Documentation Compliance Means MS Can Resume Collecting Protocol Royalties

angry tapir writes "Microsoft may begin collecting royalties again for licensing some protocols because clear technical documentation is now available, according to the US Department of Justice. The change comes after the DOJ issued its latest joint status report regarding its 2002 antitrust settlement with Microsoft. The settlement required Microsoft to make available technical documentation that would allow other vendors to make products that are interoperable with Windows."

Comments

Outrageous

[PizzaAnalogyGuy]

This is outrageous, and I have two examples why. First, protocols are like food recipes. The pizza you sell is yours, but the ingredients to make it is not. Here the protocol is your ham, pineapple, salami and shrimps on a barbeque sauce large size pan pizza. You have not stolen the app from your competitor, you're just making yours compatible with theirs. Like the third party IM clients can connect to MSN network. Secondly, how would any of those open source apps pay for the royalties? But maybe this is Microsoft's plan. Let me tell you what is happening here. Microsoft is paying for the local BBQ Sauce factory to include a license agreement before you can use their sauce in your pizzas. The license agreement says you are only allowed to use their BBQ sauce on Microsoft approved pizzas. And before you know, these pizzas will be degraded. Forget your ham, forget your pineapples, forget you bacon and forget your cheese. THIS is the pizza we offer, and this will be the pizza you like.

Re:Outrageous

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn your pizza analogies, I'm hungry now...

Re:Outrageous

[Shakrai]

First, protocols are like food recipes.

Which can be copyrighted and regarded as a trade secret. Or do you think that KFC should have to post their recipe online for all to see?

Perhaps you should try a car analogy instead? ;)

Re:Outrageous

[QuantumG]

You can't copyright recipes, and anything can be regarded as a trade secret.

Re:Outrageous

[Shakrai]

Yes, I should have left it at trade secret. My stupid. I shall now commence pounding my head against the table to atone for my error.

I also think that we just got trolled, based on the handle of the first poster.....

Re:Outrageous

[Gadget_Guy]

Yes, in some cases you can. I simple list of ingredients cannot, but then I don't think a protocol would be considered just a list of ingredients.

Re:Outrageous

[Darkness404]

Yeah, but a food recipe can easily be reverse engineered and used for profit or given away. If I magically figured out KFC's recipe without having prior knowledge of it and I made my own fried chicken stand that drove KFC out of business there wouldn't be a thing KFC could do. Similarly, I could reverse engineer coke and make my own soda. About the only thing that you -can't- do with a trade secret is if you know it most agreements forbid you from disclosing it or competing using it.

As for copyright, yeah, you can copyright anything, but I can still use your work, just not publish the recipe.

Re:Outrageous

[Entropy98]

I think the IM clients are a bad example.

The IM clients rely on a central server that costs money.

A company using Microsoft's FAT format for its memory card isn't going to cost Microsoft anything.

Starting your own disk format is much harder than your own IM client.

Really, I've always thought that its the file formats that are keeping Microsoft in their position.

For instance if you could load windows drivers in Linux, or Mac I think Microsoft would be in serious trouble.

Re:Outrageous

[bmo]

A protocol is simply a statement of facts.

Facts are not copyrightable.

Sweat of the brow does not determine if something is deserving of copyright either. It must have _some_ creativity. Indeed, this is why software for years was not deserving of copyright, because it was considered a "list of instructions for a machine" instead of creative. This changed in the early 80's I believe (correct me if it was earlier).

A recipe is not copyrightable. It is a list of facts to reach a goal. The artwork, layout, etc, however, is. Thus cookbooks are copyrighted.

Software is unique in that it's now protected by both copyright, as if it's art, _and_ patent, as if it's a machine. Why one needs both is baffling to me.

--
BMO

Re:Outrageous

[davester666]

It could be worse. If you've had a few drinks and he used a car analogy, you could be off driving right now...

Re:Outrageous

[mysidia]

No, but if you reverse-engineer KFC chicken and determine a recipe that makes something that tastes exactly the same, KFC can't stop you from publishing it.

Re:Outrageous

[symbolset]

I've had more than 60K recipes online for over a decade and nobody ever bothered me about it. Sadly, I can't provide a link as the site's down now two weeks while we shift hosting providers. It's a hobby and it's free so I'm not apologetic about that. I'm a fairly busy guy and I'm not going to let that get in the way of my slashdotting. We get about 250k hits a month, down from a peak of over a million.

You can't put out your protocol under anything less than an "all implementations are free" license and then pretend you're supporting interopability. It's one way or the other: it's your protocol and people have to pay you to use it, or people don't need your permission to interoperate with you. You can't have both.

Re:Outrageous

[symbolset]

You have to give him (or her) points for creating a new account that memes another troll username and getting the initial comment with a topical troll message that references the username. That's troll diligence there.

Re:Outrageous

[QuantumG]

If you write your recipe as some creative prose, then sure, you can copyright that, the same as any creative prose.

But when I come along and see your prose and say "man that's pointless, here's a mere list of ingredients and some straight forward instructions" there's nothing you can do about it. Copyright doesn't prevent me from making a recipe of your prose, and copyright does not protect recipes.

Re:Outrageous

[timmarhy]

yeah right how dare they not just do it all for free right? there's no reason you can't charge a license for a protocol, just like any other piece of software. there should of course be nothing preventing you writing a competing protocol or your own clean room version. that's why patent are bad, but this is not.

Re:Outrageous

[Korbeau]

The license agreement says you are only allowed to use their BBQ sauce on Microsoft approved pizzas. And before you know, these pizzas will be degraded.

I'd say any pizza with BBQ sauce on it is already pretty much degraded!

I'd go for baconnaise instead!

Re:Outrageous

[ozmanjusri]

Kentucky Fried Chicken Seasoning Mix Recipe
Just mix these commonly-found spices together! Great when used for skinless chicken fingers too.

2 tablespoons salt
2 cups flour
2 tablespoons pepper
4 tablespoons paprika
1 teaspoon garlic salt
1 tablespoon mustard, ground
1 tablespoon French thyme, ground
1 tablespoon sweet basil
1 teaspoon oregano, ground
1 tablespoon jamaica ginger, ground

http://www.bubhub.com.au/community/forums/showthread.php?t=14201&page=2

Re:Outrageous

[MrMr]

Hah, You just wait until there's a story about jellied eels, smoked beer or lutefisk.

Re:Outrageous

[Jurily]

About the only thing that you -can't- do with a trade secret is if you know it most agreements forbid you from disclosing it or competing using it.

They only limit you if you signed an agreement, and you're in a country where the authorities give a damn.

Re:Outrageous

[shutdown -p now]

You can't put out your protocol under anything less than an "all implementations are free" license and then pretend you're supporting interopability.

Of course you can. It's called "reasonable and non-discriminating", and it's when you license your protocol to anyone who asks, for the same price regardless of who asks, and that price is reasonable. See MPEG4 etc.

It can be argued whether this is open, but interoperable - sure.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

there's no reason you can't charge a license for a protocol,

Bullshit. There are many reasons why charging a license for a protocol is bad. The fact that you are dishonestly pretending there are no reasons is telling.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networiking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[Teun]

Because you like the taste of ass? ;)

Re:Outrageous

[timmarhy]

telling in what way, that i don't agree with you? judging by your sig maybe you think i'm paid or something - if you know somewhere i can get paid for pointing out the obvious like i am, sign me up!

but seriously, are you suggesting if i come up with a protocol for transfering data between x and y, i shouldn't be able to charge people to use it? i've already pointed out i don't agree with patenting a protocol, so please don't waste time retreating into that.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

telling in what way,

You didn't respond to my main point. Dishonest.

judging by your sig maybe you think i'm paid or something - if you know somewhere i can get paid for pointing out the obvious like i am, sign me up!

Not explicitly stating you are not an astroturfer and trying to distract. Dishonest.

but seriously, are you suggesting if i come up with a protocol for transfering data between x and y, i shouldn't be able to charge people to use it?

Pretending there are no reasons why this is a bad idea. Dishonest.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[symbolset]

I have nothing to add here except that your lack of "getting it" is provably deliberate. You're a lawyer, aren't you?

Re:Outrageous

[phantomfive]

That is in fact the case here. According to the article, some of the protocols are encumbered by patents. I can't imagine what kind of patent you can get on a protocol, but that is the sorry state of the matter.

Re:Outrageous

[symbolset]

RAND is a cover for non-open. It used to work before the lawyers got ahold of it. Let me school you:

There is one and only one measure of openness now: You can implement it without a license, or you can't. That's it. You want to be interoperable, or you want to control who can interact with your interface. The control is the limiting factor and it's the difference between useful and not.

Re:Outrageous

[rtb61]

That of course brings up another question. Should anything be legally treated as a trade secret. Does not the end user, the potential victim of malfeasance have a right to make knowledgeable choices. Should not every citizens be entitled to the truth of what they are purchasing, is the government betraying it's own citizens when it allows companies to with hold information from the public that would likely alter their choice to select a product.

The reality is, in the 21st century there is no longer any room for trade secrets. It is obscene the greed is put ahead of people's ability to make a knowledgeable choice and it is even worse the governments seek to protect that greed at the behest of a deceitful minority.

Re:Outrageous

[fyrewulff]

Recipes cannot be copyrighted, although the instructions can be.
You can also patent the machines that put together your item, which would also document exactly how to replicate it.

Basically companies that have a 'secret recipe' are taking a risk-reward gamble.
If you can keep it a secret, you don't have to patent it. Patenting would protect it, but it would "start the clock" so to speak. The patent would eventually expire and the documentation would be there plain as day.

The big companies rely on people thinking it's secret and not replicable. KFC's recipe has been known for a long time - KFC even ran ads last year show people collecting ingredients to make KFC chicken but were making a point that it would be cheaper to buy from KFC.

Coca Cola's recipe status I am not sure of but it would not be too hard to replicate. However Coca-Cola has some benefits: the only company that is a threat to them financially (Pepsi) would have no use for the Coca-Cola recipe because Pepsi has built their empire off selling Pepsi, not Coca-Cola. In fact, Pepsi and CC bottle each other's sodas in many locations to save money! In the same respect, CC has no use for the Pepsi formula.

Re:Outrageous

[cntThnkofAname]

I have a few pizza recipes that I have licensed under the GPL ... ;)

Re:Outrageous

[Vahokif]

This isn't about software, this is about a specification, and they can charge money for anyone who implements the specification, clean room or otherwise.

Re:Outrageous

[MeNeXT]

No problem here but a monopoly should not be allowed to bundle products either.

Re:Outrageous

[The Cisco Kid]

You might be able to patent a *particular* implementation of the protocol, but if you think you can patent a 'protocol', you don't understand what a protocol is.

Its like patenting a language. Can you imagine someone patenting English, or French, and then in order to speak it, you'd have to pay a license fee? I'm not talking about books on learning the language, or video courses, or whatever, I'm talking about the language itself.

Re:Outrageous

[maxume]

For all your pomp about dishonesty, you are doing a pretty good job of poorly reading "there's no reason you can't charge" as if it says "there's no reason you shouldn't charge".

Your attitude is that I shouldn't charge you for my booklet about what my various smoke signals mean, you need to go further than repeating your attitude to establish that I can't charge for it.

Re:Outrageous

[gbjbaanb]

You forgot that KFCs secret recipe is protected in order to keep them competitive against their, uh, competitors. Microsoft forfeited that right when they stopped having competitors, that's why the DoJ got involved in the first place.

Re:Outrageous

[kismet666]

Good response AC. Go read Bit's other posts, a few are coherent but most lack arguements and many are full of insults like 'astroturfer.' Maybe his erratic behavior is caused some sort cyclical issue with medication or alcohol:)

Re:Outrageous

[shentino]

Actually you can copyright recipes.

They are creative works just like novels and movies.

And most of them btw are longer than the notorious Happy Birthday which somehow seems to enjoy copyright even though it's 4 lines long.

Re:Outrageous

[shentino]

If KFC really ran ads on how to make their secret recipe then they just lost trade secret status through voluntary disclosure.

Re:Outrageous

[shentino]

Protocol licensing really isn't all that bad unless you try to be sneaky about it, i.e., with a submarine patent.

Re:Outrageous

[fyrewulff]

They didn't... they only showed them picking up like 3 of them before they said something like "Okay, what's our cost up to now?" I think the ingredients they had picked up so far were pretty generic, flour etc.

Re:Outrageous

[Your Anus]

An encyclopedia is more than simply a statement of facts. It includes essays and illustrations that have a creative aspect. Also it has a particular layout and artwork. That is what is copyrighted.

Re:Outrageous

[Hurricane78]

Bah. Just wait until GoatseAnalogyGuy hears about this! ^^

Re:Outrageous

[Hurricane78]

What the hell is “garlic salt”? Isn’t that just garlic and salt? But how much of it is garlic then?fresh ingredients, it will taste way better! (Or deep-frozen. But not dried or heated or something. But take more if it’s fresh because of the additional water in it.)
2. If you put the seasoning *below* the skin of the chicken, with a bit of butter, it will become even greater.
3. I prefer real herbes de Provence and a bit or garlic instead. Best taste ever. (If done right.)

How this is on-topic you ask? Well it’s hacking of an open-source recipe an as an analogy for protocol hacking that ’re talking about here. Isn’t it obvious? ^^

Re:Outrageous

[Hurricane78]

Huh, halt the comment just went *poof*. WTH happened there? Here the full comment again:

What the hell is “garlic salt”? Isn’t that just garlic and salt? But how much of it is garlic then? What the hell is “garlic salt”? Isn’t that just garlic and salt? But how much of it is garlic then?

Oh, and by the way:
1. If you use fresh ingredients, it will taste way better! (Or deep-frozen. But not dried or heated or something. But take more if it’s fresh because of the additional water in it.)
2. If you put the seasoning *below* the skin of the chicken, with a bit of butter, it will become even greater.
3. I prefer real herbes de Provence and a bit or garlic instead. Best taste ever. (If done right.)

How this is on-topic you ask? Well it’s cracking of an open-source recipe an as an analogy for protocol cracking that ’re talking about here. Isn’t it obvious? ^^

Re:Outrageous

[Pharmboy]

Or it is kinda like this article from 1998. Sometimes life imitates art.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

Good response AC. Go read Bit's other posts, a few are coherent but most lack arguements and many are full of insults like 'astroturfer.

Oh goody, a troll. Get a life - if this is your idea of entertainment you need one.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

For those reading: The above rambling post may be an astroturfer trying to rationalize his/her sad existence. Probably he's posting anonymously because he/she prefers not to say "I'm not an astroturfer" under their username. While quoting me it doesn't actually address any of the points I've made (e.g. "no reason" in the original post when he knows full well there are many reasons) while also trying to baffle the reader with BS.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

For all your pomp about dishonesty, you are doing a pretty good job of poorly reading "there's no reason you can't charge" as if it says "there's no reason you shouldn't charge".

Thank you, an actual honest response. Yes, a very literal reading would be as you say however given the context he/she was trying to imply a lot more without explicitly saying it (as advertising/marketing lowlifes frequently do, trying to deceive the reader while avoiding a actual, legal commitment) and I called him on it. The fact that he didn't respond honestly says a lot about him.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[maxume]

His support of clean room implementations (back here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30411612 ) suggests that my reading is the intended reading, not an over-reading.

Re:Outrageous

[bit01]

His support of clean room implementations (back here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476008&cid=30411612 ) suggests that my reading is the intended reading, not an over-reading.

No, same problem. In that post he's also trying to imply that because you can [legally] do something then you should do something while pretending there are no reasons at all not to.

---

Don't be fooled, slashdot is not immune, like most social networking sites it is full of lying astroturfers dishonestly pretending to be objective third parties rather than paid company propaganda.

Re:Outrageous

[maxume]

Your wit is like a huge gaping anus.

Re:Outrageous

[maxume]

The pretense is in your head. "there should of course be nothing preventing you writing a competing protocol or your own clean room version. that's why patent are bad, but this is not." is pretty unequivocal.

protocols

[sopssa]

Since when protocols are something you can license? They're pretty much available for everyone, technical details available or not. Protocols really shouldn't be limited by licenses.

However on another case, Blizzard has been fighting such too against cheaters on their games.

But really, what law do you violate if you're using a "licensed" protocol? I haven't heard of such cases before.

Re:protocols

[eln]

Protocols aren't any more open than any other piece of code. I can develop a completely closed protocol that governs how one of my own programs interacts with one of my other programs. If you attempt to use the protocol without my permission, you would likely be guilty of unlawful reverse engineering under the terms of our old friend the DMCA, which prohibits reverse engineering except in very limited circumstances.

Re:protocols

[martas]

protocol design is a difficult and important process. by designing a protocol for something that performs better than existing ones, you can gain competitive advantage. if this advantage then disappears because everybody else can just copy the results of your hard work, i'm pretty sure anybody would be pissed. IANAL, but it seems to me that a company should be allowed to make money from their own work.

Re:protocols

[benjamindees]

The DMCA only prohibits reverse engineering to circumvent "copy protection" mechanisms. It would be circular reasoning to assert that the copyrighted material being protected is the protocol itself.

Re:protocols

[phantomfive]

Some of the protocols are covered by patents, and some of the protocols have documentation that must be licensed, it isn't all available free, unfortunately.

Re:protocols

[phantomfive]

It is extremely rare that a protocol becomes a competitive advantage because of their quality, mainly because designing a protocol in most cases isn't really very hard. Usually the only reason to keep a protocol secret is to keep competitors from interoperating with your software, which is why Microsoft was convicted of being a monopolist in the first place.

In fact I can't think of any protocol that was kept secret because it performed better at the time. Maybe some old networking protocol or something. I can think of a ton of protocols that were kept secret purposely to prevent interoperability. Here's a few:

SMB/CIFS
CDMA diagnostic port protocol
Blizzard online game protocols
IPodITunes protocol
Skype
AIM protocol
MSN chat protocol
Yahoo chat protocol

There are others. Fortunately reverse engineering a product for the purpose of interoperability is allowed under the DMCA. That is one of the bright spots of that legislation.

Re:protocols

[symbolset]

Protocols are not code. Protocols are methods of interaction between pieces of code, even if the code is methods of interaction embedded in hardware. That these methods could possibly be considered as something that should be protected by some sort of intellectual property agreement is a testament to how far we've fallen from the root assumption of Unix: that all things should be able to connect to all other things whenever physically possible.

This is the mindset that brought us DRM, all of Sony's stupid proprietary media formats, and an iPhone that won't tether.

I'm sick of it. I have enough stuff that doesn't connect to my other stuff. I'm not buying any more stuff that doesn't connect to the stuff that I already have. I'm not using any systems that require proprietary licensing to connect the stuff I have to the new stuff I buy. I'm done with all that stupidness.

Re:protocols

[Brandano]

Not only that, the DMCA explicitly allows reverse engineering of software in order to allow for interoperability with other applications:
see paragraph (f) here:
http://static.chillingeffects.org/1201.shtml
Microsoft has no ground to stand on from the copyright angle, so it's attempting to imlpement the same limitations from a software patent angle. Which currently has no value in most of the civilized world.

Re:protocols

[thejynxed]

Lrn2read, plz. A poster up the chain already posted the relevant article and subsection specifically stating that reverse-engineering is allowed as long as it isn't used to circumvent copy protection mechanisms.

Examples:

Reverse-engineering Windows Genuine Advantage: Illegal period.

Reverse-engineering the protocol your cell phone uses to transfer data from your computer to the phone and vice-versa: Not illegal, caveat being if it is protected by DRM mechanisms. Encryption doesn't count as DRM (Yet. We'll see what those turds in Congress add later on if enough weasel words and money are exchanged).

Note: Reverse-engineering stuff for the iPhone/iPod is in kind of a gray area, as most things from the Apple store come with DRM of some sort, and if that DRM is in any way applied/extended to the transfer protocols, it may be illegal to reverse-engineer the protocols, even for interoperability with other online music stores. There hasn't been any court rulings on this as of yet.

Re:protocols

[roystgnr]

Blizzard online game protocols ...
Fortunately reverse engineering a product for the purpose of interoperability is allowed under the DMCA.

That's assuming, of course, that you can convince a judge that your purpose was interoperability. Last I heard, it was still illegal to make a client interoperate with Blizzard's servers, and illegal to make a server interoperate with Blizzard's clients.

Re:protocols

[LaminatorX]

The prior poster is correct. If you actually read the text of the DMCA, it provides a specific exemption for interoperability efforts. That's what was such a crock in the DeCSS cases. DVD Jon was specifically writing a Linux DVD player, which should have been clearly allowed by the letter and spirit of the statute. The judge made a catastrophically bad ruling.

Re:protocols

[shentino]

Except in the case of DRM, anything done for interoperability must first circumvent copy protection because the copy protection is an integral part of being interoperable.

Even better for the companies is that you HAVE to implement the DRM. Failure to do so is a violation of the patent license you need to even use the format period.

Just in time, too!

[Weaselmancer]

And it only took them ten years.

Funny how the government doesn't even give you ten days past the due date of a parking violation though, isn't it?

Ahh, shit

[inode_buddha]

Here we go again, clumsily trying to do the interoperability dance. It reminds me of deja vu all over again...

Decision to force them to document more protocols

[electrosoccertux]

An interesting side effect of the DOJ's decision to force Microsoft to document more of their protocols was that internal Microsoft employees have found their job easier and the teams more efficient.
I stumbled across this tidbit while research for a final paper about software patent (good/bad/why/alternatives). You can read about it here.

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[bogaboga]

Any hope for something similar when it comes to MS Office and Exchange?

Charge them for speaking english

[L0stm4n]

I mean they didn't invent it. Their using of this critical interoperability protocol without payment to the inventors is ludicrous.

just my 2 cents ( paid in full to the anglo-saxons )

Re:Charge them for speaking english

[ewhac]

They'd switch to Loglan.

...Actually, they'd make trivial, incompatible changes to the language and call it Microsoft Loglan.

Re:Charge them for speaking english

[mysidia]

Really? Cool.. James Cooke's estate, will be collecting some massive royalties from MS for use of text written in Loglan :)

Re:Charge them for speaking english

[Dracos]

No, they'd call it L#.

Re:Charge them for speaking english

[neltana]

They'd switch to Loglan.

...Actually, they'd make trivial, incompatible changes to the language and call it Microsoft Loglan.

Meanwhile, FSF would promote Lojban, the free alternative that forked back in 1987. Many flame wars would ensue.

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[Foredecker]

Oh, do you mean these :)

Microsoft Exchange Server 2010 Protocol Documentation

Here is the announcement from Feb 2008: Microsoft Makes Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability.

Bing is your friend.

-Foredecker

Congratulations!

[Bob9113]

Congratulations, Microsoft, and allow me to offer this toast:

May you attempt to create a revenue stream and inhibit competition, and continue to poison your long-term success by limiting others' ability to create novel goods and services with your platforms.

May your long, slow, demise be as stealthy as a panther in the night, so that you may continue not to understand until it is too late to recover and your war chest is too depleted to purchase any particularly egregious laws during your death spasms.

And finally, may Steve Ballmer always be your public face. He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin.

:)

Re:Congratulations!

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And finally, may Steve Ballmer always be your public face. He is nearly as amusing as Sarah Palin.

You software hippies are just afraid of Steve Ballmer because of his good looks, his charm, his masculinity, his Christianity, his ability connect to the common user and his overall wonderfulness!

Re:Congratulations!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, someone who throws chairs about so handily must press a lot of benches.

Re:Congratulations!

[Jaxoreth]

You software hippies are just afraid of Steve Ballmer because of his good looks, his charm, his masculinity, his Christianity, his ability connect to the common user and his overall wonderfulness!

Yawn. Wake me when he's the mother of five children.

Re:Congratulations!

[Bob9113]

And MS is the most developer friendly company in the world, so they have plenty of others creating novel goods and services with their platforms. But nice try, rabble rouser.

I... I don't know what to say.

What did that weekend at the lake mean to you? I shared my darkest secrets with you as we held each other in front of the fire. I bared my soul to you. And now you accuse me of rousing rabble?!? I thought we meant something to each other. You know how I feel about the rousing of rabble, and this is what you say? Are you trying to hurt me? Well you did. I hope you're happy with yourself.

I feel like I don't even know who you are anymore.

Get out, just get out. I don't want to see you like this.

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[symbolset]

Given the article, don't you think your protocols link is a little rich? Especially given the similar exFAT licensing article from yesterday ?

You're open or you're not. There's none of this licensing the protocol nonsense in "interopability".

BTW: I'm not stalking you. It seems we're interested in the same stuff. I haven't hit your blog link yet - I've been busy selling your products and blind links from that thread merit the due caution of access from offsite hosting through a proxy or seven, which takes more time to set up than I've had.

Re:hey now

[awyeah]

Speaking of government regulation... I know there are laws against talking on the phone sans hands-free... laws against texting... I wonder if there are any laws against visiting Slashdot.

Did Microsoft made yet another mistake?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols. Microsoft then does what the government asks. Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.

Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake. Wasn't this what they asked Microsoft to do?

Re:Did Microsoft made yet another mistake?

[shutdown -p now]

OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols. Microsoft then does what the government asks. Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked.

Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake.

This is Slashdot. Hereabouts, the ultimate Microsoft mistake is that it exists in the first place.

Well, some softer guys would settle at MS releasing all its existing code under GPL, and switching to producing a fully libre Linux distro with drivers, blackjack, and hookers.

Re:hey now

[symbolset]

I do believe more and more states are outlawing "Distracted Driving," which is a catchall that covers texting, talking without handsfree, receiving oral sex on the freeway, slashdotting, Farking, flogging the dolphin and watching TV or movies on your portable. Kids these days, once they get off our lawn, seem to be offered less fun than we had.

Naturally proper Libertarians are going to have a problem with that. I'm a Libertarian, but not a proper one, so I don't have a problem with these laws as long as I don't get caught violating them. If I do get caught of course I'll be upset about the constitutional implications of limiting my civil liberties. Actually I'm probably more of an ambivalent anarchist. I don't really believe in the anarchist philosophy, but at least it trends more toward liberty than the situation I'm in. Should we trend more toward a purer form like Somalian Anarchy, I'm sure I would become more conservative. I'm not a big fan of group antisocial atavism.

Oh, hell I've trapped myself. I'm symbolset, and I'd like to call myself a "rationalist" as defined by a system of evaluating the situation and making reasonable judgements based on the available evidence in a calm manner with the presumption that "do nothing" is usually the best course - but unfortunately the "rationalism" token is taken some 2400 years now by Socrates. Frankly he did OK, but Kant messed the whole thing up and that's what people attach to that symbol so I need a new one.

Pending a better symbol I'll call my personal philosophy Frzygy. Fellow Frzygists, unite (unless you don't want to)!

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[Foredecker]

No worries :)

What is a 'blind link'?

-Foredecker

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[symbolset]

A blind link is a link to a server that's not known good, or a link to an URL shortener like j.mp

Microsoft advises against clicking blind links, and that's good guidance. It's talking to a wall since Twitter almost requires those links, and it's the hot tech right now. Of course I have my own URL shortener service so I don't have to use other people's.

I'm not worried about you piercing my anonymous veil, since once you've been online as long as I have, "whois username" will almost always pierce that veil. Bing me and drop by the house one day - I live near you and wouldn't mind a visit around 7PM on a weekday. I would actually like to meet you in real life as I think I would like you in person. I prefer to keep my symbolset handle separate from my work and daily life to ensure my family and employer aren't tainted by my opinions, but I do believe what I believe and I am a person and you can find me if you want to, just as I can find you. I'm sure if you wanted to, you'd know who I was by now. It's just that that particular thread lends itself to "funny" links that hose your machine. I do that myself now and then. I don't mind the occasional funny hosing, but I've got work to do and my random hosable machines are all busy today.

When I have time and sufficient separation from client data, I'll click it and read what you had to say - and then burn the VM to be sure I didn't pick up any stray software along the way. In a more congenial context I tend to be less careful, but the Internet is what it is. I don't even know that you are who you claim to be. Though the timing of your comments against world events is persuasive evidence, persuasion is not proof.

I am a little worried about you setting the evangelists after me. I sell several $M/yr of your products at work and only point out your weaknesses in my free time, but giving me more free time and less selling time is part of the self-destructive behaviour I expect from your gang.

Trade barriers

[RAMMS EIN]

Nice, another trade barrier. You can't use this protocol unless you pay $x. At least, if you live in the USA. If you live in a country where interoperability is a right, you now have documentation to help you attain it. If you live in a country where the $x barrier to entry doesn't exist or isn't enforced, you can now make your product $x cheaper than your competitors in the USA.

Interoperability: brought to you by the European Union and the People's Republic of China while companies in the USA fought expensive legal battles over chump change.

Samba has a license for many of the key patents

[tridge]

Before everyone gets too worked up, please look at this:

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

Samba and any other free software project (via the PFIF) has a royalty free license to most of the patents that are important for these protocols.

There are some patents that are excluded from this (see appendix 4 of the agreement for a list of the excluded patents), and we do indeed need to avoid infringement of those patents. That has not so far proved to be an insurmountable obstacle, although it is an inconvenience.

Cheers, Tridge

Re:Samba has a license for many of the key patents

[ascari]

The Samba project and the people who work on it are truly amazing: Consider Tridge's statement that a salvo from the batteries of one the world's largest and most aggressive software corporations is a mere "inconvenience". That should tell us a lot about the power of individuals and open source! Yay! At the same time I wish that Samba was less necessary. I wish that there were good Windows drivers for the many excellent open source distributed file systems etc. that are out there, so that people weren't "forced" to use the crappy Windows protocols to achieve interoperability. Yes, I'm aware of such initiatives but none are as widespread and easy to use as Samba. Unfortunately I'm not smart enough to do anything about the situation.

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[symbolset]

By The Way: this is not a request for an interview. I would rather clean septic tanks than work for your company, and the local septic company is always hiring (FlowHawks).

Re: Supposed KFC Recipe

[Ginger Unicorn]

CHICKENGREASESALT

Re: Supposed KFC Recipe

[ozmanjusri]

You're right - I left out the MSG.

Actually, rumour has it that in the 80s, KFC switched to using just salt, pepper, MSG and flour. I do think the modern version is less tasty.

You can, kinda, from copyright.gov

[b4dc0d3r]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection.

Protection under the copyright law (title 17 of the U.S. Code, section 102) extends only to "original works of authorship" that are fixed in a tangible form (a copy). "Original" means merely that the author produced the work by his own intellectual effort, as distinguished from copying an existing work. Copyright protection may extend to a description, explanation, or illustration, assuming that the requirements of the copyright law are met.

For information on how to register, see the reverse side of this letter. For further information on copyright, deposit requirements, and registration procedures, see Circular 1, Copyright Basics. Deposit requirements depend on whether the work has been published at the time of registration:

        * If the work is unpublished, one complete copy
        * If the work was first published in the United States on or after January 1, 1978, two complete copies of the best edition
        * If the work was first published in the United States before January 1, 1978, two complete copies as first published If the work was first published outside the United States, one complete copy of the work as first published
        * If the work is a contribution to a collective work and was published after January 1, 1978, one complete copy of the best edition of the collective work or a photocopy of the contribution itself as it was published in the collective work

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.

Re:You can, kinda, from copyright.gov

[gbutler69]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

...

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.

Given the above, can someone please explain to me why Computer Software is copyrightable?

Re:You can, kinda, from copyright.gov

[Timothy Brownawell]

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl122.html

...

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to names, titles, short phrases, ideas, systems, or methods.

Given the above, can someone please explain to me why Computer Software is copyrightable?

It is considered a literary work. Given that nobody actually practices literate programming, I don't think this makes much sense.

Microsoft undocumentation :)

[rs232]

"OK. So the government order Microsoft to document the protocols. Microsoft then does what the government asks. Now the government acknowledges that Microsoft has done what was asked. Somehow, the comments here make it seem like Microsoft made yet another mistake. Wasn't this what they asked Microsoft to do?

No, they were asked to open the specs not, after much delay, publish a mishmash of source code and API calls and then charge other compamies to connect their computers to their-own customers computers. What's difficult about producing an RFC. No doubt this undocumentation will be as deliveratly obscure as their previous efforts in that department ...

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing

[westlake]

You can't copyright recipes

Mere listings of ingredients as in recipes, formulas, compounds, or prescriptions are not subject to copyright protection. However, when a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Recipes

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[Foredecker]

Hahahah! The bit about the honeydipper is hilarious! I have a septic system and when it isnt working, Ill pay those guys anything. I unclogged it myself last winter and I dont want to do it again...

Im the same way about my foredecker handle. Its not anonymous in any mayterial way, but there is separation from work. Thats why I use my Wordpress blog now and will only use my msdn blog for pure work stuff.

In any case, Id really enjoy meeting you. Next week is really busy for me, but anytime after the 19th would be fine. Im trying to figure out howyou can send me an email without publishing any of my email address on a public forum. None of the sites I use seem to have a way that lets someone send me email without logging in. Perhapse you have a facebook account and can contact me using that.

Or, we can just arrange someting here.& Im happy to have a beer or a drink so any of the local restaurants or bars is fine with me.

-Foredecker

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[symbolset]

That would be lovely. Sorry about the ranting. You'll note that at 3am on a Saturday I can sometimes get a little dumb.

I'll get you a direct email some way.

Re:HOSTS files reminder Foredecker... apk

[Foredecker]

APK - I ask you, politely, not to nag me about this. While you are free to do so, posting a reply to almost all of my posts is tiresome. I'm asking you again, politely, please stop it.

Its anoyong, and fills my in box with spam. This behavior is casting you you in the role of a spammer in a very real way.

-Foredecker

Re:Decision to force them to document more protoco

[Foredecker]

Rants are fine :)

Re:HOSTS files reminder Foredecker... apk

[Foredecker]

Ah! I just figured out how to solve this... I'm setting my Slasdhot preferences to only send me mail for replies that score a 2 or better. So no more APK mail in my inbox, but I'll still get notifications of Symbolsets mail.

Cool! lets see if it works...

Re:HOSTS files reminder Foredecker... apk

[symbolset]

Aw, shucks.

I've figured out why I repost to you so much. I friended you and you friended me, and you're a subscriber which puts all of your posts at +3 and makes your posts full rather than abbreviated according to my preference settings. If you post in a thread that I'm interested in your post is always fully expanded, and I'm always interested in the threads you post in and you always say interesting stuff that I usually disagree with. I was starting to worry.

Now don't feed the troll. Not only can he not hear you - he's a script. There is no real person behind his ranting. It's part of some twisted CS PhD candidate's thesis. He's no more a person than the Frosty Piss troll, the NAMBLA troll, the Nigger troll, or any of the others. They're part of the slashdot background radiation, and in a sense they're a sort of Turing test. Slashdot is actually a large part of the research into cracking CAPTCHA technologies and in human machine interaction, in addition to the amusing forums we enjoy. You can validate this by looking for some context between your post and his reply.

It's tolerated (perhaps encouraged) in part because these annoying actors are otherwised engaged in improving Linux. Major Debian and BSD contributors, for example, use slashdot as a workspace for their human-machine interaction side experiments, of which APK is probably one. In addition many of these trolls post links which, if you follow them, will completely hose a Windows machine. This is part of the game.

And if he's not a script then he's really scary and we should probably not give him attention lest we find him on our porch one day.