in the enterprise world.
"We'll need 2000 crickets, 4 cans of Easy Cheese, and the fluid from 18 glowsticks for this plan to work...." - ph0n1c
Well I doubt that Microsoft will ever sue Linux (users, distributors, etc) over the use of this patent.
I'd think there would be plenty of prior art, especially in the more general "software" category.
Shareware for one.
There was also a "windows 3.x" shell clone back in the day that was also distributed as shareware and I think that limited some functionality.
Crap...can't remember the name of it...Geo something (sadly...I've been feeling nostalgic and been reading up on old game consoles so the only terms that comes to mind...is neo geo...d'oh)
What about the Amiga system....the OS was on a chip...and you had to pay to get it or you just had a "limited" (VERY) functioning computer...(more like a big paperweight).
I'm sure there have been some other lesser known operating systems in the crevices of history that had this "limited functionality" (shareware) mentality.
I know this isn't popular, but maybe it's to stop malicious code? Instead of dumping Windows and starting over from scratch, it seems they are looking for an expedient way to shore up their OS while preserving all the legacy garbage they still support? And before you freak out, no, I don't think this is a good idea at all--I was just offering an alternative interpretation of why anybody would apply for such a patent.
Obviously not you if you've got this installed.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
It's time that Microsoft be fined right out of their socks. There have been too many instances of improper tactics to allow Microsoft to retain any wealth or value as a company.
They've patented product activation. You don't get the full app till you pay up, or find a crack.
Seriously, is this really any different than the countless other schemes for product activation that have been tried and found lacking over the years?
An additional problem with open architecture systems, Microsoft explains, is that 'virtually anyone can write an application that can be executed on the system.'
Well sure, let's fix that then. I have an experiment I'd like to try if this is the case.
Let's order up some Windows 7 and not pay. MS will remove my ability to install new programs on it, right?
Ta da! I'm now immune to viruses and worms. And all it took was not paying MS. So glad that one is finally solved completely. No new software can ever be run on my machine. I'm safe now.
Thanks guys.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
So if you create a virus that stops the functionality of your OS, is M$ gonna sue you for patent infringement?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Malware / trojan / virus writers have been doing this for years... locking up your computer files with encryption until you pay them money.
Just because it wasn't a "commercial" application, doesn't mean it's not prior art!
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
Although I have no problem with Microsoft holding a monopoly on this sort of "innovation", commercial operating systems have always had different levels of functionality that can be enabled or disabled. Sun's UNIX, for example, had a very complex set of rights to run compilers, debuggers, specify the number of CPUs, and otherwise limit the available features or products that could run, with many different types of licensing schemes (e.g. number of simultaneous users).
Now, maybe the MS patent details some particularly clever method of validating usage, or changing allowed usage, but this type of thing is definitely not new.
Remember the IBM mainframes where you "upgraded" your hardware to have more disk space or memory by the Customer Engineer flipping a switch?
It's amazing how much money and effort has been spent on making products do less for the customer, and making them less reliable in the process. Wouldn't we all be better off if all that had been used to produce systems that worked better? Instead of HDTV sets that can't display high-resolution images from your computer because it doesn't have the right version of HDMI, they could have actually improved the quality and decreased the price, all because we can't solve the free rider problem in a more elegant fashion. My TV set won't pass on the full digital audio from my Blu-Ray player's HDMI output to my amp, it downsamples it to PCM stereo, even though the Blu-Ray player is happy to send a full resolution optical digital audio stream to that same amp. It isn't a problem with the TV, it happily sends 5-channel audio to the amp from digital broadcasts. It's so stupid that we have to put up with this garbage all so one industry can maximize profits.
DEC Unix (aka DEC OSF/1 AXP, Compaq/HP Tru64 Unix) has done this since day one (and IIRC VMS did it before that). You have to enter License PAKs to get all kinds of functionality, including multi-user logins, development tools, cluster support, and AdvFS filesystem utilities.
... patent all the anti-user freedom crap and we'll all be using better systems (open source) sooner....
Don't they mean trademark? ;)
"Sounds like the mechanism by which Microsoft sells one version of Vista to all users, and lets users upgrade to higher-tier flavors of the OS after cash changes hands"
Yes please!
Okay, look, I'm not really interested in encouraging people to use MS Windows. But in those situations where I am forced to support it, having the ability to enable additional features on an as-needed basis would be vastly superior to having to license and install a whole different "edition" of the whole freakin' OS to get the same feature set. (You bought a new touchscreen monitor and you want to add tablet support to XP? Great, that'll be forty bucks, ten minutes, and we're all done. As opposed to now, when it officially requires an OS reinstall.)
Plus, having the ability to monetize services individually will - Lord forgive me for seeing a bright side here - will encourage Microsoft to ship with a minimal default install, which one would hope would lead to improved overall security.*
The patent is pretty laughable, though. It strikes me as a tad obvious.
[*: Yeah, okay, maybe that's a bit of a stretch. But hey, it could happen!]
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
... Microsoft is certainly the one that deserves it. They've been practicing at it longer than anybody else, starting with Windows XP nine years ago. This is one patent, sadly, that Microsoft actually earned.
Microsoft's patent practice is crippling the operating system as well as they have patented the process of crippling it.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Somebody paying to patent something no one else wants to do.
Uh, isn't there scads of prior art, specifically Shareware? Happens to be time-limited until it demands money. Or Doom which let you have the first portion until you paid them, then you got the remaining portions. And there's not much really different between an OS and any other program (fundamentally speaking...). Cheat codes in games?
The mention of device drivers makes me wonder. Are they going to start limiting the kinds of devices you can install based on the version of OS?
They already limit how many CPU sockets you can have based on the version, I wonder if they'll start limiting the kinds of video cards and such accessories based upon the version too...
Blog
I wodner if this could be challenged since patents are used, by definition (emphasis added), "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Essentially by making the OS crippled they are actually regressing the useful art of the OS. It'd by like trying to patent a fridge that made its contents warmer.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
MS is its own prior art!
Blackmailing?
Microsoft and it's victims, I mean customers, can keep this little jewel all to themselves!
Microsoft explains, is that 'virtually anyone can write an application that can be executed on the system.'
Shock horror, I wonder how much Micro$oft will charge users or developers to run opensource software on windows? or freeware/shareware. Damn altruistic programmers and their need to share their latest creations with humanity.
I thought they patented windows a long time ago. Hey ho.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
If memory serves me right, the only difference between a VAX-11/750 and a VAX-11/780 was an upgrade to the firmware floppy for one with all the CPU NO OPS taken out. And from what an engineer at the time told me, DEC stole the idea from IBM !
So vendors have been playing tricks like this since the late 80's.
So does this mean Microsoft is now the only company allowed to do this?
If you exclude the fact that we are talking about "operating system" as opposed to "applications software" there has been software written and distributed with all sorts of "pay to enable" functionalities for more than two decades. These patents that attempt to make the old into new by adding "on the internet" or "in an operating system" is pretty deceptive and shouldn't be considered any sort of newness or novel additive. Of course all software patents should be invalidated to begin with.
They know they can't win if you have the money to challenge it but they can sue you and force you out of business by having you spend all your money on lawyers defending yourself or intimidate you into paying their ransom.
It is just another weapon to use against competitors.
That's why they file all those junk patents.
It sounds like MS wants to charge us for every time we click on the UAC "Accept" button. Wow, the business reasons behind Vista's UAC feature finally make sense to me now. They should change that "ding" sound with a "cha-ching".
If you didn't know better, this sounds like a malware patent. Perhaps Microsoft are planning to shut malware writers down with patent infringement lawsuits. It does beg the question of who invented this crippleware concept as many have pointed out with shareware and malware both as prior art. Maybe some patent trolls funded by malware infections should have patented this first and sued Microsoft for infringement.
> An additional problem with open architecture systems, Microsoft explains, is that 'virtually anyone can write an application that can be executed on the system.'
Of my dear Lord! You wouldn't want someone not working for a duly licensed corporate entity to be able to write for your corporate approved operating system.
First Joe Sixpack will write something for his own computer and then the terrists.
That statement is un-farking-believable.
Is it just me or is corporations intentionally crippling their own products the epitome of free market failure?
Hey, that's fine. They can set as many limits as they want, I'll be smiling as I run Debian Linux and use my computer without ridiculous restrictions such as these.
This is the whole premise of Shareware... And doesn't RedHat, what was BeOS, and others offer free/"personal" versions of their OS, then also offer pay-for versions with more functionality?
from 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
to 45 2F 6E 40 3C DF 10 71 4E 41 DF AA 25 7D 31 3F
I was RIGHT ALL ALONG! They ARE against us!!!
If I were IBM, I'd be looking back at my own portfolio. IBM's been doing pay-to-unlock on their mainframe OSes since the 60s. They've even been doing it with their hardware. And I'd imagine they've got at least a couple of patents related to this stuffed away in their files.
There may be prior art for this in the mainframe or embedded-systems world.
The term of art is "feature protection". It's as old as mainframes.
(I believe it was a Univac where the difference between two models was a jumper that adjusted the clock rate. The info got out to the customers and one salesman was really embarrassed when he brought a prospective customer to an existing installation for a demo. The customer asked if he wanted to see it running as this model or that, pulling open a door and reaching for the jumper...)
One mainframe company I worked for put out a machine with multiple CPUs in it. The extras served as switch-in spares or for field upgrades if the customer paid to enable 'em.
It isn't just a "cheat" to get more money from the customers. On some devices (like printers) running at a higher speed increases the wear and the resulting maintenance requirements. Similarly, in the CPU case, running more CPUs increases the heating and shortens the life, while having less spares shortens the time until / increases the probability that you actually have to pull something out and replace it.
Making a single model and selling it as multiple levels using feature protection may be a lot less expensive (especially on high-dollar, low-volume products) than engineering multiple models. This benefit can be split between the manufacturer and the customers. It also makes upgrades a lot cheaper and less disruptive for both the customer and the company.
In software licensing it's been around since license manager software and dongles: Pay for more seats or more functions, they get turned on.
What's so special about doing it for OSes?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So, according to Microsoft, problems with open architecture systems is that:
(1) The people who license (whether by purchase or otherwise) those systems can use them fully, and
(2) People can easily develop application software for them.
Why would anyone want to buy (or, for that matter, develop software for) an operating system from anyone who considers those things problems?
Software sometimes ships with features that go unused? Horrors!
This is a new patent, of course. They already patented an OS where users have a bad experience, so with this new patent MS may provide a way for you to get an experience that is worst as you pay more.
Did anyone else read the headling as, "the patents Microsoft are holding are crippling other operating systems," and thought immediately about Novell?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
When I first read the title, I thought that "Patents" was the subject and "Crippling" was the verb. Isn't English grand sometimes? Both interpretations are probably true statements.
Have you read my blog lately?
Ransomware. Crippleware. Shareware. Nagware. Beerware... it's all been done before. The only difference is that this is an "operating system" not an "application."
Apparently, that's enough of a distinction for the USPTO to award a patent.
Claim 1: One or more computer-readable media having stored thereon a set of instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform acts including: executing a first computer program of a plurality of computer programs; and restricting a second computer program of the plurality of computer programs from being executed by the one or more processors, wherein the second computer program can be unrestricted based on a second digitally signed identifier of the second computer program received in exchange for an agreed upon sum of money, wherein the first computer program comprises an operating system that includes a digest catalog wherein is stored a first digitally signed identifier of the first computer program of the plurality of computer programs, and wherein the unrestricting comprises storing the second digitally signed identifier of the second computer program in the digest catalog.
Not that I wouldn't tend to think there are ways to attack this, but most Crippleware doesn't require the Operating System to store a digest catalog of digitally signed identifiers. Usually, they store their own.
Now nobody but Microsoft can use this annoying concept.
intentionally crippling the functionality of an operating system
We meant to do that! Yeah, that's it!
So does this mean next time I want to buy a laptop I get an option of : 1) Win 7 $50 (email & internet) 2) Win 7 %100 (email, internet, audio and video) etc..
-- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
You can patent blackmail and protection rackets??
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I couldn't find anything particularly innovative or inventive in the patent description, so this patent doesn't make any sense to me at all. I have to wonder what exactly they have, or had, in mind with this. But it reminds me exactly what pushed me away from Windows several years ago, when they started getting so aggressive with their product activations that I actually had to worry if I might upgrade my hardware too fast for my OS license, or maybe be stuck in the middle of the night waiting for an over-the-phone permission from Microsoft so I can complete a re-installation. It just makes me appreciate freedom. Thank God (and many developers) for Linux and free software.
Wouldn't it be awful if something happened to it?
Microsoft 0wns you!
-
With apologies to everyone who ever created an In Soviet Russia post.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Is that:
Microsoft Patents [the act of] (Crippling Operating Systems)
or
(Microsoft Patents) [are] Crippling Operating Systems
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Basic OS: $100 Want to be able to connect to a network? Add $25 Want to be able to browse the internet? Add $50 Want to be able to watch videos? Add $20 Want to be able to listen to music? Add $20 Want to be able to install Microsoft Software? Free! Want to be able to install non-Microsoft software? Add $150 Total cost: $365 for less than current retail prices for XP Pro/Vista Ultimate Yeah, I could see it happening.
That is a nothing patent. Here is something that would be scary:
A method and apparatus to prevent the installation of an unauthorized operating system over an authorized installation of an existing operating system.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Unfortunately for them, IBM has been doing that for years already with both hardware and software features. For example, when you buy a disk array from IBM it will ship with all the disks already installed but not enabled. If you decide you need more space you call IBM, pay them some cash and they turn on some more disks. Likewise, you can enable processors on your mainframe only at certain times of year and run with fewer processors the rest of the time. I'm sure I've seen that their mainframe operating systems have similar functionality at the software level and that is probably (more technically advanced) prior art to what Microsoft is trying to do. The only difference I can see is that I'd expect IBM to actually be good at it. They've had years to improve the process, after all.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
IBM did this sort of thing as standard business back in the 1970's and 1980's on mainframes running combo stacks of MVS under VM/370 in the 70's and MVS/SP under VM/SP on the 4300's in the 1980's.
IBM patented the holy crap out of everything they ever did too, so I'm kinda shocked that there isn't a ton of actual old patents giving proof of prior art in this matter.
Basic OS: $100
connect to a network? $25
browse the internet? $50
watch videos? $20
listen to music? $20
Want to be able to do all that stuff next month...
priceless.
For ongoing fees and extortion there's microsoft.
For everything else there's linux.
... the licensing fees will be so cost-prohibitive, competitors won't license the technology.
How long do you think it will be before OS vendors start charging subscription fees for services.
so...
You want to Install Windows? $50
You want to Boot Windows? That's $2 a session.
You want to Install Applications? That'll be $10 a MONTH
You want to play Blu-Ray? That'll be another $50 a MONTH
etc...
Okay, I'm a bit suprised by this for serious resons.
1. I thought the big mainframe vendor back in the golden times did this too (or was it just limited to the hardware?)
2. Shareware works like that?
I don't know if th fact it's "applied just to an OS" makes a lot of distinction, legally, but practically, this patent seems to have a grade of innovation of zero.
nbody2002:If you can read this you may be addicted to the internet
How does this differ from a guest or non-root login on a Linux system?
My rights don't need management.
You are assuming that the Virus writers won't figure out a way around this. I don't put anything past virus writers today.
And when they figure it out, and hijack your computer, you can sue Microsoft for a defective product.
There is no way this ends well for Microsoft.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
> Reads to me like MS is gonna kick the consumer in the junk, then take their wallet
Not only does this kick the consumer, but is also will kick MS's 'partners', the OEMs.
It has been said elsewhere that Netbooks will only be allowed to be sold with the Crippleware 'Starter' edition which will be relatively cheap (though more than XP) but the installed software will include the disabled Home Ultimate.
It will be a simple phone call to MS (with credit card and/or first born) to turn on the upgrade once the users discover how badly crippled it is.
This puts the whole of the upgrade revenue to Microsoft, they won't be sharing it with the OEM or retailer. Not only will they take it all but it is likely to be considerably more money than the difference in pricing between two identical machines in a retail store (oe OEM), one with Starter and one with Home Ultimate, _and_ the intermediate priced 'Home Basic' will not be offered as an option.
Not only is this an attempt at raising MS's revenue at the expense of the user, but also at the expense of the 'partners'.
I do think Microsoft should be granted this particular patent, crippled operating systems are clearly their invention.
Is it "Microsoft patents operating systems that cripple users," or "Microsoft patents the crippling of operating systems." If it is the latter, is it "Microsoft patents operating systems that cripple other operating systems," or "Microsoft patents the selling of crippled operating systems?" If it is the latter, then their own extensive prior art would seem to render it unpatentable.
IMHO, Microsoft's goal is to fight Linux on cost, particularly in net-books and against Ubuntu. The scenario is that a very basic Windows is installed on a net-book for little or no cost. The mini-Windows boots, has a few very limited applications, Notepad, PDF viewer and some lame games (solitare, minesweeper). There is no: internet capability, print capability, add application capability, multimedia capability and so on. Each of the aforesaid are add-ons at additional cost. The (cost driven) purchaser buys a "Windows" machine and doesn't find out about how crippled it is until the money is spent and they are home. Then the CC number is sent to MS to get the addons to make a usable system. However, in the store, Windows is cost competitive with Ubuntu. The retailer is "compensated" by MS to limit the Ubuntu sales pitch, such that, to the clue-less user, there appears to be no difference between Cripple-dose and Ubuntu.
Pretty insidious and callous to the purchaser. However, remember the user isn't really Microsoft's customer.
I'm so happy they finally read my mind!
Whoever the hell calls them a professional at Microsoft truly needs to have that term revoked, by this arrogance alone.
I don't see how this could negatively affect us Linux users. Somehow I doubt Canonical will release an "Ubuntu starter edition" any time soon.
This whole thing should be publicized though, so that users are aware of it... just like Sony's patent on locking games to a piece of hardware.
...but I'm going to do it anyways.
You are assuming that the Virus writers won't figure out a way around this. I don't put anything past virus writers today.
Yup, that's the joke. Of course virus writers won't honor this. Why would they?
What I was doing out was pointing out that this is pure hubris. No matter what they do their security model is still broken. The only difference between this idea and their current notion is that now the pimply-necked kid in Uzbekistan has more rights on your box than you do after he script-kiddies you.
So not only is their claim bogus, but it isn't in the customer's best interest. Virus authors will still hack the living daylights out of your brand-new Windows 7 install. Your machine will get pwnt, and with this new whiz bang access restriction it will most likely be used by the virus authors themselves to keep you from installing other software - like virus scanners, for example.
This is a hideous idea security wise and a huge disservice to the user. A crippled or broken OS would only serve to get in the user's way. Never in an attacker's way.
Epic dumb move if they go through with it.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Yeah, the point being that there are two possible outcomes:
1. the implementation is effective and antivirus solutions become obsolete, or
2. the implementation is not effective and yet another MS antipiracy measure falls by the wayside.
The latter is by far the more obvious and more likely result, and Weaselmancer demonstrated a clever and subtle use of irony in acknowledging only the former.
Tune in next week for my introductory lesson on puns.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
A coworker was just telling me last week that a firmware update to his satellite receiver caused it to stop sending signal on the HDMI output because it didn't trust the surround receiver as a passthrough device.
Granted, that's not the same as the actual passthrough device failing to do passthrough, but the effect is the same and it could be interpreted as alike by the majority of the end-user population.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
This concept is extremely old.
Used both for shareware and demos which could be unlocked via key.
Dont see why it should be patentable just because its now used in an os.
Today I discovered I can't pull up Gmail.com using Internet Explorer 8, did MS patent that too? *snicker* /sticks to Firefox.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist"
One of my sillier recent ideas was to have additional forms of patents that work the other way around:
1. Original Patent Arrangement: no-one else can do what the patent describes without the patent holder's permission.
2. Upside-Down-Patent Arrangement: everyone has to follow what the patent describes.
It becomes sort of like a law-by-application.
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
As many have pointed out, the practice of a single install having various levels of capability that get enabled for various prices is not new. FibreChannel switches and other hardware have done this for quite a while. Some farming equipment even works this way. Being able to directly move between versions of Vista was envisioned to work in a similar manner.
The other angle not being discussed is that Microsoft wants to move towards a service oriented structure. In that scenario, you either pay a monthly service fee for the OS or applications and depending on what you pay you get different features. TPM is part of the equataion of enforcing the restrictions on the end user.
Linux called...and said thanks again Microsoft, for doing your best to get us more users.
On the other hand, this might be useful for Server OS Rental service. Some small business might not want to invest and own an OS, while renting might be beneficial. (Just like someone don't like to own a car but keep renting)
Apple does more interesting pricing schemes then Windows. Apps for you iphone cost money and Apple gets a percentage. You are basically forced unless you want to jailbreak to buy those apps. Who says they don't reject the lower priced apps in preference to the higher priced apps. Companies are in the business of making money not ensuring that the product they push out is their greatest. This leads me to my hatred of patents. People are only going to get the greatest benefit if there is a competitive market.
I worked for a major telecom equipment manufacturer in the early 90s. We loaded our switches with a monolithic load that had features disabled unless the customer actually bought them. This is exactly the same thing (one could quite happily argue that the monolithic load was an "operating system" as it was the only software running on the switch). I wonder when the first law suit will occur and who the plaintiff will be.
linquendum tondere
Geez -- I think I may actually hold the patent -- at least I have prior art that goes back to 1995 at least. (Oops -- the idea was old even back then).
What they appear they want to is to disable virtualized systems so they are the only system running. What really Microsoft want is to"sabotage" another operating system if they share system resources. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this vandalism and is a criminal act in the normal world.
Yes.
Secretly Microsoft really loves the Mac commercials and they did this to provide Apple with a continuing amount of new material on which to make more. This should allow Mac to have new commercials for at least another year.
The article is interesting. The irrelevant point of illegal hunting is not. How is the readership supposed to take the author, and editor seriously when they throw a bunch of dramatic spin in with the main point. The article itself has merit and stands on its own.
Or maybe I'm just out to lunch and we all need more spin.
Don't think of it as a flame, more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage.
'problem inherent in open architecture systems,' i.e., 'they are generally licensed with complete use rights and/or functionality that may be beyond the need or desire of the system renter .'
Fixed that for ya...
This may be completely new stab at that annoying competition such as what Microsoft gets from browser and browser plugin makers.
Obvious ("Microsoft Way") path to avoid immediate antitrust slashback is to make it possible users to install software for free, but software vendors pay per installation for signed copies that are able to install on new "Windows Lite".
That *will* cause news antitrust investigations, but Microsoft can count on the fact that it has an anticompetetive advantage on the market for at least three years once again.
It's so Microsoft it makes me wonder why they haven't pushed it before. Maybe the "user-protecting" TPM hasn't been quite there to support this before? Of course they say that as a customer your options are free; if you want to use other that Good Microsoft products without making somebody pay, you can buy a full version of Windows...
Here are two more recollections in case they help:
When I worked in the mid 1980's, probably around 1986, at the now-defunct Symbolics on MACSYMA, a symbolic algebra system that lives (in an alternate timeline/universe from what some know today as MAXIMA), there was one customer who wanted a special deal and someone was foolish enough to sell it to them. The customer explained that they did not plan to use all of MACSYMA (who ever uses all of any language?) and so wanted to only pay a proportional fee for the parts of the language they planned to use. So we did extra custom work in compliance with the contract in order to build a special version of MACSYMA that had only parts of the functionality and we had the ability to unlock individual functions when they realized they had asked too little. It had to be specially administered, specially QA'd, etc. It was a huge lot of extra work. And they paid us less for it on the theory that they were not using the full thing. Bleah. (It was a brilliant query for the customer to ask but stupid for us to accept. I knew it was a disaster from the moment they said it. We should have just written it off as an error on our part and given them a full license at reduced price.)
Although MACSYMA as a user application is not an operating system by the traditional meaning of the word, I have heard programs as varied as APL and Emacs described as "operating systems" because for some users they were the only thing the user planned to really use on the machine and they wanted to use all things from within it. It's not a stretch to say that MACSYMA qualified similarly as an operating system in that regard, and would be an example of prior art if foolish one-off custom contracts counted as such.
Even earlier, when I was at MIT, I think around 1980 or 1981 (I have records but not handy as I write this), after Scheme was invented but before it was integrated into MIT's programming classes, Gerry Sussman taught a transitional version of his class that was not yet 6.001 / Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs in its final form. One term he used a Lisp dialect that I had conjured on the spur of the moment (it was missing tail recursion, which drove Sussman nuts, but it was all he had on that platform at that time, so he went with it). For editing programs for this hacked up Lisp, I hastily conjured together a little editor out of TECO which was similar in command set to Emacs but was hardened to be not customizable or extensible so we could document something simple for students. I hate to characterize others' emotional states, but I think it's fair to say that Stallman hated it and got really mad at me for calling it MinEmacs because he said it was not an Emacs. He said he didn't care about the command set being Emacs-like because that didn't make something an Emacs, and that it could be a vi command set for all he cared as long as it was exensible and customizable. I explained that there were things students would trip over that they didn't want them to. He wrote a library called NOVICE that was the compromise and that kept a profile of users preferences, disabling commands by default but when you invoked them asking you if you knew what you were doing and allowing you to proceed if you answered yes. This seemed reasonable and I think it was used by many people. This was still TECO-based Emacs on the PDP-10. Later, when he created gnu emacs, he built that functionality into the core system. But basically, the NOVICE library for TECO-based Emacs, and later the gnu Emacs stuff generally was a system that had a protected set of commands that could be selectively re-enabled. It differed only in politics--the re-enabling was not held centrally by the vendor (in true Stallman fashion) but was instead left to the individual. But technologically, it seems to me that the concept is really the same as what is discussed in the summary of this topic. I didn't read the patent.
So maybe some of that would be useful as prior
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
A well thrown chair will do the trick.
Say hello to my little sig.
I mean the bougus-ness of this patent is beyond the pale.
Essentially, they are patenting the whole computing experience, and getting some legal entity to agree it must be FOR PROFIT ONLY, from somewhere around 1980-something until 20 [dot dot dot] ??-something. The mind boggles.
"it's not a bug, it's a feature!"
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
You know, I've read several articles over the past few years about various patents granted, I think that the US Patent Office patents anything these days. I think software should only have copyright as it's not actually a thing, widget or device, it is similar to recipes(like in cook books).
Sounds like the mechanism by which Microsoft sells one version of Vista to all users, and lets users upgrade to higher-tier flavors of the OS after cash changes hands.
Well, of course, it does.
That's what it's for.
Windows as a client OS cuts across a great many markets. The boundaries are often fuzzy.
The upgrade is there if the user wants it.
Everyone else saves a few pennies when only version of the OEM system disk has to kept in inventory.
"' According to Microsoft, this solves a 'problem inherent in open architecture systems,' i.e., 'they are generally licensed with complete use rights and/or functionality that may be beyond the need or desire of the system purchaser."[SIC] The above should be actually .....'they are generally licensed with complete use rights and/or functionality that may be beyond the need or desire of the system SELLER."
My drug dealer has been doing this for ages....selling me the bags cut with oregano until I agree to pay more per ounce for the uncut stuff....
ref
I mean they ARE the best in biz at doing this. Intentionally or not.
Frankly, I am surprised they do not already hold the patent.
WGA anybody....
Who put this thing together????????
MS THATS WHO!!!!!!!!
DEC was doing this with VMS in the '80s and '90s.
Nothing particularly new there.
They prototyped this with a hardware "update" solution in the '70s - $10,000 in 1978 would get you a speed upgrade on your 11/70 which paid for a field service tech to come out and remove a jumper from one of the processor cards.
Shareware programs have been doing this for DECADES! How come all of a sudden Microsoft can patent something that's existed longer then they have?
'making selected portions and functionality of the operating system unavailable to the user or by limiting the user's ability to add software applications or device drivers to the computer' until an 'agreed upon sum of money' is paid to 'unlock or otherwise make available the restricted functionality.'
Remember those viruses that would hold your hard drive hostage unless you paid a fee online. Microsoft got in on the ground level.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Form the abstract: 'they are generally licensed with complete use rights and/or functionality that may be beyond the need or desire of the system purchaser.'
I think they made an important slip of the tongue here. They're always going on about how you buy a License to use the software, and not the software itself. And now in this patent application they speak of system purchaser. Interesting.
-- Cheers!
Does anyone else thinks this sounds suspiciously like the Crippleware/Shareware/Demos that have been around for decades that have limited functionality until you pay for the rest of it?
The only effective difference I see is that Crippleware covers all software, while MS limited their joke of a patent to Operating Systems. (OS is a subset of Software. Gotta love Boolean.)
Of course, I hate reading legalese and it's various dialects, so I might have missed something relevant.
It's so amusing to see this after enduring nearly a decade of ridicule for suggesting that Microsoft would eventually build a kill switch into Windows. Not only are they doing it, they're reasoning is that the user has too much control over their own hardware to be trusted with it.
We're only a few steps a way from legalizing electronic blackmail based entirely on how deep one's pockets are. And forget about trying to level the playing field on this one... as any user with enough control over their computer to dig up dirty on a large corporate entity must have acquired that control illegally by circumventing some protective measure.
We no longer own our computers... our computers now own us.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Four years ago. Microsoft blackscreened the machine three weeks ago, and demanded 5800 Thai Baht to reenable updates and give me my desktop back. I live in Thailand.
I mailed the original disc to Bill Gates, with a copy of the sales receipt (bought it in the States at Best Buy), along with a note explaining the problem, and a hearty "Fuck You".
That was the last machine under my supervision to run Microsoft product.
No more.
They had to patent crippleware. To patent "After sufficient money is paid, all provided software will operate properly," they would either need to show someone else's demonstration that does, or actually do that themselves.
This is really good news: no one is allowed to create crippled software anymore, except MS! That means if I just stay away from Windows, I'm fine. Which is of course what I've been doing anyway.
assignment != equality != identity
Why would anyone actually want to license this patent anyway , let alone violate it.
So who cares if there is prior art anyway.
N.
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
You mean the Windows is not already crippled?
If you can arbitrarily make that difference, then how about patenting the same thing in a POSIX OS?!!?!?
Yeah, so Windows has an OS that does it, but it isn't a POSIX one, is it!
Even if they did patent this, how would it affect all the free Linux distros out there? The functionality is almost never crippled and if it is there's probably no price at all to pay, after all...
I am not devoid of humor.
I think the interesting inference here is that if you pay them more money, you'll get a Microsoft operating system that isn't crippled. First for everything I guess. Nige
So the initial windows installation now will be free with this patent, i.e one can have a legitimate limited version of windows, and if he wants it expanded he has to pay for the license ?
grafisk design
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In breaking news Microsoft has received a patent to artificially introduce OS crashes based on the pricing tier of the OS. If you pay more you will get a more stable environment.
In Banyan, you had ONE version of the OS to install. It would then look at the dongle hanging of the Parallel port and read which bits were turned on to enable/disable parts of the OS.
The Dongle is just a container digits. If you type them in, DL, or copy them from a Flash drive, it's the same thing.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Patented Feature!!!
This is perfect capitalism!
Why create a perfect product? you screwing yourself out of future sales rendering your company bankrupt. By bringing out half broken products clients are forced to upgrade all the time! Go Go Capitalism!
Free OS? Third party pays license for use of OS?
From TFP:
Vendor 106 is a retailer of the electronic content provided by supplier 104. Examples of vendor 106 include an Independent Software Vendor (ISV) or an Independent Hardware Vendor (IHV) that sell the electronic content provided by supplier 104 for use with computers 102.
OEM 108 is a manufacturer and retailer of computers 102. OEM 108 may also be a retailer of the electronic content provided by supplier 104.
FIG. 2 shows a general example of a computer 142 that can be used in accordance with the invention. Computer 142 is shown as an example of a computer that can perform the functions of client computer 102, supplier 104, vendor 106, or OEM 108 of FIG. 1. Computer 142 includes one or more processors or processing units 144, a system memory 146, and a system bus 148 that couples various system components including the system memory 146 to processors 144.
q
That's completely baffling, considering that an OS is an application.
It also opens up another avenue MS has wanted to go down, and that is yearly fees. They would rather have you buy the OS and then pay a fee every year for the right to use it. This patent will go a long way towards that goal. Sure, it is a crappy goal, and will hurt them and help systems like Linux, but MS will do what MS wants.
Open Source: Eroding the Digital Divide
The following post shows that Microsoft got hit with a $200 million patent verdict for custom XML tags! It's ironic that Microsoft abuses the patent system and is attacked by the same method it uses. http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10245764-56.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Do you remember writing this:
but generally I agree using vista right now is a pain for little real benifit but I don't see any fundamental problems that will stop it slowly replacing XP just as XP slowly replaced 2K.
And have your feelings on the matter changed?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
This isn't a bad idea. I'm no lover of Microsoft either, and a lot of the things they're done in recent years have been questionable at best (DRM, etc), but I'm really not seeing what everyone's so bothered about this for.
Let's face it, most of us are pretty quick to complain about being made to pay for features we never use or have any intention of using (office 2007 anyone?), and whatever Microsoft's ultimate motives here may be (most likely to encourage more sales in light of Vista's commercial flop) it seems they're actually taking steps to address a valid problem.
The fact is, we're now being offered a number of stripped-down versions of Windows for a reduced cost, with the opportunity to gain the full functionality once we pay the difference in price; when Windows 95 launched at $250, we had no such choice, it was either all or nothing. And although Vista Basic or Premium may seem hopelessly crippled to most of us, for 90% of Windows users out there, it's perfectly adequate for their needs. They don't need encryption, advanced network security options, or a sophisticated automatic backup system, they just want something that allows them to type text documents, run IM/VOIP, browse the internet, and play simple games. Microsoft's argument that they should be given the choice as the whether to pay for features they would never use makes perfect sense to me. There's a lot a functionality in many programs I've never used or ever looked at in the years I've been using them (yes Adobe, I'm looking at you...), and if I was given the choice of having a cheaper version of the software with those features stripped out I'd gladly take it. This is a recurring problem with alot of high-end software; it's all-or-nothing, meaning the threshold price is so high as to be out of reach of the average prospective buyer. A modular approach like this would really help to alleviate that issue, especially since most first-time buyers are hardly likely to need all of those features, let alone know how to use them even of they wanted to.
One thing I'll agree on is that Microsoft has no right to this "patent" since it consists of two aspects which have been in common usage for a long time. The first is the idea of selling additional functionality for software, which has existed for almost as long as software itself, and the second is the partial installation procedure allowing for only certain components to be installed instead of the whole package, an idea which has been around for almost 20 years.
Needless to say, their idea about stopping malware by preventing people from writing arbitrary software is hopelessly misguided because it relies on malware authors being to cheap to purchase a full version of the OS. Or indeed crack it.
Never say die. Never give up!
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Maybe, just maybe, the reason companies like Microsoft patent the shit out of everything, no matter how inane, is to try to avoid being sued by other companies for "custom XML tags." Also, Microsoft was trying to be all "standards based" and "open" in their office XML format, look where that got them.