Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Microsoft has published a protocol
license agreement which can be signed to get a license from Microsoft
to implement a whole set of interesting protocols. The list is at the end
of the agreement; it includes AppleTalk, Bluetooth, the TCP discard
protocol, DHCP, echo, FTP, HTTP, Gopher, IPSec, lpd, Firewire, ping, PPP,
POP3, rlogin, Telnet, TFTP, TCP/IP (v4 and v6), and many others. Bet you
didn't know Microsoft owned those... (as seen on Slashdot).
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 7, 2004 17:05 UTC (Sun) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] That's quite a land grab.
What do you want to be that a lot of people believe that Microsoft was at least instrumental in developing all of these?
Honestly, this behavior on the part of Microsoft should somehow be criminally actionable. While it's a royalty-free agreement, by signing it you have agreed to something.... This is extortion, perhaps, false advertising, perhaps. I mean, sheesh!
-Rob
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 18:39 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] Well, lots (30%+) of people think that Iraq was helping Al Qaeda and that we *did* find WMD's there, so why not?
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 14, 2004 16:25 UTC (Sun) by shane (subscriber, #3335) [Link] s/people/Americans/
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 7, 2004 17:43 UTC (Sun) by lolando (subscriber, #7139) [Link] ...and as seen on one of the first comments on the Slashdot article, namely http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=128797&cid=10... (and on the FAQ it points to), Microsoft apparently doesn't actually claim "IP rights" to those protocols.
Ironically, one of the comments in reply to that comment criticizes Slashdot editors for not following the links before publishing news. I'll assume LWN's article was sarcastic rather than literal...
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 7:39 UTC (Mon) by ken (subscriber, #625) [Link] They claim they may or may not have rights and that is not the same thing as claming they have no IP rights. The whole thing is very unclear but I guess that's on purpose. I also would like to know what microsoft think they own in http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0863.txt it's item 19 on the protocol list.
I do not understand... Posted Nov 7, 2004 18:18 UTC (Sun) by libra (guest, #2515) [Link] Is it kind of ala SCO agreement that gives you nothing you already have but will prevent you from doing things you normally could later?
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 7, 2004 18:45 UTC (Sun) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link] Implementation of these Protocols and, to the extent Microsoft is not the owner or sole owner of the Technical Documentation for these Protocols, use of this Technical Documentation may require securing additional rights from third parties. Licensee is responsible for contacting such third parties directly to discuss licensing details.Microsoft is sinking so fast they have to make people aware that a great deal of Open Source Software is being used in conjuction with their code, that they are not responsible for third party code and they will not defend the GPL. The reality of this is that Microsoft has been forced to make a back-handed concession that much of what is used in the workplace does not belong to Microsoft and that the standards(protocols) that are used in their products are not owned by them. The only thing I see wrong with what they've done is that they haven't properly identified the standards they claim to own vs those of third parties or sanctioning bodies.
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 7, 2004 21:07 UTC (Sun) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link] Anyone signing this "License Agreement" is a fool! You get nothing for it, and become unable to write Free software that implements these protocols! (At least that's how I read it, and I DID read it.)
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 7, 2004 22:51 UTC (Sun) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link] The agreement is nugatory; it grants no effective rights; nor mandates enforcable obligations,
(it is not worth the bits ... it is 'written on')
those of you, in America, who, in spite of your most numerous profession,
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 7, 2004 23:01 UTC (Sun) by mrons (subscriber, #1751) [Link] > The agreement is nugatory; it grants no effective rights; nor mandates enforcable obligations
So what is the point of the agreement?
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 7, 2004 23:50 UTC (Sun) by pyellman (guest, #4997) [Link] To those of us who have been expecting exactly this move on Microsoft's part for some time now, the point is exactly what it appears to be: to kickstart the process of generating the perception among those who cannot be expected to know better (or those who generally fear Microsoft's power) that Microsoft owns or "may" own IP rights over key protocols which uphold the web & internet, thereby laying the groundwork for a whole new front in the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt campaign.
The rest of you can argue about whether Microsoft is claiming rights, giving them away, or absolving itself of liabilities.
Peter Yellman
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 0:13 UTC (Mon) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206) [Link] Sorry, MY earlier post should have, explicitly, been labeled TROLL:
MS has no right
Prior art
Basis in fact, law, or other reasonable cause to promulgate its licence
For those who are NOT legally qualified please, at least, read Roman
The point is the patent system Posted Nov 8, 2004 18:44 UTC (Mon) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] Microsoft knows damn' well any claims of theirs to have any rights, or to be able to sell any licenses, is beside the point. Look at the merry chase SCO is leading IBM on, and what it's costing IBM. All MS has to to do is wave some patent or other about networking or protocols (needn't have anything to do with their list), and the price of entry to play the game is suddenly
This is what the software patent system has brought us to. Deep pockets (and are any deeper than MS's?) and a few patents trump any single consultant, the vast majority of small businesses, and even, I suspect, some medium large ones. Once MS has made [un]suitable noises to businesses without ready cash, hey presto!, MS gets whatever they want. Working up the food chain, they can knock off any small competition. The effect on the press, possibly on the courts, and certainly on the average computer user, is pretty much what it would be if they did own current patents to all of the above.
Microsoft's next years license agreement? Posted Nov 7, 2004 23:44 UTC (Sun) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] A licence to grant you the right to look at the Tower Bridge?
Why doesn't MS use this tactic Posted Nov 7, 2004 23:49 UTC (Sun) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] Honesty. I would like to propose to Microsoft that they offer a a license to all our base. After all, all our base are belong to Microsoft, so why don't they just be honest about it and offer to license it back to us? It would save us all this uncertainty. Of course, the license would have to be sufficiently vague that it could be revoked at any time and possibly not cover *all* our base. And it's entirely possible that maybe, just maybe they *don't* all all our base. This is just a 'just-in-case' license (better known by a certain segment of the population as 'protection'). ;-)
Why doesn't MS use this tactic Posted Nov 7, 2004 23:55 UTC (Sun) by LinuxLobbyist (guest, #6541) [Link] ...they *don't* all all our base.That should read "they *don't* own all our base." And I should add, that I expect Sun Microsystems to be the first to sign up.
Why doesn't MS use this tactic Posted Nov 8, 2004 4:15 UTC (Mon) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link] Oooh...
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 5:49 UTC (Mon) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] It'is high time the courts took decisive action against M$ Corp once and for all i am getting sick of seeing them try to make yet another grab for something else they dont own and stand no chnace of owning like the M$ Mouse actually not theres at all but stolen from someone else and the whole windowing system not theres at all but an idea knicked off someone else even MS DOG not there but a re-work of another well known system paid $10,000.00 my aunt fanny as like .
It is also time for a total and complete audit of ALL M$ Corp code bases to see just how much code they have stolen from the Open Source Communitity, We have pussy fotted around with them enought now time to go for the Jugular lets sort them out once and for all end this crap NOW ..
Pete .
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 11:17 UTC (Mon) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " We have pussy fotted around with them enought now time to go for the Jugular lets sort them out once and for all end this crap NOW .. "
For that you have to breack the grab on Hardware Industry, that M$ holds tight, and that way with the majority of Hardware Industry on Open Source side, win the desktop... and with that the CE world!
For that to happen, perhaps the *majority* of changes would have to happen in Kernel, not userland... thought the hotplugging enable device driver model in 2.6/2.7 is in the right way!... its clearly not enough.
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 16:45 UTC (Mon) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link] *please* don't smoke *that* before speaking publicly
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 12:10 UTC (Mon) by nowster (subscriber, #67) [Link] Whilst most of the IETF standards are referenced back to the RFC repository, oddly the serial line file transfer protocols (X-Modem, Y-Modem, Z-Modem, Kermit, etc.) are described as "Hyperterminal protocols" without giving attribution to those who invented them, implying by omission that Microsoft invented them.
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 15:21 UTC (Mon) by ccchips (subscriber, #3222) [Link] I suppose I should read the darn thing, but the above posting shows how this nonsense really grates.
I talked to Randy Suess a couple times, and Ward Christensen's original documentation of Xmodem was in front of my face for years. My company used Kermit to transfer files back and forth, in a platform-independent manner, and to access our mainframe as a terminal, for just as many years. Some of the time, the systems we used for terminals didn't even *run* a Microsoft operating system.
This *thing* from Microsoft is really a great example of how sickening this industry is getting lately. Where are the major efforts, on the part of these behemoth corporations, to stop the widespread criminal invasion of privacy on the Internet, through spam, viruses, and spyware? Why are they instead trying to claim rights to work that does not belong to them?
Read this as weakness Posted Nov 8, 2004 12:22 UTC (Mon) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link] So, SCO claims to own everything built upon Unix and Microsoft claims the entire Internet. Both want you to sign agreements based on these claims, implying they will make legal threats if you don't ? This behaviour is like that of a cornered animal: read it as a sign of weakness.
Read this as weakness Posted Nov 8, 2004 18:43 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] First, they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then, they fight you...
Then, you win.
We are *so* at GhandiCon 3.
(And I don't much care who thinks ESR invented that one; I like it.)
Only standard protocols and not extensions? Posted Nov 8, 2004 13:00 UTC (Mon) by kfox (guest, #4767) [Link] What's really interesting is that the Microsoft extensions to and deviations from the published standards aren't listed. For example, the HTTP digest authentication deviations aren't listed. I'd like to know when/why/how the Windows domain name gets stuffed into the user name for example.
Then there are protocols that aren't listed. What does that mean? Is Microsoft going to drop Web DAV support?
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 15:37 UTC (Mon) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Steve Ballmer and Dick Cheney are buddies.
Is anyone really suprised?
I'm sorry to appear overly cynical. But now that the triumverate
No court under the dominion of Ashcroft is going to do anything
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 16:22 UTC (Mon) by sab39 (guest, #2185) [Link] The courts aren't under the "dominion" of Ashcroft. The Justice Department is. This means that the government *itself* won't go after Microsoft, but not that the courts won't provide a fair verdict if someone else decides to.
(Now, with Bush likely to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, there may still be problems in this department - but it's not Ashcroft's department)
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 17:33 UTC (Mon) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] You're right.
US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly did a very admirable job
Oh! wait, in the face of overwhelming incontrovertable evidence
Yes, the courts are doing a wonderful job.
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 19:06 UTC (Mon) by sab39 (guest, #2185) [Link] The courts can't force a plaintiff not to settle if that plaintiff is determined to do so. The plaintiff was the Justice Department.
There's no evidence to say what any judge would or wouldn't have done if the Justice Department had been willing to see the case through to the end. But when the organization in charge of prosecuting the case essentially concedes it (as happened with the change of Administration), there's not much the judge can do.
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 20:42 UTC (Mon) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Okay, I get it.
As long as *someone* who is BIGGER than the US Department
got it.
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 20:44 UTC (Mon) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Yes, I am being cynical.
Or, perhaps in the face of current and past
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 9, 2004 17:16 UTC (Tue) by sab39 (guest, #2185) [Link] Actually I was suggesting that as long as *anyone* actually goes after them and sticks to it, the courts will be (at least to a first approximation) fair and honest. Seems that everyone who might have a case decides to settle instead, though - Sun, AOL/Netscape, and now Novell. In at least two out of three of these cases, "settle" appears to be a euphemism for "bend over"... too little information to tell if Novell's in that boat, yet, but their pullout from the European antitrust case suggests that it might have been.
Can't blame the courts for the fact that all the plaintiffs are (as the Governator would put it) legal girlie men...
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 9, 2004 21:49 UTC (Tue) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Well, in the end, I think everyone settles, because Microsoft hasvery deep pockets, and knows that if a Sun/Novell or whatever is really going to be responsible to its stockholders, it's going to take the money, rather than spend every last nickle in a vain hope that it will live long enough to collect a judgement.
MS can, and will tie things up until it get terms it can live with,
Microsoft's protocol license agreement Posted Nov 8, 2004 18:44 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] And more importantly, the press seems to think Ashcroft is not long for this regime...
Following Microsoft political money Posted Nov 8, 2004 17:39 UTC (Mon) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link]
I didn't vote for either Kerry or Bush this political cycle.
Following Microsoft political money Posted Nov 9, 2004 7:35 UTC (Tue) by mbp (guest, #2737) [Link] It may be that Microsoft employees/shareholders/alumni donated a comparable or larger amount of money to that given directly in Microsoft's name. I wouldn't be surprised if it skewed towards Kerry too, given the north-west and intelligence bias.
Following Microsoft political money Posted Nov 9, 2004 9:48 UTC (Tue) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] The bigger moral is that both parties are playing (payed) in the battle for information rights. I hope everyone out there that cares about information rights will bark at their corresponding political parties.
Bark! Say "This sucks and I won't support it!" I have no party affiliation, but if I did, I wouldn't have voted for either major presidentail candidiate regardless. #5 (Kerry) vs. #19 (Bush) just doesn't attract to me either way. This was an easy election to win, but the Democrats presented #5 instead.
|
|
||||||||||||