Comments on: Microsoft criticized for 'IPv6-like' patent

Software giant comes under fire for "yet another example of how patents can kill or inhibit standards."

[Bill Dautrive]

What? Microsoft patents others ideas?

Please tell me this is not so. MS could never do anything underhanded like steal others ideas.

[Bill Dautrive]

What? Microsoft patents others ideas?

Please tell me this is not so. MS could never do anything underhanded like steal others ideas.

It's APIPA, not IPv6

"Method and computer program product for automatically generating an Internet Protocol (IP) address"

Which sounds to me like they're patenting Automatic Private IP Addressing (APIPA), and not anything to do with IPv6.

It really is APIPA

If you read the abstract related to the patent, you'll see that they've patented "APIPA". It's designed for small networks with no internet access. The clients will generate an IPv4 address in the 169.254.0.0 /16 range that will allow them to communicate with other clients that use APIPA. If I recall, the class B was reserved by Microsoft with this intent in mind. MS operating systems since Windows 98 (SE?) will use it when they're set to automatically obtain an IP, and there's no DHCP server present. Anyway, here's the abstract:

A method and computer product for automatically generating an IP network address that facilitates simplified network connection and administration for small-scale IP networks without IP address servers, such as those found in a small business or home network environment. First, a proposed IP address is generated by selecting a network identifying portion (sometimes known as an IP network prefix) while deterministically generating the host identifying portion based on information available to the IP host. For example, the IEEE 802 Ethernet address found in the network interface card may be used with a deterministic hashing function to generate the host identifying portion of the IP address. Next, the generated IP address is tested on the network to assure that no existing IP host is using that particular IP address. If the generated IP address already exists, then a new IP address is generated, otherwise, the IP host will use the generated IP address to communicate over the network. While using the generated IP address, if an IP address server subsequently becomes available, the host will conform to IP address server protocols for receiving an assigned IP address and gradually cease using the automatically generated IP address.

Can someone educate me as to how this relates to IPv6? I know IPv6 addresses also makes use of a NICs Ethernet address, but I thought that the whole address was incorporated...MS's patent seems to use a hash of the MAC to assign the host portion, probably to reduce the chance of assigning a duplicate host address. Just curious!

It's APIPA, not IPv6

"Method and computer program product for automatically generating an Internet Protocol (IP) address"

Which sounds to me like they're patenting Automatic Private IP Addressing (APIPA), and not anything to do with IPv6.

It really is APIPA

If you read the abstract related to the patent, you'll see that they've patented "APIPA". It's designed for small networks with no internet access. The clients will generate an IPv4 address in the 169.254.0.0 /16 range that will allow them to communicate with other clients that use APIPA. If I recall, the class B was reserved by Microsoft with this intent in mind. MS operating systems since Windows 98 (SE?) will use it when they're set to automatically obtain an IP, and there's no DHCP server present. Anyway, here's the abstract:

A method and computer product for automatically generating an IP network address that facilitates simplified network connection and administration for small-scale IP networks without IP address servers, such as those found in a small business or home network environment. First, a proposed IP address is generated by selecting a network identifying portion (sometimes known as an IP network prefix) while deterministically generating the host identifying portion based on information available to the IP host. For example, the IEEE 802 Ethernet address found in the network interface card may be used with a deterministic hashing function to generate the host identifying portion of the IP address. Next, the generated IP address is tested on the network to assure that no existing IP host is using that particular IP address. If the generated IP address already exists, then a new IP address is generated, otherwise, the IP host will use the generated IP address to communicate over the network. While using the generated IP address, if an IP address server subsequently becomes available, the host will conform to IP address server protocols for receiving an assigned IP address and gradually cease using the automatically generated IP address.

Can someone educate me as to how this relates to IPv6? I know IPv6 addresses also makes use of a NICs Ethernet address, but I thought that the whole address was incorporated...MS's patent seems to use a hash of the MAC to assign the host portion, probably to reduce the chance of assigning a duplicate host address. Just curious!

[System Tyrant]

A thought

The other night I thought for awhile on the good and bad sides of patents. While a lot can be said of both good and bad sides of patents I still don't think in the big picture software patents have value to all. It's obvious that the patent office can't do the job right. If a patent is filed for that conflicts with other patents or previous work then it shouldn't be granted.

The US needs to do away with patents. It would ease the strain on courts caused by Patent lawsuits (although I would imagine they will still find ways to sue).

[System Tyrant]

A thought

The other night I thought for awhile on the good and bad sides of patents. While a lot can be said of both good and bad sides of patents I still don't think in the big picture software patents have value to all. It's obvious that the patent office can't do the job right. If a patent is filed for that conflicts with other patents or previous work then it shouldn't be granted.

The US needs to do away with patents. It would ease the strain on courts caused by Patent lawsuits (although I would imagine they will still find ways to sue).

[TMB333]

Can Microsoft really be blamed?

Now let me clarify that I do not support EVERYTHING that Microsoft does, but in this case, I don't think they should be criticized for doing anything underhanded here.

Look at all of the time and money that Microsoft has to spend on fighting off other companies' claims to Patents that Microsoft has supposedly infringed upon. Yes, in 'some' cases, the fight is justified, but in others, the Patent is just a joke. [Eolas case in point]

It seems to be obvious that Microsoft's plan is to just Patent whatever they can left, right and centre to prevent future litigation against them before some other company gets the Patent.

I don't think that the Patent system should be totally abolished, but it does definitely need some kind of reform. Inventors need to be able to benefit economically from their inventions in a reasonable amount of time, but they shouldn't be able to hold onto a Patent indefinitely that would prevent further progress in the field that their invention falls under.

[TMB333]

Can Microsoft really be blamed?

Now let me clarify that I do not support EVERYTHING that Microsoft does, but in this case, I don't think they should be criticized for doing anything underhanded here.

Look at all of the time and money that Microsoft has to spend on fighting off other companies' claims to Patents that Microsoft has supposedly infringed upon. Yes, in 'some' cases, the fight is justified, but in others, the Patent is just a joke. [Eolas case in point]

It seems to be obvious that Microsoft's plan is to just Patent whatever they can left, right and centre to prevent future litigation against them before some other company gets the Patent.

I don't think that the Patent system should be totally abolished, but it does definitely need some kind of reform. Inventors need to be able to benefit economically from their inventions in a reasonable amount of time, but they shouldn't be able to hold onto a Patent indefinitely that would prevent further progress in the field that their invention falls under.

[hadaso]

YES! Anything new about this?

The patent is invalid. If you have a small fortune you might even get a court to invalidate it!

[hadaso]

This was supposed to be a response to post #1

c

[hadaso]

YES! Anything new about this?

The patent is invalid. If you have a small fortune you might even get a court to invalidate it!

[hadaso]

This was supposed to be a response to post #1

c

[hadaso]

This should be punishable (as in serving time)

Doesn't this sound a bit like fraud? MS claims a patent on something that prior art exists for, the named inventors (MS employees) served on a commitee that discussed this prior art, and yet made sure the patent office doesn't get the info.

If there isn't a law that can put someone in jail for this, there should be. (It doesn't mean that in this particular case it can be proved in court. Just that the described behaviour has a criminal nature, and should be punishable, and if punishable, whoever tries to register a patent would be much more careful not to hide anything relevant from the patent office.)

[hadaso]

This should be punishable (as in serving time)

Doesn't this sound a bit like fraud? MS claims a patent on something that prior art exists for, the named inventors (MS employees) served on a commitee that discussed this prior art, and yet made sure the patent office doesn't get the info.

If there isn't a law that can put someone in jail for this, there should be. (It doesn't mean that in this particular case it can be proved in court. Just that the described behaviour has a criminal nature, and should be punishable, and if punishable, whoever tries to register a patent would be much more careful not to hide anything relevant from the patent office.)