Microsoft patent - crippling the OS

[leehljp]

Here is a patent by MS that effectively says that MS is patenting the crippling of a computer OS because not everyone needs all of it.

I thought they were already selling different versions of their OS because not everyone needs all of the features of the enterprise or business OS. Now they are patenting it!

According to this patent, I can see this (as one fellow wrote on another forum):
Need to print a file. Darn, another upgrade. Need to connect to a server, darn it. Upgrade again. Need to install another silly game. Another upgrade. Need an external hard drive. Can't do that without an upgrade.


Need a way to make more money? Auto manufacturers need to sell the basic cars and then sell doors, then sell tires, Maybe a windshield. Add the heater in also. Power steering no longer standard. Neither is AC or Power brakes.

[BobSch]

The answer to that is spelled L.I.N.U.X.

[Alex Franke]

A good friend of mine put it this way: "It's like you just start a new job and your boss shows you where you'll be working... 'Oh,' he says, 'You want a chair to sit on while you work? You'll need to rent one from HR.'"

[crokett]

A couple points.

1. This has been around a while. The patent was filed 4 years ago.

2. They aren't patenting limiting the OS. They are patenting their particular method of doing so. I have 3 patents. In each case the patent application had to be carefully written so as to only describe the how, rather than the what. For example, it would be hard to patent hammering a nail into wood, but you could patent a laser-guided self-fed fully automatic hammer.

3. It amuses me that folks get up in arms over this when they are probably using limited feature software or OS right now. XP Home costs less than XP Media Center or XP Pro because it has less features. That freeware version of your anti-virus software has less features than the paid version.

4. Pay to play has been around a long time - the large computing systems business model is entirely based on this. My company has lots of product offerings that have a cheaper version with limited features. A customer can then pick and choose the ones he wants to license for additional cost. Some products you start with a base that is not really all that functional, then pick and choose exactly what features you want. This patent only describes a new way to do this.

5. Comparing this to a car without doors is not really a good comparison. Try a car where you can choose the fancy surround sound or the base radio. The automatic vs manual tranny or the engine size. Oh wait, that is what you can do now.

[leehljp]

A couple points.

1. This has been around a while. The patent was filed 4 years ago.

Listed on the documents - Filed: May 9, 2000
Patent granted: May 19, 2009

Says a lot about our patent system too!

[crokett]

The patent was filed 3 November 2005. There was a related patent filed May 2000.

[Alex Franke]

Try a car where you can choose the fancy surround sound or the base radio. The automatic vs manual tranny or the engine size. Oh wait, that is what you can do now.

More like buying a car with 4 doors, a 5-speed tranny, a 6-disc changer, and a 500W 17 speaker sound system, and then having to swipe your credit card to buy access through the rear doors or for the ability to shift above 3. Swipe again for each additional CD you want to insert, and yet again to "unlock" the full power and luxurious surround sound of all the speakers. Turn signals, seat belts, and all four wheels are included in the base price -- that's part of what it means to be a car.

Not that I totally disagree with this concept -- there are lots of reasons it makes sense -- but I think it's the idea that they're releasing intentionally crippled products. The argument goes something like this: "I bought the bits. They're installed on my computer. So paying extra money only gives me the right to use what I've already installed."

[crokett]

Not that I totally disagree with this concept -- there are lots of reasons it makes sense -- but I think it's the idea that they're releasing intentionally crippledproducts. The argument goes something like this: "I bought the bits. They're installed on my computer. So paying extra money only gives me the right to use what I've already installed."

As I said, this business concept is not new. MS is already doing this to some extent with XP Home vs XP Pro. There is probably something similar with Vista but I am less familiar with the Vista variants. My company and its competitors do this already. Large systems - mainframes, enterprise class Unix variants - have an entire business model based on this. The storage I fix also does this. Features such as being able to replicate the data on the storage to another site for backup purposes are something that is licensed separately from the product. Certainly the function is there, but you need a license key to unlock it.

If you don't like it, switch to Linux or a Mac. Or don't upgrade your OS. That is what I plan to do f MS ever announces this. I'm just saying it is not a new idea.

[Kristofor]

Yes, they do it even more with Vista... Any of the discs you can buy can be upgraded to ultimate with some downloading and some dollars.

But, I'm also in the "I don't see a problem with it" approach. As Crokett says there are TONS of applications that do this already. It is standard fare in enterprise class software (I would say more common than not).

With a car, the company would have to spend additional money to include accessories that were locked out. With software it takes a few bytes but no additional media or significant costs are involved. They can bundle the equivalent to a Carolla, Camery, and Lexus sedan as one package and you simply pay for which one you want to use.

As an example outside of the business world Apple did (does?) the same thing, charging more for purchased HD movie content than for the same SD content. It's not that the SD is crippled, just another option for folks who don't need the feature of higher resolution.

[LinuxRandal]

Here is a patent by MS that effectively says that MS is patenting the crippling of a computer OS because not everyone needs all of it.

The answer to that is spelled L.I.N.U.X.

2. They aren't patenting limiting the OS. They are patenting their particular method of doing so.

What you see, is basically what I initially read. What came to mind was " yes, by eliminating access to the source code".

[Alex Franke]

As I said, this business concept is not new.

I know -- I've been doing it for years myself with shareware. I'm pretty sure they do it in semiconductors, too, to bring down manufacturing costs -- print the same chip, but then "break" parts to reduce functionality and sell them for less.

To be clear, I was trying to illustrate the argument I've heard on the issue. I personally don't have that big of a problem with it. (Though in some cases I do -- e.g. a very weighty install for extremely limited capabilities.)

In fact I think it has the potential of bringing costs down. Software is a great example -- if you never use any of the advanced features of, say, MS Word, then why pay for it? Give away a basic version of the application, or sell it for a dime, and allow users to but the features they need. It's abused though, if it ends up costing the users more in the long run.

[leehljp]

As I said, this business concept is not new. MS is already doing this to some extent with XP Home vs XP Pro. There is probably something similar with Vista but I am less familiar with the Vista variants. My company and its competitors do this already.

I'm just saying it is not a new idea.

But getting a patent for it is. I can see MS trying to sue your company and many more just because they (MS) got the patent for it!

[radhak]

In fact I think it has the potential of bringing costs down. Software is a great example -- if you never use any of the advanced features of, say, MS Word, then why pay for it? Give away a basic version of the application, or sell it for a dime, and allow users to but the features they need. It's abused though, if it ends up costing the users more in the long run.

Great point, at least for some apps.
I always felt they should have a MS-Office Lite (they could call it 'Home') which would have very basic capabilities, and could cost a quarter of full price. It would help spread the 'word' about it - more numbers, larger market. Early on, it would not have been viable (cost of development only covered by high price), but after all these years, the basic cost of development is already covered and more...

[jziegler]

Yes, they do it even more with Vista... Any of the discs you can buy can be upgraded to ultimate with some downloading and some dollars.

But, I'm also in the "I don't see a problem with it" approach. As Crokett says there are TONS of applications that do this already. It is standard fare in enterprise class software (I would say more common than not).

With a car, the company would have to spend additional money to include accessories that were locked out. With software it takes a few bytes but no additional media or significant costs are involved. They can bundle the equivalent to a Carolla, Camery, and Lexus sedan as one package and you simply pay for which one you want to use.

As an example outside of the business world Apple did (does?) the same thing, charging more for purchased HD movie content than for the same SD content. It's not that the SD is crippled, just another option for folks who don't need the feature of higher resolution.

And in electronics test equipment, they are now building in extra hardware that you need a license to use. I'm investigating some new equipment at work, and all of the major suppliers are building one piece of hardware and selling it as multiple upgradable variants that can either vary in data capture speed or memory size. All are the exact same hardware, but the software key is different. Does it cost them extra to install that extra memory or speed? It certainly does. Apparently that cost is less than stocking different models. In this case, it gets me a better deal on what I need now as well as the ability to easily upgrade in a few years if my needs change, so it is a good thing.

Now, for some software I use, the cheaper versions a purposely made slower on compute intensive applications (basically sleep x inserted in the code, I think). That really bothers me...

Jim

[crokett]

But getting a patent for it is. I can see MS trying to sue your company and many more just because they (MS) got the patent for it!

Uhhm.... no. Or at least only if my company were to do it the way Microsoft does it. I hold 3 patents related to the ability to push an OS image file out to a remote machine via a network. There are lots of products that do this already. However at the time there were few to none that did some things we did to ensure unique IP addresses (even with static IPs) and Windows machine IDs when the new machine booted for the first time. Because I am a glutton for punishment I wanted to help write the application. The lawyer was very specific that we had to be careful to be patenting the how, and not the what.

Another example - I have a Paslode framing nailer. My dad has a Porter Cable. Both drive nails into wood, they just do it in slightly different ways.