- Related Stories
-
Microsoft: Patent overhaul needed now
March 11, 2005 -
Bill Gates and other communists
February 15, 2005 -
Open-source honchos trash software patents
February 1, 2005
The Public Patent Foundation, or Pubpat, an organization that works to protect the public from damage caused by the patent system, claims that a patent that Microsoft filed a few years ago is invalid because it failed to disclose prior work done by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
The U.S. patent, number 6101499--titled "Method and computer program product for automatically generating an Internet Protocol (IP) address"--was issued to Microsoft in 2000 after being filed in 1998.
Daniel Ravicher, the executive director of Pubpat, said that although he is not worried that Microsoft will assert its right over the patent, this may stop companies from using IPv6.
"Microsoft won't ever assert this patent--they know it's worthless," Ravicher said. "But there will still be people who are afraid of it--if someone has a gun and promises not to shoot it, it's still scary."
"This is yet another example of how patents can kill or inhibit standards," he said.
Pubpat was made aware of the patent when it was contacted by a "few large companies" that had been told about it by Microsoft.
Ravicher claims that a "significant number" of prior-art references were not disclosed to the U.S. Patent Office when Microsoft applied for the patent. These include documents from the IPv6 committee of the IETF. The Microsoft employees named as the inventors of the patent were on the IPv6 committee, according to Ravicher.
Because Microsoft has allegedly not disclosed the prior-art references to the patent office, the patent may not be enforceable.
Pubpat is urging Microsoft to throw out the patent. "The right thing for Microsoft to do is to abandon the patent and acknowledge that it should never have been granted in the first place," Ravicher said.
Microsoft was not available for comment.
The news comes only a week after Microsoft demanded reform of the U.S. patent system. Brad Smith, general counsel of the company, said at the time that there needed to be an improvement in patent quality.
Ingrid Marson of ZDNet UK reported from London.
See more CNET content tagged:
IPv6, patent, Microsoft Corp., IP
Which sounds to me like they're patenting Automatic Private IP Addressing (APIPA), and not anything to do with IPv6.
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!
Which sounds to me like they're patenting Automatic Private IP Addressing (APIPA), and not anything to do with IPv6.
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!
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.)
- This should be punishable (as in serving time)
- by hadaso March 24, 2005 9:08 AM PST
- 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.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)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.)