Comments on: Microsoft patents means of limiting software

Windows maker has been granted a patent on a technology that makes it easy to limit certain features of an operating system only to the particular edition a user has purchased.

[kcotham]

Limiting functionality, that's what Microsoft is best at.

[Maccess]

Patent that? That's been the business model of much shareware for at least a decade. Free, feature limited. Pay, get all features.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Excellent point, and one that many companies have been doing since software started.

Making useless and inflammatory comments with the the intent to disrupt and cause problems, that's what trolls are best at.

[kcotham]

@Vegaman

To borrow a phrase you are prone to digging up, "that's the pot calling the kettle black".

[The_happy_switcher]

I like MDN's take: Microsoft wins patent for kidnapping parts of Windows, holding them for ransom

[Vegaman_Dan]

Much like Apple did with iTunes in forcing you to upgrade *all* of your purchased music if you only wanted to upgrade a single track to a higher bitrate. Thankfully they got wise to that, but only after a huge customer backlash.

Something to think about, AppleRocks1963. Apple is guilty of this as well. Please be sure to include them in your bashing attempts to be fair.

[Dalkorian]

I'm still trying to follow your leap here Dan. Maybe my issue is with the fact that I'm not an iTunes customer (never bought anything through the iTunes store), but I just can't see the connection between upgrading a music collection and unlocking software features.

Care to admit you're grasping at straws here?

[slickuser]

so, it will become crappier from crap. ..

[SIGHUP]

Apple has already patented that.

[shycelticwitch]

How so? OS X features are ALL available to ANY user. They have separate programs that you can add on, but there is NOTHING on their install DVD that is inaccessible unless you pay more money. What a lame statement that was.

[ballmerisanape]

How will the windows fanboys justify this move......Can you say "out of touch"?

[WhistlingPig]

Justify? Easy.

1. As a distribution mode, this is pretty convenient. I like the hypothetical scenario of having the entire Microsoft product suite on one DVD, accessible locally, and by simply paying for additional products, install and use them right away rather than going back to a store or waiting for big downloads to finish.

2. As a feature rights management, it will inevitably be cracked, and if I am so inclined, I will be able to use more of the software than I actually paid for.

This technology can only screw Microsoft or Microsoft customers. If you are a Microsoft hater and assured of your position, you probably should applaud this to accelerate the Evil Empire's downfall.

As a Windows user, I think the implementation of this technology could allow Microsoft to price its products lower (actually, as a pessimist, I reckon the rate of price inflation will likely just decrease). I depend on third-party products to populate my environment, so not having to pay the price for redundant Windows features I won't be using would be very welcome.

[catch23]

Justify what? Have you ever worked in the Tech industry?
Obviously not. This isn't new, and not uncommon with big software packages. You do an install, and unlock features with keys.

Just because your ignorant doesn't say anything about MS.

[Maccess]

Actually, it makes sense. The biggest complaint of those who bought computers equipped with Windows Vista Home Basic is that they couldn't upgrade (or downgrade to XP) legally without disregarding the bundled Home basic license and buying an FPP for their desired version of Windows.

Also, I think Microsoft could be heading in the direction of a freely downloadable base version that anyone can install. This should combat piracy at the small store level. Being free, the small vendor can install the base version instead of a pirated version, or worse (from Microsoft's POV), a linux distro.

The consumer can then buy an upgrade kit from any reseller (or online) which has the upgrade code to the user's desired feature level. When inputted, the base install will unlock, or download, the feature sets he acquired a license for.

Not that I've avoided the phrase "feature set the user desires," since it's likely that MS will strategically bundle (a euphemism) sets in a "if you want this, you have to get this" fashion.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Consolidated installation media. That's something Apple has been doing for a while now and Microsoft will be adopting this method as well. I'm not sure how or why ballmerisanape believes that is being 'out of touch'.

Normally ballmerisanape is a pro-mac fan, but here.. well, I suppose he's a bit 'out of touch' himself.

[ballmerisanape]

catch23 .. actually I do.. and I have first hand experienced with industry standards. The difference?... this isn't a $20,000 medical software package... it is a consumer operating system. It should just work.

[Random_Walk]

Well, for what it's worth, they can have that particular patent... every other major OS is actively looking to maximize user featuresets, not the other way 'round...

[Dalkorian]

Actually, to me it seems obvious with lots of examples of prior art. In short, it shouldn't be patentable at all. That's the surprise to me, not that M$ is trying (successfully) to patent the crippling of their software but that they were able to patent an obvious idea that's been around for years.

More proof the patent system is severely broken I guess.

[gggg sssss]

uh - only if you PAY for them.

[signal7svr]

So for the convenience of Microsoft, millions of users need to install features they cannot use, and waste an untold amount of disk space for features they need to pay extra for? What next, pop ups nagging you to upgrade?

[Dalkorian]

Good question. I thought the added features only installed with they right key, but the way they're phrasing it sounds like you need the key only to *UNLOCK* the features (meaning they're installed anyway and eating disk space for no good reason - until you pay them to unlock it that is).

Anyone know for sure one way or the other and care to enlighten us?

[CTO_Dude]

The bigger question to ask is why they would do this. Usually you create a patent to cover your competition... not yourself. The interesting thing is that Microsoft already has different versions of Windows with different features. My guess is that this was a preemptive means of stopping someone from suing them over the ability to charge for different versions. (which they have been doing since Windows XP)

[tech_crazy]

What is so original about this that they got a patent for it? The software industry in general and the EDA industry in particular , has been doing this for decades - giving all the software but licensing individual/groups of features. If you pay for a particular feature, it is activated, otherwise not and hence cannot be used even though it is physically already there.

There must be something different that they must have claimed to get this patent.

[michael_j_x]

or they are simply protecting themselves from law suits. As I recall, they were very recently sued for pattern infringement, that had to do with the Windows activation process. Maybe they are trying to avoid something like that from happening again.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Sometimes you get a patent on something that is obvious if only to prevent patent trolls from beating you to it and then suing you for doing something that has been going on for ages.

Looks like a preventative measure against patent trolling to me.

[Dalkorian]

What Dan sees as a "preventative measure" I see as adding new weapons to the arsenal. Now that they have this obvious idea with many prior examples patented, they can threaten virtually everyone with "patent infringement" and extort what they want. How many infringements will they claim against Linux now (without any proof, of course)?

Different sides of the coin?

[gggg sssss]

lawyer up

[GatesOfHell]

Wonderful. Microsoft can now sues Adobe for publishing font collections but only allowing the users who have purchased particular fonts to unlock them. And the untold masses doing this type of thing before and after.

OTOH, it'll be fun to buy version X of Windows, unlock and install it and then later decide I need more features. So I buy them and hope that they install correctly. Ought to be fun.

[rcrusoe]

"Microsoft can now sues Adobe for publishing font collections but only allowing the users who have purchased particular fonts to unlock them."

I doubt it. There's prior art on unlocking features going back decades. (I once spent 6 weeks trying to to our corporate accountants why there was no receiving document for a $10,000 purchase from AT&T - they just dialed into our PBX and enabled a new feature)

Depending on how it is written, IMO, this has an excellent chance of being nullified the first time they try to enforce it.

[Dalkorian]

I hope Rcrusoe is right, but it could take some rather deep pockets to do battle with the arsenal of M$ lawyers.

Unless this causes people to finally challenge the patent office to clean up it's act, I see nothing good coming from this.

[t8]

How about Microsoft pay the customer every time they have to rid Windows of viruses.

[monkeyfun14]

How about you pay me for every kb of bandwidth your comments waste?

[rubenerd]

monkeyfun14, he was making a legitimate point framed in a joke. Your comment is the one that added nothing to the discussion.

[kcotham]

@monkeyfun14
How about you paying all of us every time we have to read your idiotic comments?

[Vegaman_Dan]

@t8:

If you aren't going to contribute anything useful to the conversation, then please keep your comments to yourself.

@Monkeyfun, rubenerd, kcotham- you three also did nothing to add to the conversation and should have kept quiet. t8 would have looked all more the fool for having silence greet their trolling attempt.

[kcotham]

@Vega

You are a pompous, self-righteous, rude, arrogant, jerk with nothing of value to contribute ever. You are incapable of writing anything without some insult interlaced into it. You are capable of nothing more than "I know you are, but what am I?" sorts of arguments. Do us all a favour and go back to your Windows programming and leave us the hell alone.

[rubenerd]

Putting aside the concerns of prior art (which I believe there is here), let's be honest here folks. Most people don't care about this nonsense, they just want a computer that works. As soon as the general public starts getting messages saying they need to purchase a premium extension to do something extra that other machines could do out of the box, there's going to be even more negativity.

This whole move along with having 7 different versions designed to confuse consumers, one version of which only allows three applications to run at a time (lunacy) shows how completely out of touch Microsoft is with their customer base. It's a shame, because Windows 7 has the potential to be much less of a headache to use than previous versions.

The sad thing is, they can get away with it, and they will.

[aMUSICsite]

You can almost see the Apple video making fun off this as 'the PC' tries to justify why you have to pay more over and over again and 'the Mac' explains you get everything with OS X for one price.

[myles taylor]

And it's sadly true. A lot of Mac ads exaggerate and Windows ones do as well. Unfortunately, that would hit the nail right on the head.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Or it could be spun the other way around- Apple forces you to pay for features you do not want nor use, making the product artificially higher than it needs to be for some users. That falls into the 'Apple tax' factor perfectly.

Microsoft could play that quite well- With Windows you, the customer, get to make the choice of what you want to buy and use. You are not forced to buy things you do not want.

Just a consideration to show that you can take the same situation and spin it in both ways quite effectively.

[Dalkorian]

Try that argument while comparing retail prices of w7 and 10.6 and see how that works for you, Dan. The sound of laughter you hear is the rest of the world laughing at you.

[kcotham]

Vegaman_Dan is works on the Microsoft campus so anything he says should be taken with a grain of salt. His views are obviously biased and unfounded.

[tm_anon]

And Linux comes along and gives me everything for free.

[microcosm--2008]

I don't understand how they got a Patent for this. We have been supplying this functionality to software developers with our copy protection systems (CopyControl, CopyMinder, Dinkey Dongle) since 1989.

[Dalkorian]

$$$

(It's the same way they tried to force through that atrocious OOXML "standard" through the standards process. Money talks, lots of money talks loudly.)

[MadLyb]

OK, has everybody missed the obvious?

How did this patent get through in the first place?

Lot's of companies control feature sets based on PAKs (Product Activation Keys) and have for years.

[Vegaman_Dan]

Simple. The patent system is broken as it currently stands. Microsoft put this patent in now before someone else does and starts the patent trolling process.

If Microsoft goes after other companies that use this process, then it's a bad thing. If they do this only to prevent patent trolls from going after Microsoft, then it will be a good thing for them.

In the end, it's the patent system that made this necessary. :P

[Dalkorian]

I ain't shy about beating Dan over the brow when I don't agree with him (see above :)), but he hit the nail on the head here. Hate M$ as I do, I still can't blame them for gaming the system this way - it's the patent system that's broken enough to allow this silliness.

[biffhenerson]

This method of activating features is going to be much broader than the operating system. Future versions of Office and servers will also employ this pay per feature capability. Dont need all the bells and whistles in the operating system or office product? Dont pay for them. Rather than thinking of this as Microsoft locking things down, think of it as them being able to provide less expensive versions of their products. Want spell check? Pay $.05 to check this document or pay $10 to unlock this feature.

[shycelticwitch]

Glad OS X has that feature built into the operating system itself. ROFL. Pay for spell check? ROFL

[Vegaman_Dan]

@shycelticwitch:

"Glad OS X has that feature built into the operating system itself. ROFL. Pay for spell check? ROFL"

And those people who use it are even more foolish. Pay for spell check? Who would USE spell check? Simply learn to spell correcty in the first place and you won't run into this issue in the first place.

[Dalkorian]

What Biff describes most people would refer to as "nickel and dimeing the customer to death".

Is it ironic that my Mac spell checker has highlighted "dimeing" as misspelled (how else would you spell dime-ing; "diming" is marked as misspelled as well?) and suggests I actually mean "dimming"?
;-)

[kcotham]

Relying completely on spell checkers is never a good idea. But the software is a very useful tool for catching a lot of typos. Always proof-read your work. Even then, errors will creep in. It's human nature.

[jaschwa]

Its really scary how software concepts in wide use can be patented. This is just another example.

One comment stated that it would limit Microsoft but not their competition. Just the opposite. Anyone using a key to unlock additional features will have to pay Micro$oft a license fee or risk being sued.

Its incredible to me how the PTO can grant these kinds of patents. Hope someone with deep pockets can challenge this patent.

[archetech-2009]

Perhaps the only way to stop this insanity is for someone to patent the business process of getting patents for obvious business processes.

[danmar37]

Can you say Windows by subscription? Will they start selling time-limited licenses?