| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Microsoft's protocol license agreement
Posted Nov 7, 2004 22:51 UTC (Sun) by brianomahoney (subscriber, #6206)Parent article: Microsoft's protocol license agreement
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,
can not expect the rest of the world to join you in ignorance --- this is
'CRAP' and will not work.
(Log in to post comments)
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
and AScL before forming naive opinions.
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
- a lawyer or two,
- the time to dig up previous art, and
- either
- the effort to get the USPTO to invalidate the patent, if any, or
- whatever it costs for the victim to shout loudly enough about the emperor's new clothes that it gets the attention of the unwashed masses of IT pros.
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.