Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Microsoft News Your Rights Online

80% of MS Server Protocols Are Unpatented 136

Posted by timothy from the minefield-aerobics dept.
perlow writes "ZDNet blogger Jason Perlow and Centrify's Tom Kemp discover that 80 percent of all Microsoft server protocols are un-patented. What exactly then, did SAMBA license? Are Microsoft's patent and intellectual property threats simply the growls of a paper tiger?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

80% of MS Server Protocols Are Unpatented More

80% of MS Server Protocols Are Unpatented

Comments Filter:

  • Microsoft Tax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tuoqui ( 1091447 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:11PM (#23160426) Journal
    ...is what they licensed

  • As a wild guess... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Goaway ( 82658 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:12PM (#23160444) Homepage
    Perhaps they licensed the 20%?

  • It makes sense ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by utnapistim ( 931738 ) <dan.barbus@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:12PM (#23160450) Homepage
    ... afterall, to patent them, they would need to describe them :)

    • Re:It makes sense ... (Score:4, Funny)

      by KiltedKnight ( 171132 ) * on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:23PM (#23160612) Homepage Journal
      You're making the assumption that even they know exactly what their protocols do, too.

    • Re:It makes sense ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:49PM (#23160932) Journal
      they would need to describe them

      These days with the patent office handing out patents like candy, you don't even have to do that. For instance, in the firehose there's been this story for a while http://slashdot.org/firehose.pl?op=view&id=631632 [slashdot.org] "Flip Video Camera Maker Sued For Patent Infringeme" Regarding this patent: http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5781788.PN.&OS=PN/5781788&RS=PN/5781788 [uspto.gov]

      So without further ado, Claim #1 of the patent:

      1. A video codec, comprising:

      a single semiconductor chip providing for a video input connection from a camera and a video output connection to a monitor of decompressed data, and a transmit channel and a receive channel of compressed data;

      an interface connected to the chip for external connection to a separate frame memory dynamic random access memory (DRAM) and that provides for interim storage of incoming and outgoing video data; and

      a video compressor/decompressor disposed fully within the chip and connected to compress video information received from said video input connection for output on said transmit channel, and connected to decompress video information received from said receive channel for output on said video output connection;

      wherein, said compression of video information is by spatial de-correlation of intraframe information and temporal decorrelation of interframe information, and said transmit and receive channels have communication channel bit rates reduced by quantization and variable length coding
      So. Based on that, how does one compress video using a single chip (the patent has absolutely NOTHING about its implementation)? Being able to show that might make it actually look like the company actually invented something, instead, rendered to its most basic element, the patent says "anything that does stuff using only one chip plus DRAM" which is something an 8 year old could come up with, without even knowing what DRAM means.

      The patent office has long since slid past allowing "crap" to churning out patents of "pure unadulterated bullshit".

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by sed quid in infernos ( 1167989 )

        So. Based on that, how does one compress video using a single chip (the patent has absolutely NOTHING about its implementation)?

        The claims generally do not contain information that tells someone how to use the invention. Instead, the patent specification must include disclosure sufficient to allow a person with ordinary skill in the relevant art to make and use the invention without undue experimentation. If known, the best mode of implementing the invention must be disclosed in the application. Neither type of disclosure typically occurs within the claims.

        In the patent application you linked, there is a section called "DETAILED

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Saxmachine ( 1045648 )

        So. Based on that, how does one compress video using a single chip (the patent has absolutely NOTHING about its implementation)?
        Clarification: do you mean "How does one take this description and turn it into an implementation?" or "How does one implement such a basic and obvious task without infringing on this patent?"

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Phroggy ( 441 )
          I assume he meant the former, which is the entire purpose behind the patent system in the first place. They're supposed to describe your invention with enough detail that anyone skilled in the art could figure out how to reproduce your invention, and therefore human knowledge is advanced. In exchange, nobody is legally allowed to do so for a limited time, and you get a monopoly so you can make a bunch of money (the promise of which is what motivated you to invent it in the first place).

          If the patent doesn
      • LOL, this is describing MPEG, and its use in something like TIVO

  • Ok U'm stupid today (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:13PM (#23160454) Journal
    Why should a server protocol be patented? A patent should be for something you don't want copied. If I were selling servers I'd want to interoperate with clients and other servers.

    Oh, Microsoft. Never mind, my bad.

    • Re:Ok U'm stupid today (Score:5, Insightful)

      by spun ( 1352 ) <loverevolutionary&yahoo,com> on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:43PM (#23160874) Journal
      No, a trade secret is for something you don't want copied. A patent is for something where you want to make money off of the copies.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Haeleth ( 414428 )

        No, a trade secret is for something you don't want copied. A patent is for something where you want to make money off of the copies.

        Except when the thing you don't want copied is something sufficiently trivial or obvious that there's a very high risk that other people will invent it independently. In that case, the only way to stop them copying it is to patent it; that buys you 20 years or so.

        In theory the obviousness tests are supposed to stop this happening, but these days the patent office motto seems t

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hachete ( 473378 )
        That's right. It can be seen as a barrier to trade.

        I've said this before, but I think software patents are essentially sound: they describe how a to turn a general purpose machine into a particular machine. However, companies who patent software should have to provide a working implementation. Now that would cut down the number of phoney and idiotic patents.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Kjellander ( 163404 )
          Except, in the case of real inventions, like a toaster for instance, you only have to deal with a couple of patents if you want to build a new one.

          With software patents, you have to deal with every single patent on software ever, and there are more patents issued than you can read in say, a year. And there are more to come.

          And what is the difference between patenting an algorithm and patenting "1+1=2"? The fact that math wasn't patented 2000+ years ago is a good thing for you and me.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by lgw ( 121541 )
            Hopefully, every algorithm and simple procedure known to man will be patented soon. That way, in 17 years we're done with this shit. There's nothing more open than an expired patent.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by hachete ( 473378 )
            A patent is a matter of policy designed for the public good. What comes under that policy is worked out by that favourite species of person, the lawmaker. Maybe we should influence them? Tell them that it's too late to start patenting software?

            Yes, it's a Good Thing that maths wasn't patented; however, it's also a Good Thing that scientists - or natural philosophers in the 16th and 17th centuries argued for openness in science.

        • Mod parent up. It's not the legislative side that allows the abuse, its the judicial side. The examiner should have to be convinced that you spent the time, mind, and money implementing the preferred embodiment. For software, that means provide what it takes to build, deploy, and test the code on the accompanied CD-ROM and provide the patent examiners with a QA department. Problem solved.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by rickb928 ( 945187 )
      Now, why would you want to do THAT?

      Interoperating with other clients just leads to other software on your client machines, stuff like OS X, or Linux for instance. Not good for Windows sales. Not to mention that you would have to disclose all the nastiness of the protocols to 'let' them work. Not good.

      Not to mention also that you could well be enhancing other server OS makers' market share, say, for instance you were willing to let the Novell Client for Windows actually work properly with your Windows ser

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by curunir ( 98273 ) *
      You might want to patent a protocol because you don't want a competitor using the same techniques in their own proprietary protocol.

      For example, Diffie-Hellman key exchange was patented. It doesn't, by itself, comprise a protocol that you'd use that others could inter-operate with your application, but it can be used as part of any protocol that requires encryption where the two parties have not previously exchanged encryption keys.

      If significant effort was put into devising that part of the protocol and su

  • What exactly then, did SAMBA license?
    I'm going to guess about 20% of Microsoft server protocols?
    • While the protocols might not be patented/copyrighted, there would be trade secrets and documentation, that in exchange for the 'licensing', Microsoft provides documentation, perhaps even assistance in the creation of SAMBA.
      • How can a protocol be a trade secret? After all, the machine using it is spewing it! How can a protocol even be copyrighted? After all, it isn't a static expression; that would be useless.

        Which leaves patents -- but a protocol is neither a machine or a process! Which means (arguably) that it can't be patented, either.

        Which leaves documentation.

        But let's think about that "licensing" again... What is being licensed? Compare to music -- the "protocol" in written music is NOT the music, it's the staff, and indi

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Amouth ( 879122 )
          i would argue that a protocol is a tool that is used.. there for it would be patentable..

          you use TCP/IP to transfer data.. you could use IPXSPX.. but TCP/IP is better suited for the net than IPXSPX..

          like wise..

          you use a flathead screwdriver to tighten a screw - you could use a penny.. but the screwdriver works better..

          at one point in history a flathead screw driver would have been inovation and would have been patentable.. as it is an improvement over something else in doing a task.

          i see no reason why a i

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by ratboy666 ( 104074 )
            The "protocol" used with the flat-head screw driver is a slit. There are two parts - the screwdriver (which can be patented) and the screw (which can be patented). The slit (protocol)?

            As you pointed out, a coin can be used instead of the screwdriver. And the receptor may be something other than a screw (say, a snap-tab).

            Is the slit itself patentable?

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Amouth ( 879122 )
              i would say the slit would be as it is a method/design to transfer force/torque.. thing aboutit.. there is a flat head (single slit) phillips (cross pattern) star head (multi cross starting at 3 lines crossed and going up) and then you get start head with guide point (like on a telco box) each one requires a diffrent specific tool to do it.. the screw the driver and the connector should all be patentable..

              but the action of transfering force/tourque should not be patentable.. as that would be too encomposin
          • The problem is that people aren't patenting "a device on a stick with a handle to turn a screw"...which would cover a screw driver

            People are patenting "a device to turn a screw" which would cover the screw driver, the penny, the paper clip, the motorized screw driver, etc.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Amouth ( 879122 )
              that is a problem with the patent office not requireing them to be specific to what the tool does AND how it does it.

              alot of the crap ones cover what it does but doesn't cover how it is to be done..

              turnning a screw/transfering data should not be patentable.. but how you do it should be.. there for a protocol should be patentable.. as it is a way of transfering data.. but it shouldn't cover all ways of doing it.
        • Which leaves documentation

          This is a bigger thing than you might realize. Going by your music example, it's like trying to learn how to play a symphony from listening to it.

          Buying the 'license' gets you the sheet music and the assistance of the author.

          Saving that much effort does save $$$ and as long as Microsoft wasn't being too greedy(possibly realizing that samba would be able to reverse engineer it soon enough no matter what), it'd be cheaper to pay the money than perform the otherwise necessary back en
          • I agree with you. I was responding to the post which stated that protocols were somehow under one of the intellectual properties. I wanted to drive the point that the documentation was the only thing that could be considered of value; that a protocol couldn't be in one of the possible categories. (Well, actually, it could be a trade secret, as I pointed out, but that would defeat the purpose completely).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mr Z ( 6791 )

          The formula for Coca Cola is a trade secret, and yet you can get a can of it just about anytime from the soda machine. Just because you ship an embodiment of a trade secret doesn't mean you ship the sufficient details to reproduce it.

          Furthermore, the protocol itself may have corner conditions or situations that make it difficult to implement unless you know the "tricks" of the implementation. These too can be trade secrets.

          Here's a nice, concise explanation. [duke.edu]

          • Furthermore, the protocol itself may have corner conditions or situations that make it difficult to implement unless you know the "tricks" of the implementation. These too can be trade secrets.

            Very true. That's what I'd figure as a 'trade secret'; sure, I could start creating a duplicate interfacing protocol in a few weeks given a packet analyzer, but my product would likely be plagued with bugs and quirks for quite some time, assuming the protocol has any complexity to it.

            Plus, part of the license terms m
    • The problem is, that there has been a long period of time between what SAMBA started to create at the beginning and what they have created so far. There are assumptions that have gone into place and there are assumptions that still exist. The issue is how difficult is it going to be for SAMBA to back out of a lot of those assumptions and to redo it all. They'll spend the next 6 months just looking at their code from the access to the protocol info they have and probably find that much of their code would

  • It only takes one... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eison ( 56778 ) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {nosietkp}> on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:19PM (#23160536) Homepage
    99% could be unpatented, it only takes one patent to ruin you.

  • WTF? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Blakey Rat ( 99501 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:22PM (#23160594)
    ZDNet blogger Jason Perlow and Centrify's Tom Kemp discover that 80 percent of all Microsoft server protocols are un-patented. What exactly then, did SAMBA license?

    Is this article trying to present me with the logic: 80% of protocols are un-patented, therefore SMB is un-patented?

    Because I don't see how that follows at all. Is SMB part of the 80% or part of the 20%? If you want to know what SAMBA licensed, why don't you just ask them? I'm sure they'd know...
    • SMB would be a rather complicated case, and I'd wager dollars to donuts that it isn't patented. While it was developed initially as part of Lanman, this was all during the IBM-Microsoft marriage. While the protocol has certainly grown since then, the fact remains that I doubt IBM would have permitted this sort of thing on a workgroup networking protocol that was to be the feature part of the OS/2 product line.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ipgeek ( 551180 )
      If Jason had bothered to read Kemp's spreadsheet, he could easily see that SMB is one of the protocols identified in the apreadsheet as covered by several MS patents. I don't see the point of his questioning the decision of the SMB folks.

    • Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ischorr ( 657205 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:53PM (#23160978)
      I agree, it does seem like they're trying to imply that there's only a 1 out of 5 chance that anything related to the Samba technical detail licensing is patented.

      Here is a relevant link:

      http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/ [samba.org] - The Samba licensing announcement.

      The announcement has a lot of ambiguities (and IANAL), but it appears hey agreed that:

      1) Samba Team members would receive access to protocol documentation. This information would only be available to Samba Team members, and available only under NDA
      2) Access to information would not restrict CODE that could be produced using this information
      3) It does not provide any patent coverage.
      4) However, Microsoft would provide a list of patents covering the protocols used by Samba, and keep the list updated. This provides Samba folks a way to understand exactly what methods to avoid - which infringe patents.
      5) Microsoft agreed that any patents not detailed in this list and found to be infringed cannot be "asserted" by Microsoft.

      Presumably, there are items that MS will provide for #4, so there are patents that relate to Samba.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by morgan_greywolf ( 835522 ) *
        Right. The PFIF agreement [protocolfreedom.org] contains a section called "Exhibit A", which details all the protocols covered by the agreement, including the SMB and CIFS protocols.

        Note that Samba 3 does not just implement SMB -- it implements CIFS, MSDFS, several challenge-response and key-exchange protocols, Microsoft's extensions to Kerberos for ADS integration, some stuff to support point-and-print, etc. In addition, Samba 4, which focuses on being an ADS server, implements several more important Microsoft protocols requi
  • It's tempting to say that they're unpatented because MS doesn't want to document their functionality, which would force them to keep supporting older versions (instead of just forcing people to upgrade everything whenever a version of something comes out).

    However, I think the real reason is that MS is realizing that sw patents are a god-awful waste of time and resources to obtain. If you have 20 or so new protocols, the fees plus attorney time, plus appeals, plus developers having to document the necessary

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ischorr ( 657205 )
      The recent extra protocol documentation is entirely due to antitrust cases, and I don't see any evidence that their patenting is slowing down. I don't think this report implies otherwise.

      IBM have a number of successes, but are far from the model of software success. They also weren't typically using software patents to enforce software monopolies (and when they could, did).

      For the most part, Microsoft isn't obtaining patents to extract licensing costs - it's to ensure that there is little competition. Th

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Allador ( 537449 )
      Large companies like MS and IBM dont generally collect patents so that they can stop other people from using or licensing them.

      They collect them so that they have a weapon to use against other companies, both in offense and in defense.

      There are so many nonsense patents out there that just about every product could be considered to be in infringement.

      So if something comes up, and IBM says to Microsoft, you're using one of our patented ideas, you'll need to pay us. MS then comes back with, Oh but you're als

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cgenman ( 325138 )
      You don't need 1,000 patents on every aspect of what you do. You need 10 key patents which prevent anyone else from doing it too.

      I seriously doubt that this means Microsoft is reducing their patent load by 80%. It sounds more to me like 80% of Microsoft's server protocols are ripped off BSD... err... unpatentable.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • "Are Microsoft's patent and intellectual property threats simply the growls of a paper tiger?"

    So what they're asking is, is Microsoft full of shit? Come on, give me a hard one ;)

    (insert obligatory "that's what she said")

  • I hope someone will tag the OP as flamebait... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you read the linked articles (which I know you didn't), you will see that SAMBA wanted rights to ALL of the technologies, so they had to pay for patent licensing on that elusive 20%.

    I know I'm going to get modded Troll for this, but does every article about patent licensing and Microsoft have to be so skewed anti-MS?

    • Re:I hope someone will tag the OP as flamebait... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:57PM (#23161034) Journal
      Well, actually Mr AC, it doesn't have to be skewed against MS. As it happens, it is nearly always skewed against MS because historically speaking, MS has always been screwing other people. Did your grandma ever tell you that story about the little boy who cried wolf too much?

      MS has extinguished competitors, acted unethically for long enough that people don't trust MS to have done anything right or correctly. That's normal people. /. users hate MS even more because it's fun, and well... MS earned it.

      Bad news always travels farther and faster than good news. MS would have to do a lot of good things to reverse their reputation. So that's how it is. No matter what the story is actually about, if it involves MS it will be expected that MS has fucked up again somehow.
    • I hope someone mods you as flamebait. I did read the articles, but took my chance to make a joke that most of Slashdot will appreciate.

      I don't really count AC's as being a part of Slashdot.

  • Shipping code precludes patenting (Score:4, Informative)

    by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @12:43PM (#23160870) Homepage Journal
    This is obvious, but since nobody has said it, and since this specific topic hasn't come up yet on other /. patent discussions...

    IANAL, but...

    Shipping your product is equivalent to publication. It start a timer, 1 year in some places, 6 months in others. You have to have your patent applications into the office within that time, or the art is considered "published" and can never be patented. The definition of "shipping" can be pretty darned nebulous, as well. Sending out a beta with a regular NDA is also probably considered publication. You've got to get quite a bit more serious about the restrictions to have a hope of preserving patent rights, from what I understand, and it fact it may be just plain impossible, once it goes out your doors.
    • Showing it to your neighbour can be considered "publication". Some countries (like the US and Canada) give you that 1-year grace period between publication and filing. Other countries don't do that. Publish = public.

      IANAL either. I was studying patents, trademarks, copyrights, industrial designs, integrated circuit topographies, and trade secrets for an exam yesterday.

  • What I would be curious to know is how that 20% is distributed. One or two lumps(albeit probably very profitable lumps, like Exchange or Sharepoint) or evenly mixed into virtually everything?

  • Same Old Microsoft Crap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HermMunster ( 972336 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @01:01PM (#23161128)
    Anything that threatens their desktop or server OS market is a target of the most obscene threats, even those that could result in criminal prosecution if they were ever discovered to be done with malice in order to protect their monopoly.

    Threats are Microsoft's business of the day. That's their plan for the future to thwart off all competition to their desktop OS. No matter that they begged, borrowed, and stole 90% of the ideas that went into it. If you can't compete any longer you litigate, or threaten to in order to have customers potentially switching to the competition stop in their tracks.

    Those in their right mind knew this was just blather from the Ballmer, but it is enough to get companies re-examining their plans.

    You can't trust Microsoft and you can't trust that they won't try to patent what they have failed to patent so far. Nor can you keep them from changing things once you have developed around them. You all saw the sheer bullshit with the ISO so you must understand that they are far more devious than this in other areas. We as the watchful eye haven't had a chance yet to gaze into their other practices, the real practices that keep people locked into their technologies.

  • Yes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CSMatt ( 1175471 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @01:13PM (#23161348)

    Are Microsoft's patent and intellectual property threats simply the growls of a paper tiger?
    Yes.

  • Ok, this just gets dumber and dumber... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TheNetAvenger ( 624455 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @01:15PM (#23161410)
    The 'Protocols' have ALWAYS been fairly open for MS Server products.

    The part that SAMBA is licensing and NEEDS to license is when they are implementing features normally found in Windows Server that are not open.

    Off top of my head I would guess these would be:

    ACL & Security
    Group Policy Features
    Domain Features
    Roaming Profiles, etc.
    FS Search Network Queries ala Vista/Windows Desktop Search

    etc etc etc...

    The freaking communications and protocols are never been a big MS secret, as they are just evolutionary methods, it is the guts that SAMBA also tries to provide that has always been 'reverse engineered' and is now 'licensed' instead.

    Geesh...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by NullProg ( 70833 )
      The 'Protocols' have ALWAYS been fairly open for MS Server products.

      Especially since IBM and 3Com helped invent them.

      There are very many systems which can use the NetBIOS / NetBEUI interface or
      make use of the NetBIOS Frames Protocol, but perhaps one of the most important
      is the Server Message Block Protocol (SMB). The Server Message Block Protocol
      (SMB), is an application level protocol used by networking systems and operating
      systems such as Microsoft's Windows for Workgroups, Windows 95 / 98 / ME, LAN
      Manag
      • Exactly, SMB comes from IBM; however, MS has added features to it over the years. This was my point, as SMB information has been available forever, not sure why you assumed I was stating something different.

        Correct me if I'm wrong but I would say all of these "features" l

        Ok, I'll correct ya, well I'll go for a couple cause you and I are on different tracks of communication and I don't think you or I are disputing the same things...

        First you act like you are arguing a patent dispute, this isn't.

        Secondly this

  • Patented = Documented (Score:4, Insightful)

    by EXTomar ( 78739 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @01:18PM (#23161466)
    I always thought the classic reason why a company wouldn't patent a proven technology is to avoid documenting it. To file for the patent you would need to document critical detail and behavior which could be something the competition could read up on and build new products on the idea. Or in other words, if they never file for the patent they never have to claim it exists. Keeping it off the books keeps it obscure and keeps it theirs.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by deander2 ( 26173 ) *
      you obviously haven't read many recent patent apps. not describing implementation details is the norm. (often the patent holder doesn't even bother coming up with an implementation...just hopes to piggy-back on the work of real engineers)
  • Looking through the list I wonder how many of these patents have been contested and/or how many of these patent applications should be rejected. For instance, under the "Web Browser Federated Sign-On Protocol" Microsoft lists patent applications 2005-0223217-A1 and 2006-0112422-A1. There exists prior art for 2005-0223217-A1 claim 14 and further in A-Select [surfnet.nl] and I think for the rest of the claims in Shibboleth [internet2.edu]. I would have to study 2006-0112422-A1 more in detail, but it looks like about half of the claims th
  • In a perfect world, only truly original, truly innovative protocols would be patentable. Well, in a perfectly perfect world, anything you could do on existing hardware would not be patentable beyond the original patents on the hardware itself, but I digress.

    "There are many good yet unique ways to do __TASK__, none significantly better than any other, here is ours" or "there is only a handful of obvious good ways to do __TASK__, and we got to the patent office first" items should never be patented. I'm bet
  • 1. Obtain complete list of MS Server protocols.

    2. File patent claims on the ones that are available.

    3. Dodge chair(s) thrown by Ballmer.

    4. ???

    5. Profit!!!!

  • With what microsoft has at their disposal, they could make any group of people's lives very difficult for any reason they felt like.

  • I knew that (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ozric ( 30691 ) on Tuesday April 22, 2008 @01:59PM (#23162092)
    OH wait.....

    I misread, I thought it said unexplained.

    My Bad
  • Dat's a nice little server ya got dere, buddy. It'd be a shame if it burned down. Heh, heh, heh.
  • This is because, for the most part, MS server protocols are based on well established standards. RPC, SMB, Kerberos, etc.

    Doesn't everybody know this?

  • I got dibs on WINS!

  • The summary is misleading or mistaken.

    The Protocol Freedom Information Foundation (PFIF) made a one-off copyright payment of 10,000 Euros to Microsoft in return for documentation of the protocols. The PFIF is allowed to pass on to the Samba developers information gleaned from the documentation, and the Samba developers are allowed to release source code based on what they have learnt.

    MS were required to offer this deal to all comers after they lost their European anti-trust legal case.

    The agreement re

Slashdot Top Deals

Put your Nose to the Grindstone! -- Amalgamated Plastic Surgeons and Toolmakers, Ltd.

Close