|
Cerf and Kahn Win Turing Award |
|
Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:03 AM EST
|
Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn have been awarded the Turing award for the TCP/IP protocol. Or in plain English, for making the Internet possible. One of the reasons given for the adoption of the TCP/IP protocols was they were
unencumbered by patent claims, because Cerf and Kahn didn't file for any. This was open source at its purest:
"Dr. Cerf said part of the reason their protocols took hold quickly and widely
was that he and Dr. Kahn made no intellectual property claims to their
invention. They made no money from it, though it did help their careers. 'It
was an open standard that we would allow anyone to have access to without any
constraints,' he said.
"Dr. Cerf said he was 'pretty amazed' by what the Internet had become. He was quick to add, 'I suppose anyone who worked on the railroad, or power generation and distribution, would have similar feelings about how amazing it is after you create infrastructure.'
"Dr. Cerf is also quite realistic about the recognition his contribution deserves. Creating a tool is one thing, he said, but credit for what people do with it is something no inventor can claim." Can you imagine if the protocol had been created by Microsoft instead? That is the problem with proprietary thinking. It's hard for them to see the forest for their own little trees. This story also proves that innovation is not dependent on patents. There are, believe it or not, plenty of Open Source folks who will invent wonderful things that change the world for the better just for the joy of it. TCP/IP is Exhibit A. For more on software patents, and how they hinder creativity, and open standards, you might find this talk by Sun's Simon Phipps of interest, if you have a computer that can play Windows Media files. The rest of the talks at that conference, including the one from Microsoft's representative that Phipps references, can be found here. There's one thing about Sun Microsystems I have noticed. They let their employees be themselves. I noticed that yesterday at LinuxWorld, where I spoke to a number of Sun employees, and they all fearlessly tell you the truth, even when it is mildly negative about Sun. It's striking and quite remarkable, and it's one thing Sun is doing right.
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:24 AM EST |
"enuncumbered" :-) ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:24 AM EST |
"Enuncumbered?" -- that's just precis. :) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:34 AM EST |
WWW [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ansak on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:34 AM EST |
First correction...
I think they were adopted "because they were _NOT_ encumbered by
patents", no?
cheers...ank[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:35 AM EST |
Can you imagine if the protocol had been created by
Microsoft instead?
Wait — you mean it
wasn't?
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to
it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:43 AM EST |
Can you imagine if the protocol had been created by Microsoft
instead?
Yes, actually. TCP/IP wasn't the only game in town. IBM's SNA
(Systems Network Architecture) was probably the leading contender as the
alternative, and it was (still is) top-grade technically. (Some would say it's
even a little better, especially in the quality of service area.) It's still
used and supported, particularly in the financial industry, and IBM will support
it forever (the company does respect its customers) but...you had to license it
back in the day.
Toss in AppleTalk, IBM/Microsoft NetBIOS NETBEUI, Novell
IPX/SPX, and several others. TCP/IP had plenty of rivals. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Microsoft-Style Protocols - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:51 AM EST
- Microsoft-Style Protocols - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:16 AM EST
- Why GPL? - Authored by: grouch on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 01:47 PM EST
- Why GPL? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 12:15 AM EST
- Pathworks? - Authored by: stevem on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 01:59 PM EST
- Microsoft-Style Protocols - Authored by: tredman on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:54 AM EST
- Why did TCP/IP win the protocol wars? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:56 AM EST
- IBM's SNA - Authored by: Kristoffer on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 11:42 AM EST
- IBM's SNA - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 11:58 AM EST
- IBM's SNA - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 04:01 PM EST
- IBM's APPN - Authored by: NetArch on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 01:35 PM EST
- Remember the roots of the internet - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:15 PM EST
- Microsoft-Style Protocols - Authored by: Nick Bridge on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 02:30 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:46 AM EST |
Just wait. If Microsoft can only distract people so they don't realize there is
already an internet they could patent it all....<evil laugh>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cinly on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:55 AM EST |
Long overdue honour. Well, at least they did not have to wait as long as Nobel
Prize winners.
---
All views expressed here are my own and do not reflect that of any institution I
am affiliated to[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ctrawick on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:57 AM EST |
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GrokOT? - Authored by: ctrawick on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:28 AM EST
- GrokOT? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:45 AM EST
- GrokOT? - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:48 AM EST
- Clicky - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:12 AM EST
- Clicky - Authored by: micheal on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:56 AM EST
- Clicky - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 11:02 AM EST
- GrokOT? - Authored by: LarryVance on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:20 PM EST
- GrokOT? - Authored by: TerryC on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:28 PM EST
- GrokOT? - Authored by: TerryC on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:31 PM EST
- Frankly.... I'm appalled - Authored by: sjgibbs on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 08:21 PM EST
- GrokOT? - Authored by: ctrawick on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:12 AM EST
- GrokOT? - Authored by: mark on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 11:58 AM EST
- GrokOT? - Authored by: ctrawick on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:11 PM EST
- GrokOT? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 02:25 PM EST
- The abuse of patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 04:02 PM EST
- GrokOT? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 05:33 PM EST
- From Tuxrocks - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:51 AM EST
- From Tuxrocks - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:41 PM EST
- Open Source in foreign governments - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:28 AM EST
- SCOX chart oddity on Yahoo Finance... - Authored by: frk3 on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 11:20 AM EST
- ThankPoland Ceremony in Sejm in Warsaw - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 11:55 AM EST
- SCO: 3 Amended Statements of Beneficial Ownership (including Baystar) ? - Authored by: chris_bloke on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 05:05 PM EST
- American financial knowhow needed - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 05:25 PM EST
- SUN layoffs - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 06:27 PM EST
- New Pacer Doc - Authored by: yorkshireman on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:39 AM EST
- OT Redundancy Department of Redundancy - Authored by: FriedBob on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 09:51 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:06 AM EST |
Here is an unencumbered (no registration required) link
to the same story from another web site. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bwcbwc on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:25 AM EST |
We don't have to stretch too far to imagine what it would be like if MS had
patented TCP/IP. ...Apple had the proprietary AppleTalk protocol, Novell had
Netware protocols, and MS/IBM had NetBIOS. All are still in use, but have
nowhere near the breadth of usage that TCP/IP does because of all the ugly
factors associated of being the consumer of a monopoly: high cost, vendor
lock-in, etc.
On the other hand, what if TCP/IP hadn't existed, or had been patented, and we
were forced to choose from the patented network technologies?
We still wouldn't have the internet, open source wouldn't be as prevalent in
general (if at all: could GNU have succeeded without TCP/IP to allow developers
to communicate?), and the Unix vendors would have had to choose from the
proprietary protocols or roll their own, further fragmenting the market.
We'd probably all still be using Compuserve or a non-Internet AOL or not be
online at all. Demand for online service would be lower.
We'd still be using ISDN or dialup instead of DSL/Cable because the demand for
online access wouldn't support the infrastructure upgrades for the more advanced
services. DSL and Cable modems would probably be available in some cities, but
nowhere near the distribution we have now.
Response to the Asian Tsunami and other disasters would have been less
effective.
On the flip side: TCP/IP is a mono-culture just as much as Windows is, so
without TCP/IP we would have less trouble from spam and viruses and worms (oh
my!). We wouldn't have had the internet boom-crash-bang, so the geo-political
situation would be different. Could the US have invaded Iraq without TCP/IP?
The world owes Cerf and Kahn just as much for not patenting TCP/IP as it owes
Bell Labs for not patenting the transistor. The world would be a different place
without them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:49 AM EST |
From the Shankland article: '"Refusing to patent one's ideas is leaving
oneself
exposed for absolutely no good reason," Fink said.'
And then in the very next Groklaw article we seem to have a massive counter-
example. Two people who created TCP/IP, did not patent it, and shook the
world. What does this say about Fink's argument? Did Cerf and Kahn "leave
themselves exposed" by not patenting TCP/IP? How?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:56 AM EST |
Yeah, but, presumably Cerf & Kahn both get paid some other way.
Some of us have to work, create, innovate, just to get paid.
And you have to protect that work (including using patents) or you *don't* get
paid. If we could trust everyone to be honest and fair, then it wouldn't be
necessary!
Your example is excellent for an open protocol, but that's not the only world
software resides in.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "...proves that innovation is not dependent on patents" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:08 AM EST
- "...proves that innovation is not dependent on patents" - Authored by: macrorodent on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:08 AM EST
- "...proves that innovation is not dependent on patents" - Authored by: tauzero on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:10 AM EST
- Not quite what is meant - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:17 AM EST
- "...proves that innovation is not dependent on patents" - Authored by: seanlynch on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:43 AM EST
- Yabut... - Authored by: Jude on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 11:14 AM EST
- "...proves that innovation is not dependent on patents" - Authored by: PenguinPride on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:38 PM EST
- totally free? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 03:11 PM EST
- Knowedge moves forward little idea by little idea. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 04:16 PM EST
- "...proves that innovation is not dependent on patents" - Authored by: blacklight on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 05:35 PM EST
- "...proves that innovation is not dependent on patents" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 09:06 PM EST
- "...proves that innovation is not dependent on patents" - Authored by: blacklight on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 01:51 AM EST
- Innovation vs Invention, Canoe vs Kayak - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 04:43 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:23 AM EST |
"Can you imagine if the protocol had been created by Microsoft instead?
That is the problem with proprietary thinking."
That's too painful to even consider. The entire Internet would be melting down
regularly with Microsoft telling everyone to reboot and things will be fine.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: clark_kent on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:45 AM EST |
"Can you imagine if the protocol had been created by Microsoft
instead?"
No, they wouldn't create it. They would steal it, and then patent/copyright it
and call it their own. That is what I believe happened to DOS with Digital
Research, Seattle Software, and IBM.
Yes, go right ahead. Call me a conspiracy-theorist. Not including the DOS
theory, I am correct most of the time when it comes to figuring the of haze and
smokescreens of Microsoft.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 10:50 AM EST |
So, will you stop using a license that prohibits commercial use of your work? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 11:08 AM EST |
Can you imagine if the protocol had been created by Microsoft instead?
I was around when M$ discovered the intranet and judging from the work they did
to 'support' the intranet I'm convinced they were trying to kill it off!
Fortunately they're only good at selling.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 12:45 PM EST |
"... For more on software patents, and how they hinder creativity, and open
standards, you might find this talk by Sun's Simon Phipps of interest, if you
have a computer that can play Windows Media files..."
If you are using Linux, try xine for playing .wmv files... (Though mplayer also
has this capability...)
GL (Not logged in)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 01:16 PM EST |
What exactly does a 'software patent' restrict, in the USA ? I'm assured that in
the UK, you may infringe as many patents as you wish in the privacy of your own
home and no judge will ask you to stop or order any other of the more draconian
measures. So, if we get software patents in the UK, I can guess where all the
software will get written. How about the USA ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 01:17 PM EST |
Slashdot reports that changes are being proposed to the rules for
discovery and usage of electronic evidnce -- mainly restricting their
accessibility and use.
I think that the people here are well posed for
comment on this... but note:
THE DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS IS
TODAY!
I haven't read it myself (running out of
time).
--- Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within
each person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 02:27 PM EST |
I found this ages ago googling for something - I just
spent 10 minutes finding
it again.
Subject:
TCP-IP Digest, Vol 1 #1
Interesting read.
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The link - Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 02:31 PM EST
- The link - Authored by: NetArch on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 05:30 PM EST
|
Authored by: chris_bloke on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 03:10 PM EST |
First off, many congratulations to Vint and Rob for this
well
deserved recognition!
However, this did not happen in a
vacuum, let us not
forget that TCP (only split into TCP/IP in
1978)
grew out of existing work on NCP and both NCP and
TCP had an
international flavour with people like the Royal Signals
and Radar
Establishment (RSRE, later DRA, later DERA,
later split into DSTL and
QinetiQ) involved in developing
both the protocols (for instance dynamic
timeouts for
retransmission), the ARPANET and those all
important
face-to-face meetings. This was very much a
defence driven project.
Disclaimer: the above is biased towards them
because
I was
lucky enough to have worked with those folks in the UK for
many
years, but there would have been many others, such as
the UCL crew, who did
important work.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 04:37 PM EST |
SCO is toast.
PJ hasn't even noticed them for several days. The Yarro
cases are more interesting.
PJ goes to a linuxworld conference, and talks
about pondering the future of groklaw post-sco.
Clearly SCO is now less
than an insect in PJs world view.
Meanwhile SCO misses an important 10-K
report deadline and faces delisting from NASDAQ.
Weird things are
happening to SCO stock. Insiders have stopped trading.
Over on Yahoo! there
is much speculation.
Have the auditors refused to sign off on the
accounts. What have they found?
Have Valkyrie Val and her sidekick
Mr Mustard uncovered something fishy in Yarros desk?
Has the extraction of
capital from a rapidly sinking SCO crossed the legal line?
There is the
scent of blood in the water.
SCO is toast but it is like nobody
cares. People are acting like SCO is already dead.
"SCO? They
are still around? Didn't they once claim to own linux or something? I thought
IBM squashed them already."
The world moves on. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jimbudler on Wednesday, February 16 2005 @ 07:20 PM EST |
http://www.kevinandkell.com/
2005/kk0216.html
--- Jim Budler [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: spuzzzzzzz on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 03:14 AM EST |
Techinically, TCP/IP is not open source, it's an open standard (with lots of
open source implementations). Which is really more important when you think
about it. If a company creates an open (non-patent-encumbered) standard with a
closed implementation, the community is still free to develop an open version.
On the other hand, if a company develops patent-encumbered open source program
(Solaris 10, anyone?), the community could be risking legal problems by working
on it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 05:00 AM EST |
I want to share some thoughts about proper licensing for creating new
protocols.
How do you best license an implementation of a network protocol?
BSD: One good practise we could see was the BSD TCP/IP stack. It was used even
by Microsoft.
On the other Hand, had Microsoft not been too late, this implementation would
have been distorted by the well known "embrace and extend" tactic.
This was actually done with the Java language, which fortunately was reversable
by courts (which were too late) because Java was NOT released under a BSD -
style license.
So my conclusion is: BSD license is good for an implementation of a protocol
where there is no monopoly player in the market. If there is a monopoly player
other licenses would be preferable.
GPL: Advantage: Can be embraced and extended, but the extensions have to be made
public and any patents resulting from that extension cannot be used against
other users of this extensions. Disadvantage: In effect prohibits use by
proprietary vendors, thus either every proprietary vendor has to program their
own implementation of the protocol, or the protocol becomes marginalized and no
standard. Also if a company has made an implementaton of the protocol, nothing
can stop them extending the protocol.
LGPL: Same Advantage as GPL, but allows proprietary vendors to use the library
in their products. But what if just using the protocol as a library is not
possible for technical reasons (for example in monolithic kernels)? Then it is
just like the GPL, proprietary Vendors cannot use it.
I think we should come up with a license not only for the implementation of a
protocol, but also with a license for the protocol itself. (Is that possible?)
This license should allow usage and implementation of the protocol, maybe even
should allow extensions but should force the resulting protocol (not the
implementation) to be made fully open again (also patents on the extensions must
be made open). Some sort of GPL for protocol definitions.
With this sort of license understanding of open protocols and open standards by
standardisation bodies and governmental agencies would be better, because the
standardisation bodies could simply request that all protocol definitions that
want to go into a standard would have to adhere to the OPL (open protocol
license). Then everybody could implement that standard under any license he
wishes, but extensions to the protocol itself would have to be made public, and
this would be enforcable in front of a court. There would have to be a clause in
that license that forbids distribution of an implementation of the protocol or
derivative thereof, without making available a full documentation of the
protocol for the maximum price of shipping costs (like GPL and LGPL).
Any ideas? Can anyone of you friendly lawyers and law-knowledgeable people work
out such a license? I'm a techie (mechanical engineer) so I would not know where
to start.
Geri (too lazy to remember yet another password)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ENOTTY on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 08:04 AM EST |
One question - is this why we 'surf' the net?
In 1989,
General Atomics, in San Diego, California, initiated an
effort to create an ISP
to serve the needs of the academic and
research communities in the area. They
planned to call the ISP SURFNET
and the planned an ad campaign around the idea
of "surfing the net" -
including T-shirts showing people on surfboards skating
over oceans of
information. But not long before launch, they discovered there
was a
company in the Netherlands called SURFNET - the name had been
taken!
They caucused on the problem and someone suggested they
call
themselves the California Educational and Research Foundation Network
or
CERFNET. Then some said they should call me to see if that was ok.
First I was
hesitant, thinking that if they screwed it up, it would
embarrass me. Then I
remembered that people often name their kids
after other people and don't blame
the other people if the kids don't
come out right. So I agreed and flew to San
Diego on July 10, 1989 to
inaugurate the CERFNET with the executive director,
Susan Estrada, by
breaking a plastic bottle of fake champagne filled with
glitter over a
Cisco router.
In 1992, Jean Armour Polly wrote an editorial
called "Surfing the Net"
and the term seems to have been cemented into the
language by that.
It is just a delicious coincidence that my name sounds the
same. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 17 2005 @ 02:10 PM EST |
Feb 17, 2005
"The Swedish Academy has announced that a new category of Nobel Prizes
would be awarded starting with the 2005 awards. The category is Lying and the
winners are..."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: chaosd-II on Friday, February 18 2005 @ 03:52 AM EST |
TCP-IP isn't the only unemcumbered IT development around. I'm pretty certain
the following 'IP' issues are not patented.
- Most basic algorithms
(Hash tables, sort algorithms, tree data structures, parsing algorithms, paging
algorithms etc).
- ASCII / EBCIDIC
- Business Management - Using
an IT system to sequence work and deliveries, Lyons Cakes developed the first
'MRP' system. Good job they were more interested in icing than IP (sorry,
couldn't resist that one).
- Most programming languages - at least, all
the good ones ;-)
The scariest is: what if Alan Turing had laid
down a patent for Turing Machines?
Chaosd (II)
Stupid Question is an Oxymoron.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|