Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Moves To Patent Time-Based Software Licensing
theodp writes "Microsoft's Open Value Subscription offering didn't get the warmest reception. Nor did the follow-up announcement of Albany, a planned MS-Office Subscription Service. Now comes word from the USPTO that Microsoft feels it deserves a patent for the 'invention' of 'Time-Based Licensing,' which aims to make the traditional pay-once perpetual license model a thing of the past. Hey, if your customers were waiting nine years between OS upgrades, you'd try touting a three-year lease with a balloon buy-out payment, too!"
Microsoft feels it deserves a patent for the 'invention' of 'Time-Based Licensing,' which aims to make the traditional pay-once perpetual license model a thing of the past.
If they successfully patent time-based software licensing, wouldn't that make the traditional model a more viable solution?
Invention? What the heck are they talking about? My Matlab license has been time-based for years. I remember one day Matlab stopped working for me because I never got around to entering the new license number that our IT folks emailled me a few weeks earlier.
This patent is absurd.
Ok, let's collect up the prior art and kill this patent in it's tracks.
Name's flexlm. I see you're new around here, and determined to reinvent everything that was done on *nix 30 years ago.
But seriously--what here is new? Time based licensing has been around forever. Get the feeling they're just flailing around trying to find some revenue model that'll continue to extract money out of their customers? Microsoft's fundamental problem is that they've already sold many people what they need. XP works fine for me. I don't need Vista. Or 7. Office is fine. I don't care about the next round of bells and whistles. Most of what most of us do doesn't require them.
I don't really begrudge them some kind of revenue, but the more they demand, the better alternatives (OpenOffice, Google Docs, or hell, just buying a mac and being done with it) look.
Microsoft is effectively trying to patent the single most effective method of convincing ordinary users that alternatives are worth trying. That or piracy... Either way, it doesn't look like a very smart thing for MS to be doing.
Isn't the Mortgage Bubble Crash prior art?
Table-ized A.I.
People have options these days. I'm on the knife edge myself and Vista was annoying enough to have me considering a shift. Turn my software and OS into a ticking time bomb and I'm likely to jump ship. Microsoft is desperate to establish a revenue stream that requires no innovation or effort on their part. Vista falling on it's face confirmed for them the need for putting a gun to their users heads to keep money flowing.
Don't waste effort on this one. As others said, this is actually helpful :)
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
So.. we can have more time based software licensing? Yeah, I'll get right on that.
I was once part of an in house testing group of a software package. Even in pre alpha stage dev, they time limited the testing builds. I guess it was to entice us to always test with the latest, rather than the stable version from last month. That's about the only good use of it I've known.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
The licensing business models may include, for example, a non-renewable evaluation of a software product, a renewable trial of the software product, a one-time promotion of the software product, a subscription for use of the software product, or other licensing business models for use of the software product
What next, charge by the minute like in the old mainframe days?!
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
How long until the Office license is a metered per-hour billing fee?... or a per-document opened fee? Or a parking meter style, guess how many minutes you need in advance fee?
Absurdity.
Every business model in their list has been done by many software companies and the process to obtain the license is standard practice. How can anyone patent something like this?
They anounced it months ago. The concept was to charge the user as much as they use their machine resources. On the other hand, who wouldn't like to charge the racket on 90% of this small planet's computers?
I thought most of non-free antivirus apps out there use a system where you pay for a license for a set period of time?
"The filing acknowledges that some systems already allow software to be licensed for a predetermined period of time ...."
If they acknowledge that this already exists how would they even get a patent on it?
How about you sign up for the Open licensing. Buy a ton of computers, donate your old computers at the end of the year (to not increase the number of licenses) and continue on the next year paying the same Open Licensing fee. Do the same thing for year 2 and 3. This will essentially give you a fixed cost for the licenses over the 3 years - and a few tax breaks i guess. Probably not the most efficient use of capital, but a good way to screw M$ if you are forced to pay for the licenses!
How about software that drops restrictions after X years. Does anyone know of an existing license that does this? I'm working on software that I want to revert to BSD after a time period.
It is (like every patent described on Slashdot) described poorly.
The patent is not a business-model patent for time-based licensing, its a technology patent for a specific scheme of enforcing time-based licensing rules.
The way its described in TFS there would certainly be massive prior art. I'm less sure about the particular scheme they're actually trying to patent.
Though, from the description in TFA, regardless of prior art, the scheme seems painfully obvious, so I wouldn't be surprised if existing time-based licenses use this enforcement scheme already.
Can you really patent a contract?
Licensing is something somewhat old. Extending it to "only valid for certain amount of time" (total or of active use) looks like a common sense (maybe greedy, but hey, is Microsoft after all) extension.
The good thing is that by patenting prevents or at least discourages other companies about doing the same.
Just about every shareware application has either a nag-screen or a 30 day countdown....
You get licensed to try the software for 30 days.
There are old DOS programs that were like this.
There were Windows 3.1 applications that were licensed like this.
There is absolutely nothing novel about time-based licensing.
vBulletin's yearly licenses.
bthis time, please use a nuke so we're guaranteed to see the dust plume.
After all, nuking them from orbit is the only way to be sure!
With pride, I can say that I will not be violating this patent.
Palm trees and 8
/. lame asses always say the same thing..."OMG, Microsoft's trying to make money...I hate them" and whine in the corner. As Dr. Evil say, "Boo-freakadie-hoo!" OSS sucks! The "sunlight" dwellers don't want it! Have a pity party why don't you....oh, wait, that's what /. is for....lame.
this is obvious and not patentable.
last time i took the train I paid a single ride fare. -- single use license.
back in college I would buy the monthly pass. -- unlimited, time based right to use license.
comment directly in my journal
Name's also Cadence, who had a system to issue time-based licenses automatically based on customer request. EDACard, I think they called it. While not exactly the same, I think that everything describes is obvious based on waht Cadence did with their EDACard program and FlexLM.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Oh, my god, we're in deep trouble if they patent time based software licensing! Imagine a world where nobody else has the right to sell limited time licenses - just MS! Death to us all I say!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
SAS [www.sas.com] have been doing time based licensing for years. You get a license key (called a setinit) for X years, which is the duration of the contract (1-3 years typically). When the license expires the software stops working. PERIOD. The main language (called SAS funnily enough!) is interpreted at run time, so with no valid software key, all the software that been developed in SAS stops working. There is no "run-time" version.
Name's also Cadence, who had a system to issue time-based licenses automatically based on customer request. EDACard, I think they called it. While not exactly the same, I think that everything describes is obvious based on waht Cadence did with their EDACard program and FlexLM.
Really? Cadence software I have here is using flexlm... have they changed recently?
A license is a contract. A contract is an exchange of enforceable promises. Patenting a contractual idea would deprive other people of the freedom to contract in a certain manner (because Microsoft has patented it). Freedom to contract is an idea that a lot of judges groove with--it has a lot to do with liberty, freedom, and other cool ideas like that.
I don't think that Microsoft will be able to tell other people how they can and cannot order their affairs.
This is Microsoft's wet dream. Every time someone uses their software, kaching! they get money. It would be an absolutely perfect business model if there was even one person in the world stupid enough to buy into it. Every time Microsoft introduces a new and more onerous 'innovation' it just sends more people looking for a way out. *Hint* just use Open Office for free!
I implemented this system in it's entirety with another engineer back about 6 years ago. Complete with the license server and the multiple parameters of the license. Is there a way to protest this being patented? It's still in daily use for my wife's company. They even get updates based on whether they have paid the license fee for the month.
Why bother
This patent is absurd.
Two things. One, this is not a patent. It's an application. You can put literally anything you want in a publication, and it will get published after 18 months, even though nobody's looked at it. I could file an application, and my first claim could be, "I claim a data storage device comprising a magnetic platter containing a plurality of magnetic bits, each bit configured to have two states, wherein each state represents alternately a 0 or a 1." That application would publish after 18 months with that claim, and everybody on /. would be hoppin' mad that I'd gotten a patent on the hard drive. And they would be completely wrong. Just because you ask for a particular, broad claim, doesn't mean you're going to get it.
Second, I doubt that you've done anything close to the analysis to even know if the filed claims are "absurd." What do the claims say? Do you know? What disclosure supports them? Does the disclosure have any limiting definitions or statements? Is there any file wrapper estoppel? Are the claims statutory subject matter under Bilski? I'm betting you don't know, which means you don't know if these claims are absurd or not.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Remember way back in 2008...you know, VMware ESX 3.5 update 2. I love the smell of a software time-bomb in the morning.
I remember those. This is like drop-dead dates raised to the nth power. Paying off once won't get it, you just trade an early drop-dead date for a later drop-dead date- over, and over, and over. until they decide you must upgrade. Sounds really, really swell. Have fun, Microsoft lovers! ;-) Glad I use Linux & BSD. What's next for MS, patenting "The GUI" and the CLI?
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
The patent is not a business-model patent for time-based licensing, its a technology patent for a specific scheme of enforcing time-based licensing rules.
No, it isn't. The claims of the patent are so ridiculously vague they would cover any such technology. Here's claim 1:
"1. A machine-implemented method for licensing a software product, the machine-implemented method comprising:generating a time-based license from among a plurality of types of time-based licenses in response to receiving a request for the time-based license, each of the plurality of types of time-based licenses having a plurality of configurable parameters, a combination of the plurality of types of time-based licenses and the plurality of configurable parameters being capable of accommodating a plurality of licensing business models; andsending the time-based license to an originating processing device of the request for the time-based license."
This patent would cover any automated software licensing business offering multiple types of limited time licenses, and is therefore a business model patent, not a technology one.
The more specific claims don't add much, either:
2 - some licenses are renewable
3 - supports a restriction on how many times the software can be reactivated
4 - product keys that can be used on a specified number of computers
5 - system for switching to a permanent license after a certain number of limited ones
6 - (I don't understand this claim; can somebody translate for me?)
7 - some licenses might not start immediately
8 - computer with the above scheme in memory
9-14 - covers a management user interface, really boring stuff
15 - above scheme stored on machine-readable media
16 - a command line interface to license management
17 - displaying a warning when the license is about to expire
18 - making the software stop working when the license expires
19 - informing the user how long the software will continue working for
20 - an api whereby a program can query whether it is licensed or not
Seriously. This is all _basic_ stuff, and covers just about every possible implementation, not just a single implementation of the idea.
Doesn't WoW and every MMORPG in the world use this scheme :)
Once MSFT has the patent, no one else will try to sell a BS time based license. Win win for all!
Apparently this appears is nothing but a patent troll from Micro$oft.
EDA tool industry has long been using the time-based licensing model for their tools, particularly using the FlexLM based licensing system.
How can they even think to patent this sort of thing ?
Don't waste effort on this one. As others said, this is actually helpful :)
If Microsoft wants to patent being a douche, more power to them.
That is how it is useful.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
What if you could buy software that was a service? One that provided excellent availability, convenience, automatic backups, and automatic updates?
Oh yeah... you can!
Many software products nowadays are not products, but in fact, services. From Google's Gmail-based email hosting (for schools and businesses) to customer relationship management (Salesforce, et al) to my own company's products, many software products, especially software targeting larger organizations, are actually best sold as a service.
It's now a feature that many directors in organizations are looking for - they don't want to have to buy servers and hire staff and do backups and apply patches and all that - they'd rather just login and get started. If the software is commodity and doesn't represent any special "mojo", SaaS (Software as a Service) or by its new name, "Cloud Computing" can make lots of sense.
Now, perhaps *you* don't want this. And that's fine. You aren't required to buy it. But it's not some horrid conspiracy. It's just a reflection of the fact that, in many cases, the cost of hosted applications can be dramatically lower while simultaneously improving the overall service quality by moving the application hosting closer to the people who produce the software in the first place!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Hello disgruntled microsoft customers! How are we feeling today? Are we ready to pay Bill every month for the wonderful software he provides? He wants to be paid forever for it you know! This is Linux calling. You may have been unhappy with us before (sight unseen), but how do you feel about us, in comparison to the situation approaching you? Are you happy? Were you happy with license 6? Do you have a whole bunch of checks printed out and ready to send in (for the use of your computer)? Are you all set up and ready to type in license keys on a monthly basis? Is it a dollar per day? Is it more? Just sayin'
STAND BACK!
I'm going to attempt time travel.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
Not to mention the basic idea looks like someone said "well what if we issued NT security tickets for software licensing?" and then some PHB said "great idea! let's get a patent on that!" and then the attorney said "ok well we have to cutesy it up some so it won't look like we're just making the obvious extension of the existing security infrastructure."
Well said. It takes a lawyer to twist plain language and common sense into nonsensical retoric.
My copy of Kaspersky Antivirus does much of what they are claiming:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9-15, 17-20 for sure.
In fact, most AV software works in this manner, and has for years.
@Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
Looks like MS decided to patent FlexLM after the fact.
- T
We would all (correctly) think your a douche for trying to patent hard drives.
I claim a data storage device comprising a magnetic platter containing a plurality of magnetic bits, each bit configured to have two states, wherein each state represents alternately a 0 or a 9"
rule no1, of patent obfusation, always make your system sound more complex than it has to!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Who cares. Let them patent it. Then no one else will want to pay to use it.
The PTO needs a "sure, have it" clause for anti-customer patents.
...because it's too blatantly obvious.
How are they going to convince Tom and Jane that their older version of the software must be "upgraded" to the subscription model? I'd like to think that Average Joe is smarter than to fall for something like that.
We all know that since MS controls the OEM market, they can do whatever they damn well please and consumers will take it... because 90% of the users have no choice.
Considering their software is installed, by default, on a significant percentage of new computers sold every day, after whatever time the license lasts elapses, the volume of complaints that people's computers no longer work correctly would skyrocket beyond any numbers that we've seen previously.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
AutoDesk AutoCAD, and most any other CAD software have been doing this for years with student versions. Heck so far in the past 3 years I've purchased AutoCAD twice for 1 year each time and Solidworks once for 2 years, I also purchased CATIA for 1 year once. Also please note that what I'm referring to means the software stops working after it expires, it doesn't cripple itself or end support, it really stops.
No matter what MS does, the little people of the world will continue to get our stuff from Russians figuring out how to ultimately make it all work, and the Chinese who package it all unreadable in cheap cellophane wrappers - for just 50 US cents a DVD. There is no stopping that biz model found around the globe today. If MS figures rolls out a way to stop the hackers, then the hackers will use the botnet to end microsoft in this mutual assured destruction scenario.
Microsoft does more for killing Microsoft then any of Microsoft haters.
If you put an expiration date on my operating system, then I'd be dumping it all and moving to linux in short order. It's bad enough that the hardware goes obsolete in a few years and/or breaks!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
EDACard is like a web based license purchasing program. The license you get is for flexlm.
Slashdot fsck-up on patent terminology yet again.
This is a published patent application, which has not yet been examined at all. Check its status on PAIR (12/099137 is the application number) and you will see "Docketed new case - Ready for examination", which merely means they've submitted enough paperwork and fees that an examiner will read the thing soon. If you're a bit masochistic, you could go to the Image File Wrapper and read the official correspondence between the applicant's attorney and the PTO, which will include the examiner's material when it becomes available.
There are many steps between the start of examination and the issue of a patent, during which the claims may have to be narrowed or revised or rewritten completely. Some applications get chucked out, no matter how loud and prolonged the howls of the applicant. In most cases which actually issue as patents, the claims get modified to some extent. Claim 1 of this application looks like it will be treated somewhat roughly by the examiner during prosecution.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Smells like they didn't like the rate of Vista adoption. Don't want to buy the new OS? No worries, we'll simply stop renewing the license of the old one.
How can they possibly based licensing on time when MS-Windows doesn't keep accurate time? I'm serious. Every 24 hours, I have to manually sync my Windows desktops/servers which have drifted over 1.5 minutes off.
Microsoft - NTP - know it, use it, love it. This is 2009 after all.
Geeze.
FOr as far back as I can remember (late 80s), Oracle has had term licenses as well, and that makes a huge difference in the apparent price of Oracle. Difference to Matlab, it's not enforced in the software so it does not disable the code. (User 'agrees' to stop using the product at end of term.) But it does stop the renewal of support and patches which is a significant hiccup in the care and feeding of any Oracle DB.
There are multiple third party solutions on the market already that handle this, I don't know if they are patented but I know the place I used to work used things like CrypKey, Crypto++ and later developed their own solution
Time based leasing has been around for centuries, It's called renting. How can you patent that? That move will only cost MS more customers........
Time-based licensing is NEW?
A while back I picked up a MicroVAX at a garage sale for $3, mainly for the 25-inch color monitor that came with it.
Plugged it in, and it started booting. And continued booting... About 15 minutes later it complained: "TCP/IP license has expired". No, not a DHCP lease, an
actual software license. Sigh. Nice monitor tho.
Let's start a hard drive timeshare program, so you could run with win 7 in the summer, vista in the fall, XP in the winter and linux in spring!
We would all (correctly) think your a douche for trying to patent hard drives.
And we think you're a douche for your incorrect use of your.
Or Taxi Meter....rental agreement...time bomb....take your pick
This can only be a good thing... Seriously, people who use this kind of proprietary software *deserve* to get screwed over by their corporate software masters. For too long people have lived under the false assumption that they have rights, but the fact is these software developers can do whatever the hell they want, and there is nothing people can do about it so long as they keep purchasing their proprietary software! Maybe this will help a few more people get a clue and move to open source.
6 - (I don't understand this claim; can somebody translate for me?)
There are several different types of licenses, of different durations, and a range of possible product keys, and there is some method to assign product keys to each type of license, with additional information being stored that tells the license-management system whether a product key can be shifted from one license type to another. I.e., the system could designate a particular license key as being valid for 30 days after first activation, and convertible to a full license, while another license key could be designated as valid for 60 days after first activation and cannot be changed. The former could be used for a trial copy of a program, where the user could pay for a full license and have it become a regular copy of the program, while the latter might be for copies of the software to be distributed to reviewers, and is intended to become unusable after the review period.
Not being a patent lawyer, my judgement may be suspect, but it appears that the whole process described in the application fails to meet the requirements set out in the recent In re Bilski decision, although since that has been appealed to SCOTUS, which has granted certiorari, the last word on that has yet to be heard. The application certainly doesn't make the process "tied to a particular machine or apparatus", given the text of claim 8, which would seem to make the application's validity hinge on whether changing the data fields associated with a license key in a database constitutes "transforming a particular article into a different state or thing".
A patent covers an actual device, or in some corrupt countries like the USA, a software process. This is neither as it is a concept, which by definition is not patentable.