This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft Patents Package Management
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
"May your future be limited only by your dreams." -- Christa McAuliffe
MPM (Score:1)
Umm.. (Score:1)
Imagine the uproar if Microsoft tried to enforce this patent on Debian and other distributions.. oh my..
God, I have a sinking feeling this will actually get through too. What a shame.
Pointless (Score:1)
Then, again, why did they register it? Weird.
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
OK, what consequenses? (Score:2)
I hope we will be able to point to "prior art" and get the patent invalidated. Or this may be a major setback...
When did microsoft apply for the patent? Before or after apt existed?
--
"Rune Kristian Viken" - arcade@kvine-nospam.sdal.com - arcade@efnet
Re:Pointless (Score:3)
Read the damn thing first. (Score:3)
This is an automatic system. A registry key containing a date is checked against the current date, and the system queries a database over the Internet and checks for upgrades. It has nothing to do with RPM etc.
--
The other side is crowded. The dead have nowhere to go.
Re:Pointless (Score:3)
Wait a sec.. (Score:2)
Installing and updating a software program module component. A determination is made whether the current date is on or after a date stored in a registry key on a computer.
Last I checked, there's no registry keys on Linux (sorry, GNU/Linux :) ) .. depends how technical they want to get with it, I suppose.
MS isn't stupid though.. they have to want to patent this for a reason.. even though it appears prior use by linux would make this null and void if they attempt to go after them.
So why aren't the disto companies (Score:1)
How many of you will work at the Patents Office? (Score:2)
Re:Pointless (Score:1)
It's still alright (Score:2)
2) Dates and version numers are monotimically increasing, so you can just use version numbers instead of dates({program name} -v )
3) Databases can be avoided.
Ummm . . . (Score:1)
I think there might be a few prior art issues here. I've never even heard of Microsoft making a package manager. The only package managers I know are Red Hat and Debian (perhaps a few others).
Microsoft: "We are doing this in order to fuel further innovation."
Hackers: "Not again!"
Doesn't seem the same as RPM, don't know APT (Score:2)
Its clearly invalid (Score:5)
Oops! (Score:1)
Please pay us $0.50 for every instance of your Red Hat RPM Manager and Debian apt in existence. Or we sue for infringement.
Reply? Too obscene to be shown here.
hmmph! (Score:5)
The MS package management system has certain features that improve performance over the Debian system
Instead of spending precious cycles checking for dependancies the MS system saves time by blindly overwriting everything.Perhaps Debian should apply for a patent for SAFE software updates over the net
Re:Umm.. (Score:1)
If they got the patent and it was enforced me thinks that Micros~1 would not be in business anymore
Bill Gates: Please Tux! I didnt mean to file the patent and bribe the patent office. This is a total misunderstanding!
Tux: Muwahahahahahahahahah
(Tux rips Billy's head off by throwing a stack of Linux CDs)
Think about it... (Score:1)
post.tar.gz (Score:5)
Think of the tarballs! Won't somebody please think of the tarballs!
This is not like apt (Score:5)
http://www.debia n.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0005/msg00000.h
The conclusion was that this is not like apt since apt figures out the (local) dependencies at the client and not the server. And even if it would be considered the same thing then apt/dpkg did have this functionaly long before Microsoft applied for the patent.
Just look at the Changlog for dpkg-ftp [debian.org].
Re:How many of you will work at the Patents Office (Score:2)
Where do you work? I'll take your place when you leave for the patent office.
Second thoughts.... (Score:2)
And nother crack-pot thought... imagine using such a system to replace windows with non-microsoft components.. maybe gnu-ify windows, and replace the OS right out from under people.
Hrm.. this could go the otherway and replace non-ms components with ms components.... hrm.....
Re: Think first (Score:5)
It does have to do with RPM because one of the features is being able to tell what version of something is installed, which, in additional to making it easier to install stuff, is the purpose of RPM.
The only possibly novel thing is checking the website automatically, which probably has prior art. I can't remember when I first saw something automatically check the web for updates, but I doubt Microsoft invented it. The patent abstract sounds like it's describing Windows Update.
--Kevin
Re:It's still alright (Score:2)
Holy shit. I would have never thought of using a database to store information that controls a system. And to use this database for updating packages. I'm damn glad there are companies like Microsoft that knows how to *cough* innovate.
No registry key (Score:1)
I certainly wouldn't put it past MS to argue that apt invalidates their patent.
In the wake of this weeks fiasco on "viruses", does anyone get updates to Norton Anti-virus over the Web? If so for how long? Not sure whether this invalidates the MS patent, I think a registry key is involved but I am not completely sure.
Give credit where credit is due... (Score:1)
Nice that you give the credit to Debian, but *cough* IBM's AIX has had package management since (almost?) the beginning. And I'm sure some mainframe haxhors could probably tell us stories of earlier package management.
Which brings up the question again of whether Open Source has ever innovated anything, but that's another subject. :)
--
This is not how Debian's update works. (Score:3)
From the Abstract:
A determination is made whether the current date is on or after a date stored in a registry key on a computer. If the current date is on or after the date stored in the registry key, then ac omputer transmits a database query via the Internet to a database server. At the database server, a determination is made whether an upgrade package for the softwareprogram module component is available, such as by performing a database lookup. (emphasis mine)
First deb's and I presume rpm's use version numbers instead of dates and second with apt, the client determines which packages to update, so MS' system is different from what debian does use.
--
Re:Pointless (Score:4)
If there never was a patent even like this before, I'm fairly certain AIX had a NIM-like service before this patent was submitted that would work over the internet
Bad Mojo [rps.net]
What does this mean? (Score:2)
Some thoughts:
-The patents must be 'novel' (original?) and not of an obvious nature. This new microsoft patent is neither.
-Since debian's apt does the same thing this patent does, and debian has been doing it longer, what does this mean to debian users?
-Am I a now a patent law violator and possible criminal since I've been using Debian for years?
-Lastly, why is the U.S. Patent Office giving away patents on such obvious ideas (think Amazon's one-click shopping)??
Re:So why aren't the disto companies (Score:3)
The whole point of open source is that others (including so-called competition) may re-use your inventions.
The only acceptable use of a patent is registering it just to make sure nobody else registers and abuses it, but that's what prior art is there for, so why waste money on patent offices?
Live Update (Score:2)
Oh, well.
Help! Microsoft has patented me! (Score:2)
We are Wookie of Borg.
The patent doesn't cover the idea of a package (Score:2)
Upon reading the text of the patent, it becomes clear that the idea of a software module package is not important. Rather, it is the idea of how a Windows system might go about upgrading components via the internet. Part of the patent mentions the Windows Registry, the Internet, and a special Package Server.
The patent is quite trivial. Any amateur programmer could probably "invent" this as a simple and obvious solution. It does not represent anything new. Remote package upgrades have been performed in numerous ways over the years, doubtless. There is no direct relation between this patent and any package management system currently available.
This is simply a patent on a process, not a technology.
yet again (Score:2)
The real test will be whether MS starts extracting royalties from people who use this "method and system for installing and updating program module component."
More globally, the problem of reforming the patent system is one of public choice. The people with an interest in keeping the system would lose millions if the patent system was reformed. And the people with an incentive to have it reformed don't have so much money at stake. (Or at least it's potential, possible, might-exist-later money, not right-here-being deposited money.)
And, if copyright law is any guide, most companies are totally committed to making intellectual property as much like tangible property as possible by extending rights over it indefinitely.
-- Diana Hsieh
Read debian-legal (Score:2)
http://www.debi an.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-0005/threads.ht ml [debian.org]
--
M$ are so smart! (Score:2)
Could somebody help me - I forgot the details: Didn't Al Gore also work for M$ when he invented the Internet?
Oh, and what about the wheel? I hope everybody's paying M$ for that, too.
Say, does anybody know if anybody actually holds a patent on the wheel?
-Jan
Re:Pointless (Score:3)
I think most commercial unices have maintained a 'registry' with 'keys' for package management for the last ten years or so. Certainly LPP does in AIX, even if it's a file heirarchy w/directories as the 'key.'
It's funny, the difference in a coder and a corporation.. Someone from debian thought 'wow, this would be cool -' and did it. Someone from M$ though 'wow, this would be cool -' and patented it.
Fuckers.
--
blue
Far be it from me ... (Score:2)
If they hold the patent (even if it can be considered invalid) then no-one else should be able to get such a patent. This prevents them from having to mount an expensive patent challenge. However if they start to try and use this patent to restrict others from using the same method then that would be bad.
In another example the real problem with the Amazon case was not necessarily the patent itself (which prevented anyone else from getting it and using it against them). The problem was when Amazon started to use it as a commercial weapon against their competitors.
MS "Innovation" (Score:2)
*Smacks forehead* (Score:2)
As for prior art, it is completely possible to call Debian's package list a "registry", because what does it do? It registers what packages are available in a formatted list. Also, the patent directly applies to the use of dates only to determine which package is new. Well, a good quantity of Debian's packages DO use dates as their version numbers, wine for one example, and when dselect determines that the date from the server is different from the date in its registry, it downloads a new version and installs it.
Microsoft's Great Contribution to Society (Score:4)
This new method of packaging managers has been patented. This means that any peasent caught trying to stuff a manager into any box in a way not approved by the King will be flogged and have really nasty things said to him by the Court High Lawyer.
Rebel OS Barons will be punished most severely, once the stolen plans for the station have been recovered.
Meanwhile, on Tattoine, Luke Stallman meets his Internet mentor-to-be, Obj WAN...
Re:Doesn't seem the same as RPM, don't know APT (Score:2)
They're not the same though (AFAIK neither of them uses "registry keys" [or did they change the labels of db database keys recently
Another thing matching their description closely is the good old CVS, which predates their patent by at least a couple of years.
Hmm.. dig a little deeper (Score:5)
...and the geek shall inherit the earth...
Microsoft's plan (Score:2)
Nothing succeeds like success (Score:2)
Re:Second thoughts.... (Score:2)
If Microsoft sues over patent infringement on a site allowing to replace all installed windows components with free counterparts, they'll admit that the transition to Linux or *BSD constitutes an upgrade.
Re:Wait a sec.. (Score:3)
Of course. Anyone who writes software for Windows will have to license the patent to make their software automatically upgrade. Just another way to milk your monopoly.
Of course this is a totally obvious extension of dpkg-ftp, or apt for debian. But for that to apply the patent checkers would need to have their heads out of their butts.
Re:OK, what consequenses? (Score:2)
Shield, sword and statutory patents (Score:4)
Patents tend to be written in two ways, as shields or as swards. Shield patents are designed to allow a company to continue to do what they want while swords are intended to go after others.
There exists another type of patent, statutory, that is seldom used and the open source sommunity should consider it. A statutory patent provides no IP rights to the issuer and is most often used by a government lab or university to put their work into the public domain. The nice thing about this kind of patent is that it is cheep and puts the work firmly into the public domain. We might want to write up Linux, Apache, etc. each into it's own patent application and file them as statutory patents. Such actions would form the ultamate shield that _proves_ prior art!
Legalese, not English. (Score:2)
"novel" is satisfied if even one element of the patent (say, the use of a "registry key") is distinct, as I understand it.
If debian's apt *does* do the same thing, it's prior art, and the patent is invalid. My guess is that debian's apt does *not* do the same thing as the patent.
As to why the patent office gives out patents so easily, it's probably because "obvious" is a really hard term to define, and it's not clear that the normal English usage is appropriate in the law. It may be, however, that the standards are really too low right now - in which case, the problem isn't the patent office, it's *Congress*.
IANAL, but I occasionally read things written by them.
Re:Read the damn thing first. (Score:2)
The windows registry is nothing more than two files.
Debian's dpkg keeps track of all debian packages available on the server in its status file. Included in this file is local status of these packages (installed, not-installed, to be removed, etc...). Apt being a frontend to dpkg clearly states CmdrTaco's point.
This could perfectly fall under the definition of REGISTRY, IMHO.
Just because there might not be (?) automatic system for upgrading an RPM based linux system, doesn't mean it isn't done. Some of us might want to read slashdot more carefully... (remember this? [slashdot.org])
Differences (Score:2)
Now is this innovative and worth a patent? I can't see why. So one does not need to download the entire list, but face it, that is good database to browse offline anyway. You can't do that with MS, short of sending a query for all packages, which takes effectively, more than the bandwidth needed than Debian.
Minor rant: What is it with the patent application process anyway? I would like to see what sort of problems MS was trying to solve with this "innovation". Who cares how they did it, if we don't know what problem they were trying to solve. If fubar algorithm does not solve fubar problem, by what criteria does one know if it is "innovative" or not? I could strip in the middle of winter and dance around a fire naked. That would be new, but it doesn't solve any damn problem!
Re:Doesn't seem the same as RPM, don't know APT (Score:2)
They have to. It's implicit - tracking requires history. Sheesh.
Come on, moderators. If you don't understand the technology, DON'T moderate the posts.
Thanks.
--
blue
Why don't they patent the good stuff... (Score:5)
You're not getting patents on the good stuff, the things people haven't done before. In the interest of showing that not everyone on
A method for allowing random users to execute arbitrary code within a secure network.
/**Describe your email program here**/
This patent will not be attacked by the prior art argument, but that just may be because previous programmers actually thought about what they were putting in their email programs. You know, they had a clue.
To the rest of
This is offtopic, but we've been fruitlessly brainstorming here all morning. Is there any valid business use for having an email execute itself?
Re:Pointless (Score:2)
Pete C
I used too .... but still (Score:2)
Something's definitely rotten in Crystal City.
I spent a summer there way back, and gave many a patent application for 'some neat software burned into a common ROM' a resounding smack of the ol' reject stamp, but that was before the judge liberalized the place to include business procedures etc.
Re:Umm.. (Score:3)
> that patent describes is Windows 98's "Critical
> Notification Update" utility, a program that
> checks the versions of your software, compares
> it against what's on Microsofts server, asks if
> you want to download it, and then if you say so,
> downloads and installs the appropriate updates.
Which is almost exactly what apt does.
apt gets th elatest package list, checks it
against whats on your system, and downloads all
the needed packes and installs them.
(well 1 of apts modes of operation does that, it
also allows you to install or upgrade individual
packages, if you want. It will download the
package you told it about and all its dependancies
)
Change in gov't starts only at the top (Score:4)
We need insiders in the Bush and Gore campaigns, who understand the importance of this issue and will work to get the next president to put real scientists in charge of USPTO. They need to end the policies with reward examiners for volume, and provide incentives for nonrigorous approval processes.
This, of course, is about as likely as the FCC coming up with a fair process for the allocation of broadcast spectrum, or the goverment discontinuing the purchase of M$ software.
"What I cannot create, I do not understand."
Re:This is not like apt (Score:3)
Actually, what disturbs me more are the list of other patents at the linked page. Things such as "automatic update of software". Does anybody else think all of these are a little broad and obvious?
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
The PTO employs a bunch of low paid (relatively speaking) workers to do the work, as compared to the wealthy patent attorneys who would know better and get paid tons more money because they do know better.
The best people to work at the PTO would be the patent attorneys in conjunction with specialists. But these people can get paid more elsewhere, why would they work there?
The claim's the thing.... (Score:2)
The claim states that they are patenting a method by which a computer makes a list of files, asks a server for deatils on those files, and a date for those files, and comparing it to a local date (held by a number of means for those who jumped on the Registry idea, which is only an example), presenting an upgrade option to the user. The claim then further patents getting the package delivered and installed as part of the claims.
This patent clearly attempts to claim anything even remotely implementing an automatic update procedure. I think it's possible that Microsoft is looking for another block to shore up it's defense by patenting parts of other OSes currently out there. This does that. Yet another patent on something that is essentially "obvious" to a "skilled praticioner of the art" cited.
This is an algorithm, and that should make it all but unpatentable, but it's written as an operational procedure with real parts, rather than a simple sequence of steps, so it suddenly becomes patentable.
It would be nice if ZDnet or Wired or a "mainstream" non-techie newsfeed covered the discussion, especially regarding Debian and/or Red Hat, and prior art on the patent front. It seems that the lawyers and committees responsible for overseeing the patent office think it's working very well thank you, and that it doesn't need to be changed.
I'm quite concerned that this was granted. It's another item that if it goes to court takes time and energy away from people doing good things for the Open Source movement.
But that's just an opinion, and I'm not a lawyer...... :-)
Automation is trivial and nonpatentable (Score:2)
Linux doesn't need a registry to do this. A registry key is a string of bytes. Any damn file regardless whether it's a regisrtry, a database, or a config file can contain a string of bytes.
Second, dates/versions same fucking thing. Think first moron.
In fact prior art: the online calendar and reminder systems. Those are automated too. And jesus christ CRON. Microsoft has patented CRON.
Re:Hmm.. dig a little deeper (Score:2)
And registry is the key term. The patent says "a registry" not "the Windows Registry". A registry (def 2:" a place of registration") would then be anything where information concerning package attributes is registered.
Currently I would think BillyG and CO are pretty pissed about the laws in this country (and those incredulous companies that want to compete with them), and since they can't do it in the marketplace (how can you compete with someone who's software is Free..ask Netscape..) they'll want to use the patent laws against Free Software.
--
Be more specific. (Score:2)
In 2 words: patents suck.
Patents don't suck; software patents suck. Non-software patents actually work; for example, look at the model for development of new pharmaceuticals. Without the guarantee of a monopoly, drug companies would have no incentive to spend big bucks on research and development.
Software patents, on the other hand... The Patent Office needs to get better reviewers who actually know something about the software industry, especially free software. Only truly revolutionary techniques (MPEG audio layer 3, RSA public-key encryption, etc.) deserve a patent. This Unisys patent [ibm.com] (even dumber than its LZW patent [ibm.com]) doesn't.
But it covers package management on Windows (Score:2)
Exactly correct. What it means is that now nobody but Microsoft may use the obvious mechanism for maintaining package information on Windows systems.
Why they would want to make all non-Microsoft software packages harder to install and maintain on their OS remains a mystery...
Here are the differences I see... (Score:3)
Debian system = version driven
M$ system = server tells client what to update
Debian system = client determines updates
M$ system = remote database queried by client
Debian system = client reads a flat text file
used to update client's local
database.
Re:Dates (Score:2)
Whether this prior art specifically invalidates some or all of the patent claims is a question I can't answer.
The patent office probably couldn't figure it out either. Perhaps that's why they aren't qualified to be making the decisions they're making.
Did anyone actually read the referenced patents? (Score:3)
If you actually look, this patent is a modification to existing patents by other companies, such as Compaq's 1996 "US5586304: Automatic computer upgrading" ( http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US558630
How about IBM's 1995 "US5473772: Automatic update of static and dynamic files at a remote network node in response to calls issued by or for application programs" ( http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US054737
All that Microsoft's patent is is a small extension of a few other patents (Apple already got automating program upgrade in 1998, IBM got automatic maintenance, an earlier Microsoft patent covering remote software discovery (probably for Windows Update like behavior), and Samsung's system of letting the app developer update a server and have it distribute down to clients) making them more focused for what they are trying to do. BUT, everyone chooses to attack this patent
Xerox's >>1985 http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US045584
There were a bunch of other goodies there but I am already way past when I was supposed to leave this morning to point them out
Well, one more I just hit on... IBM's 1987 "US4649473: Flexible data transmission for message based protocols" ( http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?&pn10=US464947
Re:This is not like apt (Score:2)
In that case we should THANK MS for comming
up with this patent...its such a damned stupid
idea that people SHOULD be prevented from using
it.
Maybe next someone will patent sloppy code
indenting, oh...and memory leaks.
I would say someone should patent opening files
and writting to them without checking if the
write failed (::cough::quota::cough::) but pine
has been doing that for years.
(if you don't believe me, id be happy to show you
some nice runaways)
Then again, I supose memory leaks, and bad code
have plenty of prior art too.
Re:Pointless (Score:2)
I kinda doubt the commerical unicies are using it, but even they have package management. HP/UX has swinstall, swremove, swlist. Solaris has pkgadd, pkginfo, pkgrm, and so on. Basically unix has plenty of prior art out there that M$ is just trying to copy. Think of it in their usual terms...it's simply embrace and extend.
Now only if the patent office would be as anal as they were under Jefferson we wouldn't have all of these stupid patents floating around anyway.
Comment removed (Score:5)
Re:What does this mean? (Score:2)
Microsofts next patent (Score:3)
This would decrease Windows downtime exponentially, as the average windows system crashes every 35 minutes. With a stable new OS in memory just before crash time, they could eliminate that bug completely!
Instead of patenting the code though, they should just patent the process of "Rebooting", since essentially that is all there code would really be doing. Sounds miniscule under the microscope, but think of the possibilities. An OS with zero logged downtime!. And Microsoft would be the first to think of patenting "Rebooting as a means of maintaining system stability". Legally, we all know they have the right to it, who in the world associates rebooting for continued use with any OS other than Windows?
Unfortunately all you Linux lovers out there will be screwed when they do patent it. Next time your system crashes, legally, you'll have to throw them out and go get new ones.
Essentially anything is patentable (Score:2)
Anything is patentable or at least submittable as a patent. Depending on how you word it even if there may be some issues with prior art, if you describe even a business process, then tat can be patented.
You don't actually need finished product to patent it. You can describe how the code might work. You don't actually need working code to patent what the code does.
This goes to the heart of why this is such a hot topic now. You get a bunch of smart people to describe some of the ideas and solutions they've come up with over the years and patent them. Then you get a bunch of sharp people to scour the landscape and identify something that knowingly or unknowingly uses substantial aspects of your patent. Lastly you go to them with your hand out requesting royalties.
CASE Computer Aided Software Engineering (Score:2)
Even Microsoft can, since they use one...
Re:Umm.. (Score:2)
Who will get the patent AFTER the breakup.
Micros~1
or
Micros~2
?
Outdated system (Score:2)
I would think 2 years is long time in terms of computer development.
Basicly if this pattent were to hold then M$ would have exclusives on remote/automated updating for 20 years?
I feel there is a serious flaw in this system.
Re:"defensive patents" (Score:2)
The second use is basically "I won't stop anyone from doing this, unless they try to stop me from doing something else." Someone goes after you for infringing their patent? Fine -- but gee whiz, doesn't your frobnitz infringe mine too? Uh, gee, there's no sense in getting all tied up in court. We're even. Without that patent, there's not a whole lot of defense. Of course, since a patent is a patent, it can "mutate" into something less benign when management gets other ideas.
Then there's what Amazon tried to claim as "defensive" -- they're a small, weak company, and they need something to hold the big guys at bay. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as very defensive.
Truth be told, I haven't heard a lot about Microsoft going after other companies on patent violations. Maybe they have and I haven't heard about it, but they do generally seem more inclined to compete in the marketplace (even if it's a marketplace that they've rigged) than to play legal games.
New M$ Patent - E-mail "ZeroClick" Technology (Score:3)
They further said that they will aggressively enforce this patent securing their competitve edge over Linux and other competing operating system that will not be able to provide similiar functionality. CEO, Billy predicts that this will lure users from the Linux platform who still must suffer with the "TwoClick" method for viewing an attachment.
Prior Art at Northern Telecom (Score:2)
It was even smart enough to be able to replace the currently-running application cleanly.
The only distinction is the datestamp and the "registry key" -- not really innovations. We used version numbering (gosh, how standard) and an application code name to determine whether or not an application was current. Even at that time, it was all done over the internet.
I'd be willing to be a part of any patent challenge on this, as the patent is ridiculous.
Once again, no more "I" for Microsoft.
_Deirdre
Microsoft has us all by the balls (Score:2)
Who cares about updates? Looks like they've got us pretty good.
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpaten ts.html
Re:Not to mention... (Score:3)
With a pace to the astroturfers, we all know how innovative MS is, and the only thing we have to think about is whether to laugh at them or be offended by the bs.
But it's also interesting to step back from that issue, and examine their overuse of the word. It has apparently become some kind of mantra for them. Want to hype a new product (or a recycled old product)? Describe it as innovative. Want to justify your monopoly? Point out how innovative you are. Need to divert attention from courtroom lies? Hold a press conference on the courthouse steps and say 'innovative' three or four times. Want to divert the rap for features that make security a joke? Point out how innovative they are. Need to shove out some upgradeware to maintain your cash flow? Add some useless frills and call them innovative.
It seems like MS has somehow gotten stuck on 'innovative' as a magic word that cures all ills.
When you watch from this viewpoint, it's absolutely hilarious to see Gates make his statements to the press after each latest setback. It's as if he believes in magic, and 'innovative' is the word the realeases the spell. Truly, there's something wrong with that man.
The other word that they're stuck on is 'active'; they can hardly put out a product anymore without putting 'active' in its name.
Is this a recognizable symptom of some mental disorder?
ps - If they were really innovative, they would think of an innovative word to discribe it with now and then.
--
Uh... AutoRPM. (Score:2)
That's off the top of my head. And that's just ones using the public Internet that have UIs that ask users what they want to do. I daresay, this is no different from what most automated file mirroring and ASD (automated software distribution) systems do. Computer Associates, Tivoli and a few other companies I can think of will have something to say about this. A look at the legal status screen makes it appear they already have.
Re:Groupthink hard at work (Score:2)
Maybe they are defensive patents. Maybe they are offensive patents. Only time will tell. Patents are like guns; they can be used to defend or destroy.
Given Microsoft's track record in general, I think at least some skepticism and even preparation is in order. When a bank robber picks up a handgun, it may just be defensive. But I'm going to run for the nearest cover, and a good cop will level his own piece at the man and tell him to drop it.
Microsoft doesn't try to win by being the fastest runner. It tries to win by being the last man standing. When it picks up a patent, any patent, I don't expect that it is going to play nice with it.
Not really (Score:3)
Of course, there are still a lot of obnoxious installers that force a restart when it isn't necessary. That's partly why MS wants to make installing apps a service of the OS.
Who the hell moderated this up? (Score:5)
The patent doesn't define what a registry is. Anything can be registry even a text file. If you think the word "registry" protects debian or red hat from a suit you are truly stupid.
The fact is MS has gotten a patent on a widely used technology. This allows them to sue anybody they don't like. This is not a Good Thing but it is just another "innovation" from MS. If you can't think of something new get a patent on somebody elses idea.
sym links (Score:2)
For those of you who are not familiar UNIX flavors sym links have been around for about as long as unix, and Microsoft just now discoverd there usefullness.
send flames > /dev/null
Further evidence that Gates should be jailed (Score:2)
Not punishing them because the acts were performed by a corporation instead of a person is rubbish; they were performed by people, just as much as more horrible crimes in the 1930s and 1940 were performed by German soldiers, not by Germany.
To not punish Microsoft for it's crimes, based on the idea that they won't commit them any more, would be like not jailing Ted Kaczynski because he hasn't blown anybody up lately.
The Microsoft executives responsible for this debacle, including Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer, should be jailed for a long time and have all of their personal assets that derive from Microsoft seized and placed up for auction.
Microsoft itself should be dissolved, all assets sold, and the proceeds divided among everyone who has ever bought or sold a copy of a Microsoft software product.
The domain "microsoft.com" should be given to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, with them directed to operate a web server at that address with all the relevant court documents displayed there for all time.
They should be directed to place the source code for all of their products under GPL immediately, and reassign the copyrights to Richard Stallman.
Oh; and Gates should be delivered to the jail wearing lipstick and a miniskirt.
--
Re:But it covers package management on Windows (Score:2)
I'm sure there are a multitude of other, equally obvious methods of package management. The MS Patent makes some specific points in its application:
1) The Windows Registry
2) A date
3) A database query
4) The Internet
5) A Package Server
Current PMSes can use some other form of tracking software, not the Windows registry. Similar, but different. A version number is probably prefered over the date for an upgrade. Similar, again. The patent's language pertains to the Internet, but the more general idea of a Network isn't covered by that specific piece.
How can MS enforce its patent on other ideas that are similar, yet lack the specifics in the text? I don't think they can.
Re:Umm.. (Score:2)
As a condition of employment, most companies have their employees sign agreements that they will assign ownership of the patent to the company, in return for "valuable consideration". Here, I get a "bonus" for every patent filed, and an additional "bonus" when the USPTO actually accepts the patent. None of that happens (and my employer doesn't file the patent application) until I sign (in blue ink) the "assignment of invention" form.
--Joe--
Re:Not to mention... (Score:2)
bash: ispell: command not found
Neat? (Score:2)
-------
CAIMLAS
More specific terms are patentable. (Score:2)
office has just granted a duplicate patent with more specific terms.
It is important not to confuse patentability with infringement. In the scenario of two patents issuing, the first, A, being more general, and the second, later patent B, having all of the elements of A, but with more specific terms, that would not preclude the validity of B.
Assume the only claim of patent A discloses claim elements A1, A2 and A3, and that the only claim of patent B claims elements A1, A2, A3 and B1. Only the following is clear:
1) An apparatus practicing B would probably infringe A, since it has all of the claimed elements A1, A2 and A3. (There are some legal doctrines that would preclude infringement, but they would rarely apply).
2) However, B *is NOT* anticipated by A. While A discloses A1, A2 and A3, it does not have the limitation B. (This would also be true if B claimed A1, A2 and a green A3). If the differences between the more specific limitations satisfy the legal obviousness test of Section 103, B may well be patentable, even though one couldn't build it without infringing A.
Consider for example, if I had a patent on the chair generally. You might well be able to obtain a patent on a rocking chair (a specific kind of chair), but this would not mean that by obtaining the patent you could build a rocking chair without my consent. (And while I can certainly build rockerless chairs without infringing your patents, I would be precluded from building chairs with rockers!)
Re:How many of you will work at the Patents Office (Score:2)
in case you didn't know, sysadmins (in the bay area, at least) are REAL hard to find. good ones, at least.
at the hourly rate most charge, it puts them in the 100k range, more or less. if you don't mind doing pager duty and also doing NT work (you almost can't get an admin job SOLELY on unix these days), then high salaries are NOT hard to find.
--
Re:Groupthink hard at work (Score:3)
Stac vs. Microsoft, and then the countersuit Microsoft vs. Stac.
Stac figured out a way to compress and decompress a FAT filesystem on-the-fly. Thus, you could effectively double your hard drive capacity. They sold this as a DOS utility called Stacker.
Microsoft put this technology into DOS 6. Unfortunately, they didn't bother to ask Stac permission first. They just stole Stacker and used it. The Stac Vs. Microsoft suit caused them to pull it back out (they eventually built their own disc-compression logic and put that back in).
Microsoft then proceeded to sue Stac for using "undocumented DOS calls". Never mind that these APIs were documented by third parties and you could go down to your bookstore and get it, and never mind that these were the same calls that make any useful program possible in DOS; Microsoft realized that their legal budget exceeded Stac's grosses and sued their asses for deigning to complain about Microsoft stealing their code.
I don't trust Microsoft with a plastic spoon, much less a patent. Now you know why.
Ogg Vorbis (Score:2)
In 10 years nobody will be impressed with perceptual audio coding (which is really only a variant of perceptual video coding [ie. jpeg]). And everybody will be pissed because it's patented.
Here [xiph.org] is a nonpatented perceptual audio coding system from xiph.org.
Re:Why don't they patent the good stuff... (Score:3)
No, but plenty of reason's I'd love to have it execute the idiot who sent it.
Re:Who the hell moderated this up? (Score:2)
Repeat after me: "GIF compression"
--
Re:Not really (Score:2)
Oh, so they've made it so hypnotic you can hardly even notice anymore...
Daniel