Microsoft Applies To Patent DRM'ed OS Modules 134
wellingj writes "Microsoft has applied for a patent that sounds on the face of it like it ought to improve OS stability and reliability: the patent proposes to modularize device drivers much like Linux does. But, going further, Microsoft would apply DRM to these modules — as Groklaw puts it, 'using modularity plus DRM to restrict and contain and enforce.' The net result is that you might have to pay extra for OS hardware support. Things like USB keys, DVD-ROMS, Raid drives, and video cards might not be supported out of the box. LXer indulges in some dystopian speculation."
Go go Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Having run Linux with Compiz and Beryl, the Vista beta, and XP with third party shell enhancements, I can tell you that if you need eye candy, Beryl is the best way to go, with XP + shell enhancements (such as Windowblinds from Stardock) being a distant second.
And then there is OS X, which is amazingly pretty, but I
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Care to elaborate what you can do in your sh/ksh/bash/ Linux shell you can't in the OSX bash shell? It must be pretty obscure.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
1) Lots of drivers can't be opensourced (IP issues)
2) The device manufacturers will jump into this new market very quickly.
Stop dreaming.
Re:Go go Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)
Ex: ATi and nVidia cannot open source their drivers because of legal issues with patents and trademarks held by [if I remember correctly] SGI and possibly several others, whose technologies allow the drivers to work.
What this will do is increase the cost of driver development in the Windows side, a market the manufacturers can neither drop nor ignore. Likewise, this could also decrease the extra cash flow into the company, and potentially diminish the resources available for the in-house drivers designed for Linux/BSD. So this could potentially hurt Linux/BSD in many ways as well. It just depends on how profitable making those drivers available is.
Re: (Score:2)
Just thought I'd point out that patents don't necessarily prevent open source implementations, this depends entirely on the way the patent is licensed (and the license which ATi & nVidia acquired the patent rights may very well prevent open source implementations). Heck, the whole point of
Notable software patents aren't freely licensed (Score:2)
In general, if you read about a software patent on Slashdot, then the article was probably published because the patent holder declined to grant a license for use in free software.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This idea is about totally controlling the user's PC and with patents being able to charge licence fees to every software manufacturer to access those hardware drivers. It is all about xbox style licence fees for every bit of hardware or software connected to a PC.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds good to me. Don't like it? Don't buy Windows.
This idea is about totally controlling the user's PC and with patents being able to charge licence fees to every software manufacturer to access those hardware drivers. It is all about xbox style licence fees for every bit of hard
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you want Microsoft to be the only OS maker to use code signing to secure its kernel, and screw everyone else?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that this patent is probably about as dangerous to OSS as a patent "protecting" Active-X "technology" ("method and apparatus to directly execute binary code downloaded automatically from a web site"). Why should OSS users or developers care about such a patent? It's not something they'd ever want to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
MS was unable to us
Re: (Score:2)
That Microsoft could use to lock Linux out of the technique that could secure kernels, so Linux is insecure?
Code signing as implemented now does not make the system secure, it just locks out third-party driver developers that can't afford the signing process, which is usually quite expensive. If, on the other hand, code signing was optional and in control of the user, code signing could be used to increase security in the kernel, by only allowing kernel modules signed by the user to be loaded into the kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
In general, patenting security, especially such broadly-effective security as OS security, is very bad for the environment, though it can benefit the patent holder. Imagine if MS had the patent on key and combination locks...
yet less control (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
DRM leads to DMCA (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
uh oh! (Score:2)
Compare to Xbox (Score:2)
Well thank goodness I won't have to worry... (Score:1, Interesting)
My personal wish is that all the contributors of the various Linux distributions would put together a core team and put their combined strengths behind Ubuntu. They could finally slay that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's kinda like freedom, come to think of it
Anyway, I don't think that those guys who work on their pet distros in their basements would make a noticeable difference, if they were to join big projects like Debian or Gentoo.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is where I'd like to see Linux go; 3 or 4 dominant general-purpose distributions, along with lots of other distributions focused on very specific applicatio
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the reason I use FreeBSD - the BSD teams tend to be a bit more focused on gettinging everything there working together nicely, rather than adding everything they can with reckless abandon. Pro: Things just work (as long as you check
Donated hardware (Score:2)
So how do I get relatives who buy me hardware for my birthday to check the hardware compatibility database if the specific make and model that I specified is not available in a local store? Non-profit institutions that rely heavily on donations, such as some schools, have the same problem.
Re: (Score:1)
If there were a few distributions of Linux, heavily promoted, with new users in mind there would probably be more adoptions of these OS's. After someone has made the switch and gotten used to Linux, then they could switch to another distro that either more aptly suited their needs or they felt they might like better.
As a new user to Linux (Ubuntu), I know the driver issues were one of the things that kept driving me back to XP.
Box with credit card reader as dongle (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Such a system will cost millions to build but hundreds to be cracked. Honest consumers (and in particular corporate IT) will refuse such a system because they either want to own the damn thing or have a predictable cost, dishonest ones will run anything for free while black hats will use it to steal the CC# of anyone stupid enouth to use it.
With such a bad expected outcome, only M$ is big enough to try something like that and survive.
As I've said before... (Score:5, Insightful)
Those who want to run a proprietary OS get to pay for one.
Suppose, for example, that you want to use the latest and greatest video card. You already pay for the drivers - there's a reason why cheap video cards crash the system more often than expensive ones. Now, apparently, you'll need Microsoft's permission to write drivers for your own device. So now you get to pay a little more for hardware and drivers.
Perhaps one of the last compelling reasons to use Windows is hardware support. Every PC device made today comes with Windows drivers, and most can be installed by even non-technical people. Take that away, and there's not much reason for the average user to run Windows - Linux is more stable, and does things like email, websurfing, and document editing just as well, or better than Windows, and at a fraction of the price.
This is great for Linux. I would love to see MS apply DRM to drivers. The first time I can install HW under Linux that doesn't run in Windows, I'll know that it's the beginning of the end for MS.It's a nice patent. One which would never get implemented by an astute company. Honestly, now that Windows costs more than the machines on which it runs, I'm wondering where they could possibly go with this.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe that used to be true, but today the trend is towards unified drivers that are the same on every GPU that is supported. So that 3-year-old card that cost you $30 new uses the same drivers as the $700 brand-new, top-of-the-line card for that manufacturer. Why people buy a better graphics card is mostly just
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft can do this because there is no chance in hell the linux drivers will be released before the windows unless there monopoly is destroyed.
Re: (Score:2)
OEM Linux disappeared from Walmart.com because a) sales were poor b) and the price unc
Re: (Score:2)
It's been done. There was an HD tuner card that only ran under Linux, and was available as a commercial device, albiet directly through them, not through retail. I never checked to see how long that group stayed afloat, I don't remember the name of the company.
Others are out there, but I think they are mostly hobbyist or research projects.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe this is so much of a gap in functionality but a gap in usability or look and feel in many cases. You can find software for non-commercial OSs that can fit pretty much any particular need but it might not be as nice as a commercial program on a commercial operating system.
I don't even understand why people say that GIMPshop behaves just like Photoshop. It's getting closer but I don't think anyone that's at all experienced w
This sounds like a replay of the MCA system (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Or... (Score:2)
Or perhaps your hardware manufacturer will have to satisfy Microsoft for the "right to let users run its hardware".
I don't see much other use for this. I've never heard of a hardware manufacturer charging its customers extra for a Windows driver.
Looks like another tool for a monopoly, and not much else.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I do not remember what the model number is. If you are so eager to know the model #, drop me an email as a reminder then I can find out from my client next week, which is the next time I am going there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Or... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. There could be a module that is required for non-Microsoft applications to use system resources like disk drive access, RAM access, network access, display access, etc. Microsoft would of course make people pay for this and it would automatically add whatever the fee for this is to the cost of whatever non-MS software to the cost of running that software. (Of course, MS software will run for free on your system.) This could be used to price competitors out of the market and MS could hide behind some shady "quality assurance" reason for doing this if they are sued.
2. Microsoft could sell subscription-based modules for HDD access beyond merely running certain programs, and if you do not keep the subscription current, then the module (which contains the drive) gets locked and encrypted.
3. You could be forced to pay for more modules if you change your hardware. Say a $2/month module supports 1GB RAM, but if you want 2GB, than you have to buy another module or your extra RAM is dead in its tracks.
4. Microsoft would be free to change the price of their modules at will and if you don't pay, your computer would be locked up and completely unusable, the data on it inaccessible by any means, even yanking the HDD out and putting it in any other machine.
All of these scenarios are possible with this plan. Will they happen? My guess is it will be like the frog in the pot scenario, where there is a little bit of this at first and then as people accept it, it gets ratcheted up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty doubtful Microsoft could pull that off. Microsoft has lots of customers, but I hardly know anybody who likes Windows. Many of them aren't aware of alternatives, but Apple has become a house-hold name with iPods, and lots of people know they also make computers. I can't tell you how many people I know who are planning on a Mac for their next c
Re: (Score:2)
There could be a module that is required for non-Microsoft applications to use system resources like disk drive access, RAM access, network access, display access, etc. Microsoft would of course make people pay for this and it would automatically add whatever the fee for this is to the cost of whatever non-MS software to the cost of running that software. (Of course, MS software will run for free on your system.)
Such an example already exists in the patent application. It mentions an add-in module that would allow third-party applications to be installed. Like "You need to pay extra money if you want to run non-Microsoft applications".
Microsoft would be free to change the price of their modules at will and if you don't pay, your computer would be locked up and completely unusable, the data on it inaccessible by any means, even yanking the HDD out and putting it in any other machine.
Good point! I didn't think of that.
At least obvious? (Score:1)
Neither the specification, nor the Information Disclosure Document (That onl
Re: (Score:2)
I don't recall using a scheme like this for the OS, pre se, but haven't there been applications that were distributed on a CD which provided basic functionality but had additional functionality code of some sorts ("module"?) on the CD that could be activated after paying a fee to the publisher, who would then send a key to unlock the added functionality?
It's called crippleware. You download a demo for free, but the demo contains all the functionality of the full application. If you buy a serial number corresponding to the full version, the demo version suddenly becomes the full version. It is quite common actually. One such well-known program is Nero Burning ROM.
Re: (Score:2)
I always understood
So, lets get this right... (Score:1)
As a result, Microsoft is now going to start charging everyone who ever uses Windows for the right to use drivers, or something. Come off it. There's no indication they're even going to use this, and they're certainly not going to make it mandatory. They could lock out driver developers in all sorts of ways without relying on DRM if they wanted to. They prefer to ha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
* e.g. Sky [Fox] has a UK pa
Re: (Score:1)
Well, okay. I see how there's an issue of priciple here, but I really can't get all that riled up about MS preventing its essentially non-existent competitors from doing something they don't have any interest in doing, and would hurt me if they did.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No, I'm saying they could if they wanted to. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for microsoft to do anything particularly pro-consumer...
Actually, microsoft, unlike most companies, are convicted monopolists. Why the _hell_ keep handing them copyright and patent monopolies on a silver plate? Financial penalties are relatively meaningless - the _first_ penalty for a mo
Re: (Score:1)
One more step... (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to give them credit. The serial number, license activation, and WGA software were all really obvious and easily broken protection methods...but this one would possibly be pretty tough.
I think another comment was on the right path, suggesting that this will drive a lot of people off of windows and onto linux. All MS is doing is cutting down on the number of pirates using windows. Less users means less people pirating and using other software on windows. Less pirates using the software also means more people who are telling all of their friends about a different (and legal) way to have free software. Obviously, as more people switch away, it's that many more people that will also encourage their friends to switch. If microsoft ever uses this technology on actual drivers and not just special case software, it'll likely drive people away at a pretty alarming rate.
Re: (Score:1)
Xbox 360... (Score:1)
While not the same issue, the similarities, and the fact that 360 is Microsoft's console, and the marketplace encourages this type of behavior, almost seems like M$ went "Hey, if this works with our console, why not with our OS?".
What about Apple products running on Intel? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There hasn't been much luck reverse engineering the binary blob drivers we have on Linux right now (for example, ATI and nVidia's drivers
DRMing OS modules (Score:5, Interesting)
- customers who switch to Linux say they want, among other, modularity, freedom to tinker and configure their machine at will and possibility to strip out everything unneeded.
- other detractors of Microsoft's products and more specifically of Vista point out the confusingly high number of variants (1 for developing markets, 2 variants for homes, 2 variants for business, 1 additional "has everything inside" version, then add again the additional variant for European markets... )
- a lot of criticism was drawn, mostly from makers of competing products like anti-virus, browsers and media players, but also advocates for open-source alternative, that Microsoft forces it's own solution and doesn't leave enough room for alternatives.
Their conclusion :
- Just make 1 single version, the Starter one, and let everyone upgrade by buying additional functionality modules. (Witch will be even easier given the fact that they hope that Next-Gen windows will be ture-microkernel+servers and capatbility based). They'll stop complaining and will get everything they need true modules.
Their hope :
- Earn even more cash because of selling more modules.
- Try earning cash by selling license to competitors making alternative components.
The future truth :
- Most certain result : DRM will be cracked by virus/spyware/botnet makers and most malware will run as protected services...
- Most consumer pissed of because "Opening more than 3 windows", "Extending multi-CPU support from 4 cores to 8,16 or 32", etc... will be paying components regardless of technical justifications and artificial limitations.
- Either anti-trust suits by McAffee, Real et alii or clean-room reverse-engeneering by Samba et alii. will crack open the DRM infrastructure and Microsoft won't be able to restrict/make pay for 3rd party components.
- Most governments, corporation handling secret information, medical informatics staff, etc... complaining because the EULA states microsoft may at any time revoke the rights of any component and make it useless (HD-DVD devicekey-style) even if it is a critical one.
- Consumers pissed off because they have to re-buy again some components after just upgrading the RAM.
- Consumers pissed off by long chains of dependencies, requiring a lot of expensive upgrades from DirectX 12Pro to Hispeed BUS drivers Ultimate, just to be able to make backups of their data on a HD-DVD.
Results on consumers :
- more widespread adoption of alternative operating systems (Linux, *BSD, OpenSolaris, Darwin...) Specially in EU governments.
AND/OR
- People get only the most basic striped-done Windows version. And then use open-source and other free(beer) software to provide most of the additional components. To the point that a Debian GNU/BlackComb distros seems almost possible.
Side effect :
- Replacing the small striped-down central component of "Windows Starter edition" will be much more easier for Wine and ReactOS projects than their current goal of having to rewrite the whole system.
The only positive point :
- Cheaper starter addition (if open-source component are allowed/manage to provide the additional functionality)
- Less virus using bug exploits due to higher heterogeneity of the various components. But as said before, by then the virus will be either other system components (complete with faked license) or even a whole level above inside some hypervisor or VM wraping.
And all that's based on the assumption that Microsoft *will* be able to release a componentised successor. See what happened to WinFS and similar to guess what are the odds...
Guys, seriously. DRMed (Score:3, Funny)
for next gen media center/xbox 360 more likely (Score:2)
FUD (Score:1)
I would have thought ther
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they said the same thing about TNT, it was a good thing, enabled them to build railroads and highways and what have you. Of course, then somebody got the bright idea of using that good thing to build artillery shells turning it into not such a good thing.
DRMed drivers are neither good nor bad. It's how the technology is going to be used that will dictate that. Patenting the idea of having a DRMe
"Much like Linux"?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows isn't perfect, but the Windows 2000/XP/Vista device driver model is fairly good. For the most part, nVidia device drivers released in 6 years ago will still work with the latest "service pack" of Windows XP.
Furthermore, Microsoft has worked hard on static model checking of device driver code. Anything that gets Microsoft-certified (or whatever) has passed the static model checker.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows had a modular driver system since NT 3.1, at least for the NT lineage, which I suppose goes up to Vista now. I think NT 3.1 might have predated a modular Linux kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it did. The guy who introduced me to Linux was running an NT 3 server alongside his Ygddrasil (I know I spelled that wrong...) distro. Modules came along a year or two later.
That linux box was the first unix I had root on, so I'm not sure what older UNIX's looked like.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here is that this tends to limit the Linux user base to those who know what a kernel is and give a damn about open source. Most users don't and never will.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I realize this doesn't always work well for fringe drivers. But there are already a lot of fringe drivers in the kernel, so I guess they figure one more couldn't hurt...
Claim 5 is the scariest (Score:2)
Either:
1) You pay more for software because all your software has to be certified by Microsoft, or
2) You let Microsoft take away your right and sell it back to you - i.e. you pay for this add-on module, or
3) You crack it and live in fear of Microsoft pulling the trigger
Let's stop being Political Correct... (Score:2)
Vista is not an OS, it is a Extortion tool for little whiney spoiled rich brats (content and computer industry) that want to force other people what they can do and what they cannot without taking any notice what the law grants what people can do.
I think Vista should be declared forbidden because it undermines the current legal system.
Re: (Score:1)
Who the bloody hell wants an OS that sucks up so much of your system resources?
An OS for gamers would be an OS that provides the bare minimum support to keep a computer running, and run your game, and would allow you to easilly terminate anything/everything not related to the task you're currently running.
Worse, my company recieved a memo today that we all might be upgrading to Vista soon. I almost cried... They say it's because clients will soon be
Re: (Score:1)
Somewhat Orwellian? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Several of those items are FAR less expensive today then they were years and years ago. :-)
They're on a Roll! (Score:2)
I suppose they are really innovating this tim
Not sure but.. (Score:2)
One patent that should not be contested (Score:1)
I have so many people ask me for help with their older machines - both for support and OS installation. And most of the time it's a copy of Windows that they got from someone. (Granted, the machine probably originally sold with Windows, so it's morally gray if still illegal). And I always remind them of the legal status of their actions, and that there are legit alternatives. And nobody wants to hear it.
Just once I'd like to b
Its funny (Score:2)
Its funny how every day microsoft are stealing more and more old ideas from Gnu/Linux and Unix in general, and claiming they are innovating.
I hope they'll get rid of the registry next.
Like a Rock. (Score:2)
Imagine a computer with all the restrictions turned on. The user gets a single unmovable 640x480 window and 300 Baud of bandwith from any device. It would run forever if it were not for the DRM trip bits and checks that require 4GB of RAM and a quad core processor to make the magic happen.
Vista is going to sink M$ for good.
Combination to patent? (Score:2)
When is this nonsense is going to make everyone realize that this sucks resources out of this nation, like a leech sucks blood.
Linux Prior Art Fake GPL Kernel Module (Score:2)
Linux kernel does a string compare and sometimes won't load or take other actions if the module isn't GPLed. This is a form of DRM, as the kernel is imposing it's digital license requirements on extensions loaded into it. (i.e. they must be GPLed or it'll log it or refuse to load it depending on how it was built).
Basically some guy tried to get around this by making his license string "GPL\0Not really GPL" and he was caught. Linus then changed the code to check the entire
This shows how Microsoft is run by greedy morons (Score:2)
Economics doesn't work that way.
Once these dolts are charging for every line of code in their bloated OS, people - INCLUDING corporations - will simply stop buying their product and switch to Linux.
Microsoft is already at nearly the tipping point for this with the ridiculous prices on Vista. Why do they think everyone is looking for "academic" editions of the product (as the comments attached to the "Vista install work-around" article pr
the other shoe.... (Score:2)
This would certainly make life more difficult for Apple, Linux and others. It should raise the red flag of monopoly again though too.....
-I'm just sayin'
Couldn't this be (Score:2)