Commentary

Serdar Yegulalp
 

Microsoft's Patents, Under The Microscope

Microsoft's whole Catch-22 of Linux infringing on certain patents claimed by them has gone on long enough.  We all know this -- but barring some major (and I do mean major) changes on Microsoft's side, it's looking fairly futile to expect them to come out and say what the infringing patents are.  Time to bring in some third-party muscle, and that's what Tom Kemp of Centrify has just attempted to do.

Microsoft's whole Catch-22 of Linux infringing on certain patents claimed by them has gone on long enough.  We all know this -- but barring some major (and I do mean major) changes on Microsoft's side, it's looking fairly futile to expect them to come out and say what the infringing patents are.  Time to bring in some third-party muscle, and that's what Tom Kemp of Centrify has just attempted to do.


More Software Insights

White Papers

More >>

Reports

More >>

Webcasts

More >>

Centrify makes Active Directory auditing and access control software that works on multiple platforms, so it's plain that it has a vested interest in learning as much as possible about Microsoft's protocols and patent assertions.  In a lengthy and detailed blog post named "Mapping Microsoft Windows Server Protocols to Patents," Kemp talks a bit about the history of Microsoft's recent steps toward openness, and about how in some ways this openness may make things worse, not better:

Now that the protocols were posted and Microsoft had articulated its position vis-à-vis protocols and patents, one immediate issue came to my mind: how does a developer easily know which specific protocols really do leverage patents that Microsoft holds? If you look at the "cover page" of each protocol on MDSN, each one does have a generic "this may contain IP" warning, but they don't tell you which specific protocols leverage specific patents that Microsoft holds.

To that end, Kemp did a bit of digging and created an Excel spreadsheet (yes, Excel, the irony is not lost on me) that attempts to map specific patent applications to Microsoft protocols.  It makes for fascinating reading, to say the least, although Kemp does stress that none of this information is guaranteed to be accurate -- just that it's based on his own best guesses and research.

People have asked me before: if Microsoft's attitude about patents has been so insular, why not simply write them off and go our own merry (open source) way?  The answer is that it isn't that easy in the real world, where there exists a market for products, open source or otherwise, that interoperate with MS's solutions.  And until Microsoft decides to quit playing patent games once and for all, research like this will come in handy.  Kudos, Tom.


Related Reading




Currently we allow the following HTML tags in comments:

Single tags

These tags can be used alone and don't need an ending tag.

<br> Defines a single line break

<hr> Defines a horizontal line

Matching tags

These require an ending tag - e.g. <i>italic text</i>

<a> Defines an anchor

<b> Defines bold text

<big> Defines big text

<blockquote> Defines a long quotation

<caption> Defines a table caption

<cite> Defines a citation

<code> Defines computer code text

<em> Defines emphasized text

<fieldset> Defines a border around elements in a form

<h1> This is heading 1

<h2> This is heading 2

<h3> This is heading 3

<h4> This is heading 4

<h5> This is heading 5

<h6> This is heading 6

<i> Defines italic text

<p> Defines a paragraph

<pre> Defines preformatted text

<q> Defines a short quotation

<samp> Defines sample computer code text

<small> Defines small text

<span> Defines a section in a document

<s> Defines strikethrough text

<strike> Defines strikethrough text

<strong> Defines strong text

<sub> Defines subscripted text

<sup> Defines superscripted text

<u> Defines underlined text

InformationWeek encourages readers to engage in spirited, healthy debate, including taking us to task. However, InformationWeek moderates all comments posted to our site, and reserves the right to modify or remove any content that it determines to be derogatory, offensive, inflammatory, vulgar, irrelevant/off-topic, racist or obvious marketing/SPAM. InformationWeek further reserves the right to disable the profile of any commenter participating in said activities.

Disqus Tips To upload an avatar photo, first complete your Disqus profile. | View the list of supported HTML tags you can use to style comments. | Please read our commenting policy.
T-Shirt Giveaway T-Shirt Giveaway: Each week we're selecting one great comment from our readers. The author of the comment will receive an InformaitonWeek Community t-shirt. So get posting!
Subscribe to RSS

Resource Links