|
|
| A Brave New Modular World - Another MS Patent Application |
 |
|
Monday, January 29 2007 @ 11:54 AM EST
|
A reader sent me a link to a new patent application by Microsoft. Not the Bluej one, which has been in the news and which Microsoft, commendably, has withdrawn, but another one, for what seemed to me to be a modular operating system, "System and method for delivery of a modular operating system". Microsoft and modular are two words I wouldn't normally associate with one another, so I thought maybe I'd misunderstood it. Heaven only knows, patent applications are generally written to confuse, not illuminate, and so I sent it to Dr. Stupid to ask if he'd please explain it to me. He did, and his explanation was so interesting, I asked if I could share it with you.
As best as I can understand it, it's not an attempted patent on a modular system per se. That obviously wouldn't fly. As he points out, it's not new. The patent relates to a method of delivery of an operating system where
you start off with a very basic operating system, a kind of crippled starter edition,
and then you pick and choose (and purchase) additional functionality, with DRM used to make sure you don't self-help. It's like modular copyleft, turning the advantages of GNU/Linux -- modularity there increases what you can do and what you can add and how well everything works -- and instead turns the concept on its head by using modularity plus DRM to restrict and contain and enforce. The result seems a bit scary to me, and I ask myself, why would anyone agree to something like this? Perhaps I can chalk it up to Microsoft innovating again. They must be testing the outer limits of what a customer will put up with before bolting to Linux, certainly a valuable scientific study from my point of view. So, using our imagination, let's extrapolate -- how could such a business model, whether the patent is granted or not, be used in an imagined Microsoft Brave New Modular World? Of course, Microsoft doesn't need a patent to use this business model, nor does a patent application prove it will use the model. However, as attorney Michael Geist phrases it, Microsoft's Vista already "seemingly wrestles control of the 'user experience' from the user." And this patent application brings to mind a model that takes it a further step. Another issue: if Microsoft doesn't need a patent to pursue this model, then why apply for a patent? To corner the market in restrictive, controlling operating systems? Well, speaking for myself, Microsoft can have that corner of the market to itself, by all means. When would having a patent on such a system be an advantage? I'll leave all such possibilities to your imagination. But here's how Dr. Stupid understands the patent and how it could play out as a business model: ******************************
Introduction
The patent is not interesting for its technical content -- all the building
blocks of the described system have been used for some time now -- but for
the glimpse it offers into the business model envisaged by the applicant.
Therefore, I shall not delve into whether the patent should be granted at all
in this discussion.
The application relates to a method of delivery of operating systems where
one initially obtains a very basic operating system (for example, one that can do little more
than display a web browser restricted to one site or domain) and thereafter
is presented with the option to select (and purchase) additional functionality.
Some of the examples given echo aspects of the cut-down "Starter Editions"
of XP and Vista:
10. The operating system of claim 1, wherein the at least one add-on
module corresponds to a number of concurrent windows.
11. The operating system of claim 1, wherein the at least one add-on
module corresponds to a number of concurrent applications active at a
time.
Now, having a simple starter system to which additional functionality
is added and
upgraded via software modules is not new: this is the traditional
installation approach
used by Debian, and the idea goes back further than Linux
distributions themselves (one
could argue that it is part of the central UNIX philosophy, for
example.) What distinguishes
the proposed system's approach is the following:
1) Retrograde steps in base functionality.
Some of what is described as "additional functionality" is actually
providing functionality
which ought to be (and previously has been) standard in the
operating system. For example, any modern general-purpose operating system, even a very basic one,
should support running as
many simultaneous applications as the user wishes, limited only by the
constraints of the platform
hardware. To impose a limit of, say, 4 simultaneous applications is an arbitrary
restriction. More pointedly, preparation of the artificially-limited
version requires further engineering effort; there is no "sweat of the
brow" argument I can see to differentially price the limited and unlimited
versions
(in contrast, a multi-processor capable OS kernel does represent
additional engineering effort compared with
a uniprocessor kernel, and as such could be justifiably offered as a
paid-for upgrade.)
This use of an explicitly defeatured system as, one presumes, a loss
leader item which the
producer hopes the user will pay to upgrade will be familiar to
readers as "demoware" (or
more unkindly "crippleware"), but to my knowledge this is the first
time such an approach is being
extended to encompass an operating system as opposed to a few low-cost
handy utilities.
The patent application amusingly tries to dress up the removal or
impairment of functionality
which currently all users enjoy as standard as a benefit:
[0029] The peripheral category may include .... the number of
peripherals allowed. A computer 110 functioning with the basic kernel
operating system 202 may have limited peripheral support. Add-on
modules may allow users to select the types, speed, and number of
peripherals allowed and supported.
The purchaser of a new computer might be entitled to expect to
be able to plug in all his or her peripherals from the old computer.
[0030] The communication category may include network interfaces, ...
Add-on modules for communication may be used to support ... for
example, DSL speeds up 500 kilobits per second, or speeds up to the
maximum supported by the available hardware. Communication may also be
limited by type, such as support for Internet browsing separate from
peer-to-peer networking.
So even if your modem, line, and ISP support 8Mbit/s, your
internet browsing may be deliberately throttled by the OS unless you
obtain an additional "module".
[0031] .... a power user may want specific window and background
themes with associated styles, a significant number of concurrent
windows, and an unlimited number of concurrent applications, up to the
capacity of the hardware.
I would tentatively offer the suggestion that *any* user would
want the OS to use the full capacity of the hardware at all times,
even when performing simple tasks.
... Users of business support applications may benefit from a support
pack including high speed disk access...
The placement of high speed access in a module implies that the
standard offering might deliberately throttle back disk performance to
create an artificial reason to upgrade.
2) DRM to control system expansion
DRM, in various forms, is used (a) to ensure the new functionality
has been legitimately obtained (i.e. paid for) and (b)
to only allow "approved" additional modules.
3. The operating system of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the
plurality of add-on modules further comprises a certification, wherein
only add-on modules with the certification are activated by the
operating system....
12. The operating system of claim 1, wherein the at least one add-on
module comprises digital rights management corresponding to at least
one of a number of uses of the add-on module, an expiration date of
the add-on module, or a cumulative uses of the add-on module.
Of these two aspects, (a) can be defended as an anti-piracy measure.
(b), on the other hand, serves the main purpose of obstructing third
parties from filling in the functionality holes in the basic offering
themselves,
or (to borrow a popular phrase) removing the computer's owner's
"freedom to tinker".
There is a clear signal that the ability to install even non-approved
applications (let alone OS components) is controlled:
5. The operating system of claim 1, wherein the at least one add-on
module enables installation of a non-certified application program.
Since the ability to install non-certified programs is placed in an
"add-on module", the natural question to ask is: will the computer's
owner have to pay a surcharge to install the software he or she wants
on the hardware he or she owns?
3) DRM to selectively enable and disable functionality
[0039] ....The add-on module 300 may be examined for digital rights
indicia .... When digital rights indicia are present and the criteria
required are satisfied, the yes branch ...may be followed and the
add-on module started .... Should the digital rights criteria fail...
for example, if an expiration date has passed.... a notification may
be presented to the user indicating the add-on module was not started.
The notification ... may further include an opportunity to correct the
failure, for example, by purchasing an additional usage allocation.
While not spelled out in the application, the fact is that the module's DRM
attributes are checked periodically and on every system start allow
remote termination of access rights for reasons other than expiry of a
subscription. Thus, the entity administrating the digital rights
framework (the operating system publisher or an appointed 3rd party) will be able to
"punish" the user for actual or suspected transgressions of
a EULA by disabling the relevant functionality.
Modularity
All operating system vendors are moving toward a more incremental model of OS delivery.
Recent IT press coverage of the Vista release has had as one of its
themes the widely-held opinion that
Vista will be the last OS of its kind (a monolithically-delivered
package) from Microsoft.
Here's but one example.
Speaking generally, there are undoubted benefits to both user and OS
provider in modularity.
From the users perspective, modularity allows him or her to mix and
match components, choosing
from several providers for each coarse functionality area. Unnecessary
components can be disabled,
reducing system resource consumption and improving system security and
reliability. As previously
mentioned, this is not a new technology. From the OS provider's
viewpoint, modularity allows
the OS as a whole to be sold on a more flexible basis and arguably
improves overall OS quality
by reducing unnecessary coupling between components.
There are areas, however, where what appears as a benefit to the end
user is not a benefit to
an OS provider, or at least one trying to maintain a monopoly market
position. By its very nature, modularity eases replacement of system
components. Other things being equal, one would expect the market to
naturally foster the appearance of 3rd party replacements for most if
not all the OS components. The operation of the free market would also
prevent artificial functionality restrictions (ones where
straightforward functionality is being turned off, rather than new
functionality being offered through genuine innovation) from being
viable as a business model. For example, if the basic window
management component of an OS only allowed for 8 top-level windows,
then a 3rd-party replacement component would soon appear which removed
this restriction.
In the monolithic model of OS delivery, a provider with dominant
market position can use the practice of
"bundling" to undermine competitors. If the basic installation of an
OS has component X pre-installed to deliver functionality Y, this
component enjoys an incumbency effect and thus reduces the likelihood
of competing components W & Z being investigated, let alone obtained
and installed. Switching to a model whereby component X has to be
actively chosen (and possibly purchased) by the user would, on the
face of it, improve the opportunities for W or Z to be chosen instead.
Modularity - real modularity - militates against bundling.
In this context, the ability of the core system to only allow approved
OS components to be installed appears
to be a mechanism whereby the OS provider can retain the benefits of
modularity from its perspective, while denying the end user his or her
corresponding benefits. At the very least, 3rd party replacement
components could expect to have to pay a de facto royalty to obtain
and maintain their "approved" status. The impact on FOSS-licensed
replacement components is obvious.
A possible scenario
So let us try to envisage what the total end-user experience is likely
to be in such a system.
Some years in the future, the owner of a new computer turns it on for
the first time and is welcomed
by - let's call it "Blister Basic Edition." This OS has almost no
functionality. It
can run a "get connected to the internet" wizard and then displays an
online store in a
simplified web browser (the browser does not allow any other site to
be visited.)
Although I refer to an online store, the first transaction does
involve more user expense.
He or she redeems a unique coupon code (received as part of the
purchase) which allows
him or her to install a number of additional modules. Compromises may
have to be made: perhaps
the user does not have enough "credit" to have both "enhanced" (i.e.
normal) disk performance
and connect two printers...
The DRM and certification features ensure that if the user wants
additional or improved
OS functionality (including security features) these can only
be obtained from the OS vendor or a vendor-approved 3rd party.
Subsequently, the Blister Update icon appears at regular intervals to
offer the user new, improved functionality. The OS updates are more frequent
and less dramatic -- in this respect Blister behaves more like Linux or
indeed (to an extent) Mac OSX. These updates are unlikely to be free.
Doubtless one will be able to purchase them on an as-is basis, but the
pricing structure will
be such that it seems much more compelling to buy, say, 3-year
subscriptions. One simple regular payment and the user can get all the
upgrades he or she
wants! However, the total payments spread over 3 years will probably
be more than the
original monolithic OS price -- otherwise the OS vendor would be making
less money.
Moreover, the user could now be required to pay for bugfixes, which
traditionally have been
free upgrades. The application explicitly proposes this and, with no
little audacity, claims it
as an end user benefit:
[0028] ....In the area of operating system maintenance, service packs,
bug fixes, and patches have been included in the original purchase
price of an operating system for prior art systems. The use of an
add-on module for support of bug fixes, service packs, and patches
allows users to selectively pay for only the support that is of
interest to them.
Requiring users to pay for security fixes "of interest to them"
hardly seems the route to greater overall security on the internet.
Rolling upgrades and upgrade treadmills
If Blister is kept upgraded on a rolling basis like this, then in one
respect the user does benefit - no more "big bang" upgrades (rather
like Debian, you only install it once.)
From the OS provider's view, the rolling model, as well as yielding a
steady revenue stream, has two
market position benefits:
i) It gets rid of the "jumping off points". Upgrading from one major
version of an OS
to another (e.g XP to Vista)
is rarely a straightforward experience. It is a situation where a
vendor can lose customers -- either
because they decide to change platform instead of upgrading, or the
upgrade trashes their system and they change loyalties as a result. By removing
the "big bang" of a platform upgrade, there is no longer a "natural
point" for the user to try any other OS.
ii) If a user pays for 3 year's upgrades in advance, the sunk cost fallacy
will deter him or her from switching OS providers during that period.
Of course, as
the 3 years approaches the end, various tempting special renewal offers
will be presented to him or her by Blister Update. There is an obvious
analogy with
mobile phone contracts here.
iii) Because additional modules have to be certified, the user
cannot remove modules whose functionality is purely for the benefit of
3rd parties (e.g.
targeted advertising, prevention of fair use of legitimately purchased
content) with whom
the OS vendor has a business relationship or agreement. The ability --
or threat -- of
remote disablement of functionality may also be relevant here.
Conclusion
All in all, it fits with an overall goal of turning your home PC from
an empowering tool into a "don't tamper" appliance - indeed, into a
device that you effectively lease (rather than own) that is useful
for little more than
delivering approved partner content and taking part in those harmless
online activities that don't endanger the OS vendor's revenue (or those of its
approved partners.):
[0040] ... Lastly, service providers or system operators who may be
providing computers on a pay-as-you-go or pay-per-use basis may be
able to limit installation of potentially harmful applications [DrS:
harmful to whom?] or hardware peripherals by restricting the
installation of required operating system add-on modules.
A model where the level of functionality of the OS can be purchased on
so fine-grained a basis has many other interesting (and disquieting)
possibilities, which cannot all be covered in this space. Since all
functionality enhancements have to pass ultimately through the
gatekeeper of the base OS vendor, this vendor gains a power of
patronage. For example, a blogger who passed favourable comment on one
of the OS vendor's products could find himself rewarded with a free
upgrade of a minor system component. The scope for mischief by a
unscrupulous OS vendor is also vast -- not that I make any particular
allegation here.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:00 PM EST |
yum remove ie
---
If you love your bike, let it go.
If it comes back, you high sided.....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: capt.Hij on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:03 PM EST |
| Corrections hear pleze. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: capt.Hij on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:06 PM EST |
Please put off topic posts here. If you have links please post in html and make
them clicky.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:07 PM EST |
I cite many pieces of advanced test equipment as already existing examples.
The test equipment is general use computing as it has a network interface and
scripts can be loaded onto the equipment and run.
You can pay for additional features for the test equipment
1) get a key, type it in and new features/windows are available (feature was
there all along just not activated)
2) download new feature/update existing (either automatically or user driven)
These sound like the Microsoft claims
DRM exists to the extent that some of the advanced features are signed by the
test equipment manufacturer.
See column "Available Measurement Personalities and Software" here:
http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/product.jspx?reqSort=spec_id&onCol=51696
&nid=-536902453.0.00&cc=US&lc=eng
On programability:
http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/faqDetail.jspx?cc=US&lc=eng&ckey=407
788&nid=-536902948.536880936.02&id=407788
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:09 PM EST |
This isn't so weird really. You get shareware, that has the
annoying popup saying 'buy me'. Then you do pay the $19.99 or
whatever and type in the secret code. Next thing you know, you
have the full featured version.
I think there is 20 years of prior art for this kind of bad
design.
Patent denied, I hope.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ka1axy on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:30 PM EST |
Back in the day...when OS and hardware were produced by the same company (a
large, blue, one), I believe this was fairly common. You would lease your OS
and hardware, and the cost of your lease depended on which features you selected
for your hardware (number of processors, how much core, etc) and the features of
your OS (processes allowed to run, stuff like that).
I don't think this is anything radically new, except that you could now change
the feature set by downloading a token.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:34 PM EST |
I use Fedora or Red Hat on most of my machines. Once the release is a couple of
months old, it doesn't pay to do the full install from the CDs, because many of
the packages are outdated by then. The simplest way is to install a minimal
system, and then use yum or up2date to install the rest. It handles the
dependencies, and you get the latest versions right away.
Gentoo Linux actually takes this one step further, by actually building the
target system on your box from the ground up.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jamis on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:38 PM EST |
IBM has been "modularizing" its operating systems for decades.
Granted, this isn't being done on the desktop, but rather on the servers. The
difference is that the "modules" are typically given different part
numbers, or names, and are separate licenses. The effects are the same as what
Dr. Stupid describes. From the other side of the fence, it can be looked at as
a "You pay for the functionality you want" logic, but it is hardly
new. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Selectable Units - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 03:07 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:39 PM EST |
And of course, one never need worry that Linux will ever infringe on this
patent. :)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: alansz on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:40 PM EST |
| Sounds like Cygwin's approach to me. Prior art? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wood gnome on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:51 PM EST |
| Hmm..
Imagine getting W98 modular....98 crashes a module, M$ way.. Um..
hold it, Billy didn't like the free TCP/IP, hm, problem...
You just gotta
love open protocols..
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:52 PM EST |
| It's used so that you can get it cheap, and then when you pay the whole bill
then the whole thing is yours to keep.
There's probably prior art; for a long
while, IBM has shipped hardware with processors installed but disabled. Give
your credit card number to your friendly salesman, and the extra processors are
turned on for you. No engineer visit required.
Once you know how to do that,
and figure that it represents a viable business model, the rest is obvious. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stites on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:52 PM EST |
"Some years in the future, the owner of a new computer turns it on for
the first time and is welcomed by - let's call it "Blister Basic Edition." This
OS has almost no functionality. It can run a "get connected to the internet"
wizard and then displays an online store in a simplified web browser (the
browser does not allow any other site to be
visited.)"
Manufacturers often include demos and crippleware for
additional software in addition to a fully functioning operating system. But I
cannot see a computer manufacturer selling computers which have no functional
capabilities out of the box. So even if Microsoft implements such a scheme for
purchasing Windows without hardware I would think that
the computer
manufactures would continue to sell pre-configured operating systems with their
hardware.
If Microsoft were foolish enough to insist on distributing a
crippled version of Windows on new computers then the manufacturers would be
forced to sell a full featured operating system with each new computer and also
include the crippled version of Windows as an optional operating system at the
customer's choice.
-----------------
Steve Stites
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:54 PM EST |
If there is a need to break this as a patent, I can think of a lot of prior art.
However, if Microsoft wants to use this as a sales process, it may backfire.
Most users do not see the actual "cost" of Microsoft's operating
system, since they buy a machine with it pre-installed. If they find out that
they have bought a "crippled" version of an OS, that it is expensive
to upgrade, that the upgrades still break and they have to keep buying extras,
they may finally wake up and discover that they can spend a couple of dollars
and order a DVD from the Internet which has a full operating system and hundreds
of applications.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:57 PM EST |
Sorry, I have to dispute whether this patent should be granted, and perhaps IBM
may want to take notice as well.
Unidata is an IBM Data Base product. There is available for study purposes a
trial version that provides two user licenses. In Unix, each login, which
consumes a license is an additional process. To my mind this is like having two
widows available in the initial OS. To open additional sessions, you need to
purchase additional user licenses.
You need to take starting with a limited number of windows and purchasing
additional windows out of the patent.
The rest of the stuff, with my apologies to Dr. Stupid, because I was not able
to stomach the entire thing. It seems a shame to go to the trouble to write the
in depth analysis, when the readers can't stand to read it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hamstring on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 12:59 PM EST |
I think this application fits very nicely with many of the common philosophies
at M$.
"For example, one user may purchase and install a suite support pack to
improve the performance of utilities such as word processors"
Like Dr. S said.. there is no reason for this unless the OS throttles an
application to begin with..
Additionally, not only does M$ make money from selling you Word (how convenient
that they have removed most competition from the market), but they can also
charge you to run the application? Charge you to run it at normal speed?
Here is the best one in my opinion though:
"Another user may choose a game support pack that may include 3-D graphics
acceleration, more memory, a game controller driver, and advanced sound
support."
Did any of the coders ever wonder why M$ had garbage OpenGL support? Why they
give development kits and support to upstarts for FREE if they code in DirectX?
All them games developed in DX will generate a ton of money for M$. Gotta pay
for the Xbox somehow I guess..
---
* Necessity is the mother of invention. Microsoft is
* result of greed[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Chris Lingard on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:07 PM EST |
This is more to do with any appliance, Bill Gates has already said that
current TV sets will be obsolete in a few years, replaced no doubt by a
Microsoft device. Microsoft also have a strategy for the "house of the
future"
When you buy your future TV device, you will have to pay to
enable various modules. Just a few dollars per month and you will get extra
channels showing films or sport or whatever you want
Cars already
have computers in them; you want your car radio enabled, just pay the monthly
fee.
Taken to extremes. every appliance will be installed with basic
functionality, so your humble kitchen oven can have features enabled, as long as
you pay.
And if you want a similar feature to today's PC, you can
have your TV/entertainment centre enabled to provide office facilities/education
stuff/whatever
Indeed not a Brave New World, more 1984, double bad
bad.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kawabago on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:09 PM EST |
Ufortunately for the passengers, the iceberg was built directly into the ship.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- More like.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 02:30 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:11 PM EST |
The Santa Cruz Operation had something very similar with OpenServer. You have
user certificates which allowed a maximum number of concurrent users and you
have various levers of "Layered Products" which added functionality.
There was a Host System, Enterprise Systems and optional Layered Products which
added functionality. These were all shipped on a single set of CD's and the
modules were loaded and activated using a serial number and access code. The
process included registration over the Internet.
Maybe that's what Microsoft licensed from SCO.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- lucky you - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 12:11 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:13 PM EST |
To me this sounds like something that would be done for closed hardware. You
buy your XBox from Microsoft, say, and it comes with some basic OS that allows
you to browse the web. Then if you want to do word processing you buy the XWord
module. And so on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Exactly Right - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 05:02 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:24 PM EST |
| This is just a description of an old system of license
managers which did
almost precisely this. You would have
a program running in the background
which would have a
list of keys for various pieces of software. If the
appropriate key was present the software would allow you
to do whatever was
associated with the key. On SGI's in
the early 90's it was called Net-something
or other ...
and even allowed functionality to be controlled by a
central key
controller so that you could access the
functionality needed from any of a
number of computers on
your network.
In this context, I'd say that there's
nothing special that
separates an Operating System from a program or
application. An operating system is simply a subset of
programs.
---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each
person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: fava on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:27 PM EST |
Maybe Microsoft sees it as a way to compete in the poorer markets.
A user can start with the third world (ie crippleware) version and upgrade when
they need more features. Microsoft could see it a way to "finance" a
more expensive package for those who cannot afford the up front cost.
fava[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:32 PM EST |
| Uh - specifically on the pay-to-play (recently) with the OS, does Linspire
(previously called Lindows) with the CNR service sound the least bit
familiar?
Actually, no. Linspire releases the security updates free of
charge - it's the remaining updates (OS updates, etc) that are pay to
play.
Clicky
example to Linspire
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:35 PM EST |
It sounds to me like Microsoft is getting ready to drop the base price of a
basic, deliberately crippled Windows installation, as a response to the zero
cost of installing a Free Software OS that is currently beginning to attract
margin-hungry PC builders, but then to claw back all that and more by
nickel-and-diming the user directly for each feature they need: ten dollars
here, fifty dollars there...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:37 PM EST |
Seems that this is awfully close to what Linspire already does with their
version of Linux. It's still Linux, but you purchase additional components and
applications as you want them. In a Twisted Microsoft World, Linspire could be
a first target. Just a thought...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Tsu Dho Nimh on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:38 PM EST |
Already exists/existed ... mainframe OS features depended on what you bought.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:42 PM EST |
| By patenting and enforcing their own brand of software distribution business
model they stand little to gain on the whole, other than the fact that they
could now force all other software vendors to use a special API and pay their
Developers/Distributors TAX, on top of what the customers already pay. This also
would give Microsoft a price advantage for each product where competition
currently exists. Only by using “Microsoft certified partners” signed binaries,
which are then distributed by brick and mortar stores, could the competition
even have a chance of selling to their potential market. The convenience of
Microsoft's online purchase program, and its easy software updates, would clinch
the deal for most users. The hassle of running to the store for physical media,
or downloading and patching all their other products one by one would send many
users running for the Microsoft Internet Software Store. ---
DRM - As a
"solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a technology its logically
infeasible. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:45 PM EST |
Regarding limiting functionality, even if it costs more, then requiring
customers to pay for the unlimited version: this is quite old, Mictosoft
certainly isn't first.
One example I remember from the telephone company was when DTMF (Touch Tone)
came out. Due to the design of telephone central offices, it turns out that
because DTMF dialing is faster then rotary, it was cheaper for the phone company
for more people to have DTMF. However, they turned this around and used it to
make a lot of money by calling DTMF a great new feature and charging premium
prices for it. There are still areas where it costs more - per month - to have
it, despite the fact that from the first day of implementation all the systems
were capable of using it. It had to be specifically disabled
customer-by-customer for those who wouldn't pay the extra.
Thinking about that brings to mind cable TV. Around here the cable carries what
is called the "family package." This is about $50 a month. If you
want the lesser "basic" package they come out and install a filter to
limit what you can watch, then they charge something like $16 a month.
Obviously is costs them money to install the filter. In this case, though,
there are royalties they have to pay so it is not so clear cut even though the
marginal cost of having you get those extra channels is nothing.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:45 PM EST |
The future may be closer than you think. The sidebar article about Vista not
allowing fresh installs from an upgrade, along with the multitude of versions
for Vista and WGA activation present opportunities for the mindset embodied in
this patent.
Imagine: You currently have a fully legal version of Win98 (still between 20-30%
of the Windows out there). Realizing its a bit long in the tooth, you decide to
upgrade to the new, just released Vista (we'll assume for simplicity's sake that
your hardware is Vista capable). Not being wealthy, and not reading the fine
print, you purchase the least expensive option, go home, pop it in and voila,
immediately get informed you need either Win2000 or WinXP to upgrade. Hmmmm,
which is cheaper, buy XP just to upgrade, or buy Vista full install...
Ok, you get a break here... your spouse remembers that Aunt Tillie gave you a
WinXP install disk last Christmas. So you fire that up, install it, then pop in
the Vista disk again. Fails again, tells you the old install isn't validated.
Darn, you forgot to logon to M$.com and activate XP...
SO fire up your trusty 56k, off to M$ where you are told that before you can
validate you must first install a few critical patches and upgrades (including
the WGA validation patch). A few hours and phone calls later (you also got
lucky and found the one line to M$ help that goes through the first try AND has
a real, helpful person on the other end to explain why Aunt Tillie shouldn't
have shopped at BestBuy), your XP is up to date and you're ready to start the
REAL upgrade again.
This time it works, does the upgrade, and then sends you right back to M$ for
validation. This (luckily and fortunately) works, and you're all set for a new
safe and exciting computing experience. Except... none of your apps work, and
reinstalling them fails. You try to pop in a music CD to sooth your shattered
nerves, but are informed that you need the premium Vista edition for that.
Ok, this is all hypothetical, but its clear that most, if not all, the pieces
anticipated by this patent are already out there. This patent merely describes
a method of streamlining the madness. What M$ wants is a pay, pay and pay some
more model of computing. They've already built the basics, now they're looking
ahead to the delivery (and patenting it).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 01:51 PM EST |
Is it just me or wouldn't the modularity they're talking about really be in the
form of applications? It would seem to me all of the core of an operating system
would have to be there for the system to function. So any of the optional stuff,
say like Internet Explorer, is just an application.
If so, downloading and installing applications is prior work.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 02:04 PM EST |
Are we sure this can't be applied to net installs of Linux
distributions?
On the face of this, it seems as though an attempt could
be made
to use this against Debian, Gentoo, and other Linux distros
that
initially install a "restricted" environment ("restricted" because the
useful stuff
just plain ain't there) and then download the rest.
And
just what do they mean by "a metered disk drive"?
Is M$ planning to
charge you for access to YOUR OWN hard disk?
The summary in the
description seems to fit the typical GNU/Linux system quite
well.
[0003] According to one aspect of the disclosure an
operating system is composed of a small basic kernel, often given away for free.
The small basic kernel, may be used for simple operations and for basic
application support. A user of the computer system may then have the
opportunity to add specific modules supporting the functionality required for
his or her particular interests. While some add-on modules may be free,
others may be available for a fee or as part of a
subscription.
IIRC, this is exactly how most GNU/Linux
systems
are set up. This is more or less what apt-get, yum, and emerge
do.
[0004] According to another aspect of the
disclosure, multiple users may each build from the small basic kernel to
personalize and customize the operating system for their individual
needs on the same computer. For example, one user may purchase and
install a suite support pack to improve the performance of utilities such as
word processors. Another user may choose a game support pack that may include
3-D graphics acceleration, more memory, a game controller driver, and advanced
sound support.
While packages are normally installed
system-wide on GNU/Linux, it is possible to install programs in a
user's home directory--making the program available only to that
user.
And just how is all this different from, say, Gentoo or
LinuxFromScratch?
[0005] According to another aspect of the
disclosure, digital rights management may be used to manage add-on modules. As
opposed to the prior art, where the operating system is available in perpetuity,
add-on modules may be available for limited periods of time, based on the
license terms. It may also be possible to allow only certified or authorized
add-on modules to be installed, enabling digital rights management to allow
selective purchase by users, fraud control for providers and also to
restrict unauthorized operating system extensions from being installed
that may support unauthorized hardware and/or
software.
"Freedom to Tinker"? What the hell's
that? Are you some kinda hippie?
But "mem=<size>" was put there
for troubleshooting...
[0006] According to yet another aspect of
the disclosure, add-on modules may allow extensions to initial basic functions,
such as, the number of windows allowed, the number of processors in use, the
amount of memory available, and the number of concurrent
applications running.
So now you have to pay extra if you
actually want to USE however many GiB of RAM you paid for?
I
lost track of anything resembling meaning in the fog of obfuscation that begins
around "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF VARIOUS EMBODIMENTS". [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 02:08 PM EST |
| It strikes me that, should they be granted this patent, they could not only
ensure that no FOSS application ever works on their system again, but they could
sue every Linux distribution out of existence. They all use one kind of package
system or another. And MS could do this without attacking Linux itself,
or most FOSS developers. Other than the threat from a bogus patent, I wish
they'd do this. I can't imagine too many people would put up with this for long
once they twigged to the game. They'd switch en mass to something else. So the
implication is this only works if you can prevent Linux from being a viable
alternative. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 02:30 PM EST |
IANAL - Patents exist to entice inventors to disclose their inventions in order
to extend technology by giving the inventor exclusive rights to the invention
for a period of time. But the inventor is supposed to disclose complete
information on how to impliment the invention. Correct?
Suppose I write a program that someone claims to have a patent on some part of
what I have written. Would a defense to that be possible through the following
things.
1. Give the patent to 3 indepentant programmers and tell them to impliment the
"inventions" disclosed in the patent application.
2. When the come back with either 3 different things or say simply that there is
nothing described in the "invention" that can be implimented based on
the information disclosed. I expect the last item to be the likely result from
software patents.
Could it then be described as a point of law that since there is not a specific
invention (when there are more than one thing) or no invention at all disclosed
in the patent that the holder has not done the required obligation of disclosing
his "invention" as required by patents that there can be no
infringment since there is no "invention" disclosed? Thereby making
the patent invalid.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Aim Here on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 02:50 PM EST |
If I read this article right, Microsoft wants a monopoly on implementations of
DRM-crippled operating systems.
Normally patents are bad n'all, but I'm tempted to let Microsoft have this one.
Which genius at MS came up with the idea of forcing everyone else make software
that's designed to actually work, leaving Microsoft alone to attack it's
customer base by selling them overpriced software that artificially breaks
itself?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: J.F. on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 02:55 PM EST |
Seems this would take care of that problem MS has of people buying cheap Dells
and putting linux on them in place of Windows. The system described in the
patent certainly won't let you go to a linux site and get the latest linux.
"That's okay. I'll just order the CD or DVD."
Sorry, you haven't bought the module that allows you to use the CD or DVD yet,
and that module certainly won't let you install other OSes via it.
"I'll go into the BIOS setup and tell it to boot the CD first."
Sorry, but the DRM won't let you into the BIOS setup as only hackers trying to
circumvent the DRM would need to go into the BIOS setup.
See? Buy a cheap PC with only Windows SY (Screw-You Edition) and you're stuck
with it forever.
Plain computers with no DRM control and/or no initial OS will be hard to find
(or made illegal by MS) and cost big bucks.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 02:57 PM EST |
This patent completely contradicts most of their arguments in the antitrust
trial(s) for why they couldn't separate IE and all the middleware components
from the OS.
In court they claimed it couldn't be done. All part of the larger picture.
Technologically impossible.
Here they claim its not only possible, but patentable and marketable! Modular!
What a concept![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 02:58 PM EST |
Couldn't the modular approach be a defense against anti-trust bundling problems?
i.e. the IE & Media player troubles Microsoft got into.
"No, your honor we aren't bundling things into the OS."
"Its not our fault there isn't a third-party app/bundle that provides
_______"
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- This is pro-trust - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 03:19 PM EST
- Anti-trust - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 01:51 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 03:11 PM EST |
1. Microsoft is testing the limits of the USPTO term "non-obvious".
2. Some people at M$ have way too much spare time.
3. M$ really has locked up some people in dungeons, and this is the result.
4. There's a large number of people at M$ who believe that the Windows monolith
is the only kind of software that exists, so this really is 'new'.
and finally
5. Why would anyone bother to try to patent this?
I bought new cars, new RV's and (surprise) new pc's from long lists of options.
I then retrofitted other options and accessories, as needed.
Somebody check the water, air, and cafeteria food in Redmond; something's wrong
there.
---
Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 03:12 PM EST |
So, the OS concept is old hat. So, crippleware is old hat. So modular systems
are old hat. So, the internet is getting to be old hat.
But it takes a
technology innovator (like Microsoft, say) to do this:
OS+crippleware+modularity+Internet=patentable
innovation
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 03:25 PM EST |
> Add-on modules may allow users to select the types, speed, and number of
peripherals allowed and supported.
It seems to me that this could be (ab)used to double tax peripherals too. The
manufacturer pays to have his driver approved for use in Vista and then MS sells
the module to the user that supports that driver for the partcular model. When
you buy a printer, or a scanner, or a USB flash drive, then you also need to pay
MS to have it enabled.
In fact the DRM could be serial number sensitive. You pay MS for that specific
printer unit to work on that particular PC. Warranty replacement, or buy a new
model, then pay again to MS. Put that printer on a different PC, or simply have
a switch between two and pay again for the other machine to enable that printer.
Sell the printer and the new owner has to pay MS for the module.
Not only that but if the system needs to be reinstalled (HD failure or reformat
required) then you lose your DRM certificates and have to pay MS yet again to
enable your additional modules.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan(UK) on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 03:28 PM EST |
Nail + thread module = screw
unicycle + wheel module = bicycle
unicycle + 2(wheel module) = tricycle
frame + 2(monocle module) = spectacles
go-cart + go-faster module = drag racer
girlfriend + DRM module = wife
Last time I installed Dapper from my original CD, it then made 200+ updates - I
claim prior art.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: david_koontz on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 03:52 PM EST |
In the DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF VARIOUS EMBODIMENTS, in paragraph
[0014]:
[0014] It should also be understood that, unless a
term is expressly defined in this patent using the sentence "As used herein, the
term '______' is hereby defined to mean ..." or a similar sentence, there
is not intent to limit the meaning of that term, either expressly or by
implication, beyond its plain or ordinary meaning, and such term should not be
interpreted to be limited in scope based on any statement made in any section of
this patent (other than the language of the claims). To the extent that any
term recited in the claims at the end of this patent is referred to in this
patent in a manner consistemt with a single meaning, that is done for sake of
clarity only so as to not confuse the reader, and it not intended that such
claim term by limited, by implication or otherwise, to that single meaning.
...
Is it normal to reserve the meaning of the language of
claims in a a patent? The paren quoted clause acknowledges that they don't
reserve the meaning of the claims. The next portion claims they can, as in the
case of "we reserve the right to find new meaning of our claims in the future".
This reminds me of President Bush writing disclaimers on bills he signs
into law. In the claims:
1. An operating system for a
computer comprising:
a core function module;
a license validation
module; and ...
Nothing restricts the definition of operating
system to a kernel. This patent could be (for purposes of threatening
unsuspecting companies) used to claim coverage of any licensing scheme for any
organized software system.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wardo on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 04:11 PM EST |
Just a reminder, and a question sort of...
Prior art has to exist before the patent was filed, which was June 8, 2005. How
long have the Linux distros been using the web update/package selection?
The really old prior art from IBM and others would probably do it, except the
Internet wasn't part of the model back then.
Wardo[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 04:11 PM EST |
I cannot believe that they (Microsoft) seriously believes this can pass the
prior art test! Most of these add-on "modules" are simply kernel and
sub-system configuration options. As for the add-on modular concept, this has
been an integral part of the QNX operating system since the early 1980's. You
want support for specific network interfaces (bluetooth, dsl, ethernet, arcnet,
isdn, whatevernet) you load the appropriate module. You want a GUI windowing
user interface, load that as a separate add-on module (X-Windows, Photon,
whatever). If this isn't concrete proof that the patent system is broken, I have
no idea what may be. Personally, I don't see what the DRM aspects buy them - it
certainly doesn't pass the non-obviousness test, IMO. Again, operating system
vendors (including QNX) have been doing that for a long time, including
enforcing expiration of licenses, validating the installation, etc.
So, all I can say, is that I am totally boycotting Microsoft products, as I am
Sony products, until they stop insulting my intelligence and treating me like a
criminal and/or idiot.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 04:33 PM EST |
PJ said:"...and so I sent it to Dr. Stupid to ask if he'd
please explain it to me." I can hardly imagine the mileage
they will try to get out of that one... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: john-from-ct on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 04:37 PM EST |
I see this as an attempt to get into the OLPC stream. As part of the patent - a
"free" os, followed by a subscription for 'enhanced services. "
Section [0003]: According to one aspect of the disclosure an operating system is
composed of a small basic kernel, often given away for free. The small basic
kernel, may be used for simple operations and for basic application
support."
I would think that MS is terrified of OLPC and its long-term impact since the M$
monopoly is nowhere to be found.
---
Just another greybeard geek![ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 04:56 PM EST |
UK consumer law states that when you buy something, it has to be fit for purpose
or you get your money back. This business model does imply that you can have
removed any modules that are not fit for purpose, rather than the entire OS.
Internet Explorer anybody?
How are the boundaries of "Operating System" defined. Is it just what
MS says it is? Can they prevent the installation of any program, unless payment
is received? Anti-trust.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 04:58 PM EST |
I note lots of comments regarding prior art, but is the patent regarding the
software or the business method?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PSaltyDS on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 05:34 PM EST |
"To impose a limit of, say, 4 simultaneous applications is an arbitrary
restriction."
Like, say, an arbitrary limit of 10 simultaneous
network connections? Hmmm... sounds familiar, except you couldn't even pay to
upgrade Microsoft's "Workstation" OS's beyond that.
---
"Any
technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced." - Geek's
Corollary to Clarke's Law
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 05:39 PM EST |
Yawn. Another "ancient" practice resurrected. In the days
of "big iron" computing (aka mainframe), computer
manufacturers built a machine model, say, Super 31. Then
they added a small PCB called "the Slug." There were DIP
switches (or hard-wired links in place of DIP switches for
the cheaper computers) that set the "feature set" for the
Super 31 _range_ of models. Yep: one computer with
"hard-wired" enabling of capacity. The "Slug" board was
read by the OS. The OS burnt CPU cycles (spun its wheels
in timing loops) to achieve the slower clocks and
peripheral controller data-transfer rates of the less than
top-of-the-range models, and it had a look up table to see
how many peripherals of each type it was allowed to
access, and what types.
If the customer wanted to "upgrade" their Super 31 BM to
the Super 31 MM, then they paid the manufacturer $100,000
for the "upgrade" and the manufacturer sent in a computer
engineer (at $500 per hour for 4 hours ... and this was
over and above the $100,000 "upgrade fee") to apply the
upgrade. This would involve setting the DIP switches (or
the wire links) to the configuration for the MM model. The
machine would have been installed with enough RAM to cater
for 2 model upgrades (say 512kB), but only 128kBytes would
have been enabled for the BM model. Magically, from the
computer operator's point of view, the machine would now:
o be clocked at 4 times the original clock rate
o have twice the original RAM size
o access disk drives and tape decks at twice the
original speed
o be able to manage 4 times the original number of disk
drives and tape drives
o be able to manage up to 4 line printers instead of
only one
and for another $100,000 dollars plus 4 hours of
engineer's time at $500 per hour, it could be upgraded
again to the AM (increase in RAM, CPU clock speed, faster
peripheral controllers, more peripherals that could be
added ...). Repeat for however many models the
manufacturer wanted to market for the Super 31 until you
reach the TM. Remember: it was the OS that was actually
doing the limiting. You couldn't just pull out the Slug:
the computer wouldn't run without it.
So there's nothing new in what MS are doing. They're
trying to do with their software what the old mainframe
manufacturers did with their hardware (through their
proprietary software) ...
BM = Basic Model
MM = Medium Model
AM = Advanced Model
TM = Top Model
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjon on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 06:06 PM EST |
See this
Yahoo news article:
Here's how that will work. For
consumers, Vista will come in four flavors, Home Basic, which retails for
$199, Home Premium ($239) Business ($299) and Ultimate ($399).
Though consumers will pick one version when they buy a computer, higher
versions will be embedded on the machine's hard drive or packaged on discs that
come with it.
Anyone who wants to move up the chain — from Home
Basic to Home Premium for another $79, Home Basic to Ultimate ($199),
Home Premium to Ultimate ($159), or Business to Ultimate ($139) — will
be able to click a new "Windows Anytime Upgrade" function, pay for the
upgrade online and then receive a coded license "key" that will unlock the more
expensive edition.
Obviously the technology described in
patent is much more general (e.g. it contemplates upgrading from the "Starter
Edition", and it contemplates a much more general modular system), but that's
just how patents get written. When you write a patent you need to consider not
only what you're doing now, but also all the things that you (or your
competitors) might want to do in future, and also all the ways that a competitor
might get around the feature. I suspect that writing a more complex patent also
helps avoid prior art, too. (MS can tell the patent office "no, registering
shareware/crippleware is not prior art because there's only one 'module', but we
have multiple "modules").
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: UncleVom on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 06:49 PM EST |
| Perhaps they want to go after Apple, see "Update 3" for "current art".
Clicky
My prediction, they are setting the
stage for a BSD based OS. Windows NT4+++ is quite obviously at it's end, Apple
may make a good model for them to copy once again.
UncleVom
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 29 2007 @ 08:48 PM EST |
One thought repeatedly bounced around my head while reading this: they're
not talking about a computer in the sense you're used to, they're talking about
your mobile 'phone, your set-top box, your internet-enabled fridge, your
plethora of other devices that some think shall soon rise to prominence –
but, above all, your 'phone.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 01:15 AM EST |
"So let us try to envisage what the total end-user
experience is likely to be in such a system. Some years
in the future, the owner of a new computer turns it on
for the first time and is welcomed by - let's call it "Blister
Basic Edition." This OS has almost no functionality. It
can run a "get connected to the internet" wizard and
then displays an online store in a simplified web
browser (the browser does not allow any other site to
be visited.)"
As if there's no prior art on this patent. I could SWEAR
you're describing any rape-job mobile phone out there
these days...
I only wonder if there's an infinite enough supply of
stupid out there to fuel such a business model...mind
you cell phones are doing well, especially with
kids/teenagers.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mtew on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 03:38 AM EST |
In the late '80s or early '90s there was a US Federal Government
specification for computer security.
If I recall correctly it was called
'The Orange Book'.
It specified four classes of operating system
security.
The lowest class (D) had Little or no security.
The next
level (C) had Discretionary Access Controls.
The next level (B) had
Mandatory Access Controls.
The highest level (A) was provably
secure.
Within each class there were a number of certification
levels.
The number of levels was different for each class.
A lower
level number meant that the certification process had found fewer
faults.
And no, I do not remember the details.
One particular
version of DEC's VMS achieved a C2 rating.
For a few years it was the only
commercial operating system with that good a rating.
All the other
commercial operating systems had lower ratings.
There was also a special
version of VMS with a B rating.
It was considered theoretically possible
to get an A rating,
but you would need to design the operating system from
scratch and be able to prove the software and hardware implemented the design
specification properly.
To put it simply, a class A rating was well beyond
the state of the art at that point.
What makes the subject of this patent
interesting is it has all the ear marks of a class A secure system.
One of
the harder requirements of the class A systems was the absence of 'covert'
communication channels between processes with different security
specifications.
Two of the known covert channels were artificial
variations in the computational load which could be detected by the amount of
CPU time that was available to processes with other security parameters, and
variation in disk transfer requests which could be detected by other processes
by timing the rate their own disk transfer requests took.
One of the few
ways to close these covert channels was to deliberately limit the resources
available to each process so that the delays became more uniform.
Simply
the OS was carefully crippled and that crippling was part of the basic
design.
Much like what Dr.Stupid said about the system in the
patent.
The limits on trusted code are also significant requirements for
the more secure security classification.
Similarly, assuring that response
times could not exceed some bound and that the software meets proper
certification tests makes such a system usable for safety critical
applications.
All in all, this looks more like something aimed at secure
government and industrial systems than it looks like something a normal
consumer would put up with.
There is a niche for this kind of
operating system, but it is not in the consumer sector. ---
MTEW [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Vaino Vaher on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 03:51 AM EST |
Some of what is described as "additional functionality" is actually providing
functionality which ought to be (and previously has been) standard in the
operating system. For example, any modern general-purpose operating system, even
a very basic one, should support running as many simultaneous applications as
the user wishes, limited only by the constraints of the platform hardware. To
impose a limit of, say, 4 simultaneous applications is an arbitrary
restriction.
Isn't this 'limited' functionality already implemented
in the special version of Windows that is marketed in Asia? I seem to recall
that it has this exact feature: It can only have a limited number of open
windows. This limitation is imposed by the operating system, not the hardware it
runs on.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: larsmjoh on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 04:14 AM EST |
I believe Tannenbaum did something similar in his Amoeba distributed operating
system, except he had a (sane) system security/integrity perspective instead of
DRM.
IOW, patent should not be granted because of prior art.
This ofcourse brings us back to the age old question of wether technology is
good or bad or if it's the people using it who are..?
The underlying tech of DRM could be used to create a close-to-ubreakable multi
user system where even the most malign user would have a hard time doing any
actual damage...
...not that I'd trust MS to do it!
---
Lars
"Do not try to think outside of the box. That's impossible.
Instead, realise the truth. There is no box."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 04:49 AM EST |
The patent relates to a method of delivery of an operating system
where you start off with a very basic operating system, a kind of crippled
starter edition, and then you pick and choose (and purchase) additional
functionality ... why would anyone agree to something like this?
In principle, it doesn't sound very different from the
plug-in/java applet/activex model of software delivery - giafly.
One
interesting application would be online games, like World of Warcraft or
Second Life, where you
would buy-and-download additional OS features as the game world grows and
becomes more sophisticated, instead of
buying them on CD.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 05:53 AM EST |
The US Govt, specifically the Dept. of Defense and the
State Dept., and
McDonnell-Douglas do have prior art on
this.
In the 1980s, they sold
Australia on the F-18 Hornet
fighter-bomber as a Dassault Mirage replacement.
What they
didn't say was that they would sell only what they wanted
to sell,
as regards the radar and avionics. Which were not
a complete set, particularly
not for Australian conditions,
and of course, Australia could upgrade at
McDonnell-Douglas' pleasure and the DoD and State Dept's
pleasure, not
according to Australia's necessities.
This concept - that a company can
do that sort of thing,
indeed has the right to do that sort of thing - is
hardly
news.
Of course, the idea that one has the right to constantly
redefine what one means by a product one has sold, isn't
that new either - I
believe most judges pass down severe
sentences for such innovation, and also
that it is found
defined mostly in the Crimes Acts of various
countries.
It will definitely be a first to have it protected by
patent. ---
finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers
stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of
these states of view, I duck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 09:01 AM EST |
The current Windows is one big chunk of code for which most people would pay to
remove certain unwanted features. This modularity basically offers the reverse.
I can imagine my Windows' experience becoming better with a modular OS; no
browser module, no office module, no mediaplayer module and a lot of other
"no *** module" stuff that currently isn't just installed, but is
actively annoying me.
There is one statement though: "DRM to selectively enable and disable
functionality" that is scaring the living s*** out of me. Does this mean I
may one day loose access to my own data because MS's authenication server goes
down or because I didn't pay my rent (they mention a subscription model for
features).
If these are the options Microsoft will be offering, I'd better start
researching if I want to go with OS-X or *NIX for my next computer; I'm willing
to buy features. But after I bought them, there should be no way for microsoft
to ever retract them.
Quite frankly I'm scared to think what would happen if needed to reinstall that
OS. If Microsoft goes this way, I'm quiting on them completely.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 11:37 AM EST |
Don't have much tiem to expound on this - but.. could MS be trying to stifle
Google with this patent before Google comes up with a better unified
presentation?
Seems like Google is sort of heading that way - currently all within the
confines of a browser.
Need the fucntionality of mail - well there is the google mail module. Need
picture publishing and editing - welll there is the Picasa module... Need the
functionailty of a word processor - well there is ( whatever googles
wordprocessor is) module...
Just a thought.
MarkG[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Humphry on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 01:11 PM EST |
there are many examples here where crippling products has worked. But, sometimes
it back-fires. I remember an ICL machine many years ago where a major upgrade
was made by replacing a crystal with a higher frequency. It cost them at least
two major accounts that I know of. Then we have the good old 80486SX which cost
far more in goodwill than it ever earned
maybe its the cynicism people don't like, or maybe they don't like being treated
so obviously like complete idiots
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 30 2007 @ 02:14 PM EST |
I believe there are some simple reasons for M$ doing this.
Imagine M$ shipping the OS as "free of charge", but charge money for
the "extra" features.
There would be a number of reasons for this.
1. To compete with free OS's like GNU/Linux and make sure all desktop computers
are installed with Windows.
2. The extra features can be charged annually - steady revenue,
3. The customer will only see a small cost for each of the extras, he will
probably not buy all functionality at the same time. $7 to get the scanner
working... i can do that. Two weeks later... Need faster USB?..... $3... not
to expensive.
4. If you sell things separately you can charge a higher total.
/T
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 31 2007 @ 01:50 PM EST |
I'd guess that MS' motivation is around virtualization and splitting OS
functions into the host and guest components relative to not just the OS and
hypervisor markets but also virtualization management markets.
Simply modularizing the OS and delivering it in smaller "chunks" ought
to fail a prior art test pretty fast if one goes back to Mach and other
micro-kernel OSes. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 01 2007 @ 01:41 AM EST |
I think Vaino Vaher hints at one thing that is really going on here: This
modular model may seem to make no sense in a wealthy market like the US, but
worldwide it is a big improvement over the current situation.
Microsoft can't sell XP for $12 in Vietnam without admitting that XP is
outrageously overpriced in the US, so right now Microsoft is having a hard time
coming up with an affordable operating system it can offer to OEMs in developing
nations. OEMs can't afford to pass on $200+ to their customers in costs for a
legal version of XP, so they just install pirate versions instead. One attempt
M$ has made at resolving this problem is to release special crippled discount
versions of Windows for developing markets, like the 4-windows-only version in
(I think) Thailand. The problem with these versions is that they are seen as
insults to developing nations, basically saying "Here's a piece of crap for
you pathetic beggars, cause you can't afford the real thing."
With a modular system like the one described, Microsoft would be able to claim
that they were selling the same operating system at the same price worldwide,
and everyone would be able to afford to play. OK, the developing nations user
is only going to be able to cough up for 4 windows and dialup, while you can
affort the whole shebang (even get it pre-installed that way), but Microsoft can
claim that it is the same software at the same price.
No embarassing discrimination. No separate products for separate markets.
(Perhaps only "This module not available for sale in your area" for
some security software.)
This solves at least one real marketing problem for M$.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 06 2007 @ 04:11 PM EST |
last year i bought an ibm laptop with ms xp installed. first thing i wanted to
do was installing slackware beside xp, so i had to resize the win partition.
most howtos on this topic are telling you to defrag your disk first.
i tryed to start the ms tool to do this (partition/properties/extra...)
suddenly a window poped up telling me that diskkeeper cant be started because i
havent activated it and that i can buy this programm online now.....
beside the fact that an operating system from ms without disk defragmentation (a
core part of such an os) would be a reason to bring the computer back to the
store and get back your money because they sold you an obviously broken product
this patent looks very similar.
substitute operating system by win xp and diskkeeper by additional module (and
all the mentioned modules are more or less core functionallity of an operating
system).
the only difference was that i got this programm to work without paying more
money after some time of tying to start the programm, thats the reason i still
own this laptop(ok if you belive in the equation time=money i lost money another
point which is similar to this patent).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, February 11 2007 @ 07:50 PM EST |
Tech is improving and becoming cheaper faster than Microsoft can bloat their OS.
On to plan B.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
