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!
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
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
> '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!
... 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.
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.
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.
... 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.
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?
> 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.
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?
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."
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.
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.