Microsoft Owns Patent to Restricting Your Software

[tenor77]

This patent is like that, but unlike a demo or trial version and an full unlocked version this is a tiered upgrade. It's a little different.

This goes to show that A- the patent system is broken and
B- If MS didn't get the patent someone else would have and sued them.

 

[Elsapo]

[citation][nom]nelson_nel[/nom] The problem really is that most of the enthusiasts have been completely spoiled at the rest of the consumers expense and now it is time to increase the market base even more and make it even more accessible. er pocket rapped for bleeding edge technology, paying the price for accepting the fact that there is something beyond the norm and in doing so they open up new avenues for the layman. Think about it if there were no enthusiasts we would all probably have P3's at 890 Mhz and be reading this article using IE4. It has it's place but badly implemented this could kill innovation.

 

[Elsapo]

[citation][nom]nelson_nel[/nom] The problem really is that most of the enthusiasts have been completely spoiled at the rest of the consumers expense and now it is time to increase the market base even more and make it even more accessible.[/citation] In general the enthusiasts gets their pocket rapped in exchange for bleeding edge technology, paying the price for accepting the fact that there is something beyond the norm and in doing so they open up new avenues for the layman. Think about it if there were no enthusiasts we would all probably have P3's at 890 Mhz and be reading this article using IE4. It has it's place but badly implemented this could kill innovation.

Edit or preview button please..

 

[Guest]

Switch to Linux, be happy for ever!

 

[vertigo_2000]

[citation][nom]nelson_nel[/nom]It is you who are naive because you are looking at this in a very narrow scope. There are plenty of scenarios where this makes sense. The problem really is that most of the enthusiasts have been completely spoiled at the rest of the consumers expense and now it is time to increase the market base even more and make it even more accessible. This can only happen by properly scaling what people pay versus what they get out of said product. If you can't see that, it's because you choose not to and/or you are unintentionally ignorant. Not the other way around.[/citation]
If I only want to surf the internet and listen to music, I only need a $300 machine. I can get one.
If I want to do video and audio and intense gaming, I'll need a $4,000 machine. I can get one of those too.

All I'm saying is that the market is rich with a wide variety of products at a wide variety of prices. A person can completely buy/build a computer within their price range for what they need it for. Period.

Ethusiasts should pay more for bleeding edge tech. Early adopters should be gouged for being ahead of the curve. That's how the system works. Companies develop bleeding edge tech at a huge cost and need to recoup those costs as quickly as possible to have the money to move on to the next bleeding edge tech.

Why should someone 4 yrs down the road pay the same price for the tech you bought today? Everything depreciates... even bragging rights.

 

[Guest]

Use open source technology to crack MS applications.

 

[Shadow703793]

Another example of how the US Patent system is broken, lol. They should start patenting OpenSource under a a non-profit scheme, I know this goes against the what open source stands for but it will help prevent the destruction of open source from law suits,etc.

 

[Guest]

Another patent issued with clear prior art - the software side has been discussed already but if you want the hardware angle just google HP's Capacity-on-demand programme. There have been many other similar code-to-unlock hardware schemes, this was just the only one I could remember the acronym for (iCOD).

 

[axekick]

I'll pay more if they can remove Internet Explorer, MS Messenger, Outlook Express and all their other useless bundled crap.

 

[cracklint]

Wow, this could be the answer for Chrysler and GM's financial problems, just sell a plain car and then if the user gets hot and turns on the Air then have them call in and add that option for a fee. Then if the Driver needs to play a cd, charge em'; need to stop, charge them for brakes. Charge em', Charge 'em, Charge em!

 

[gorehound]

some real stupid patents out there and they are there and approved.

 

[truerock]

Give me a break! This is trial software. Every Windows PC comes loaded with tons of software that 99% of users would never want. But, if they did - they have to pay to get full functionality. I don't get it. What new idea has Microsoft introduced in their "patenet"?

 

[war2k9]

[citation][nom]kami3k[/nom]Oh like RAMBUS?[/citation]

THAT IS A GREAT ONE!

 

[fwupow]

It's part of the new "PAY-FOR-EVERYTHING" plan!

Just another reason why Windows7 should be shunned.

My msg is short since it won't be long before I'll need to pay 5 cents per character just to press a key on my MS-Natural Keyboard. I need to learn frugality now.

 

[v1ze]

[citation][nom]vertigo_2000[/nom]When is the world going to stop trying to save everyone from their own stupidty/ignorance/naivity/laziness?[/citation]

I stubbed my toe! We need a law prohibiting open-toe footwear.

 

[Hatecrime69]

so let me get this straight, pay (in theory) slightly less for a crippled set of hardware/software, then purchase the right to unlock it..

to me it just says wipe install linux/hackintosh

 

[brando56894]

Once again microsoft is trying to control what you can and cant do with your computer. Sure the idea of tiered sales sounds good (havent they been doing that since they introduced vista, well actually with XP [pro and home]?) But the whole idea of "pay us more money to take full use of your videocard/other hardware" doesnt sound too good to me.

 

[hemelskonijn]

In theory this could be a great thing i mean i dont want eye candy and for sure i wont ever use paint, outlook, WindowsMedia player or fort hat mather internet explorer.

However i am afraid that this will come down to moving from in example the Home version to the Pro version.
If i want to be able to run Microsoft SQL server 2008 on my 7 home edition can i just buy the "key" that enables the use of SQL 2k8 or do i have to buy the key to upgrade to windows 7 Pro ?

And there are more examples like powershell or the remote desktop client and i could be wrong but as i recall even virtual PC requires a Pro version of windows while there is really technically no reason it wont work.

If they implement this well i would like it but it would have to mean that in the end my software turns out to be cheaper since i would leave more out than i would like to drop in.

 

[greenskye]

This doesn't make sense for today's computers. This is preparing for cloud computing. That way you "unlock" your hardware from the server side.

 

[cruiseoveride]

Microsoft Shit != Computer

 

[zehpavora]

If I got this right, it seems MS will be able to control the programs I use? Doesn't that goes against privacy laws? I bought a product that, instead of helping, restricts my usage? For that patent, Linux will spread even faster.

 

[mdillenbeck]

[citation][nom]jsloan[/nom]it's not just the patent system, it's everything that government touches is rotten, a ripoff, a fraud. basically the government changes what should be illegal into legal for a price, contributions.think about the insurance industry, financial industry, ect. they are all doing the same.[/citation]
Ah, but the US is governed by its people (directly or indirectly). Therefore, all that a US citizen touches is rotten, a ripoff, and a fraud.
That sounds about right...

 

[belardo]

Thats whats needed... more complexity and bloat in computer code.

 

[mdillenbeck]

On a more serious note, I do have some questions about how this will be applied.

First, how much non-functional code will be on my system when I use it in crippled mode? If I have Windows 7 Starter with no built-in apps, is it as bloated as a full install of an Ultimate edition with all the built-in apps?

Second, how will this be applied by hardware vendors? Will it be "would you like to upgrade to the newest driver?" *click yes* "$9.95, please enter your credit card number now..."?

Third, I agree with the observation that system manufacturers would never go for putting a high priced CPU in a low cost model in the hopes that a user *might* buy an upgrade to it.

Fourth, I do see the cloud computing applications they are reaching for. However, that would make me suspect they may wind up overselling capabilities much like cable internet providers do.

Fifth, I don't agree with the notion of you should only pay for what you use and nothing more. If we did this, then we would have no insurance business at all - we'd have to pay for what we get. This is also why we have so many package deals when buying product. I don't watch sports, but I like SciFi and History. If I buy cable, it all gets pooled together so they can offer many sports and scifi/history channels rather than the most popular and profitable two or three channels.

Sixth, I fully agree we have a severely broken patent system. It is more than just patents, though, but the whole concept intellectual property. Are you a farmer who's crop gets contaminated by GMO seeds that another farmer spilled on your land? Well, your seeds are no longer yours - they belong to the gene patent holder! Write a paper in college? Are you sure that idea you wrote is common knowledge? If not, better have a citation - after all, you probably got the idea from something you read (even if it was from 10 years ago) so you should give the original thinker their due credit!

Essentially, IP comes down to the concept that you can own thoughts and ideas - which, to me, is a very dangerous proposition. I agree we need a patent system, an IP system, and a system of providing due credit - but there also needs to be some reality checks built in. We need to go back to not allowing life to be patented, nor allowing things like tax saving strategies to fall within the realm of IP law. (Makes me want to patent a system for staying out of jail and then suing every law-abiding citizen in the US.)

Which leads to my seventh and final point - yes, I think I agree it is time we make a mass migration to open source. Knowledge is power - information is knowledge - so lets work on a system that empowers everyone rather than concentrates wealth and power to those with the right set of patents.

 

[razzb3d]

Microsoft can S*** MY A**.

PC's are restricted anyway, due to microsoft's crappy OS design.

Best example is Console VS PC.

A console (Xbox for example), has a ~ 700MHz cpu and an old geforce 7900 like VGA card, but good looking FPS games worl great on it, at 1280x768, and quality levels comparable to generic medium setting on a PC. Does this mean that the same game, for example Halo, should run fine on a PIII/Athlon 700MHz and a GF7900 AGP? Well, it doesn't. I'd be surprised if you can run it @ 1023x768 and low setting on such a system, even if RAM memory is not an issue (Say 1GB of DDR400 + 700MHz Athlon). It just won't work.

Intrestingly enough, an Xbox360 that costs ~ 250$ includes a ~3GHz powerPC CPU, 1GB of GDDR3 memory and a on board GPU/Northbridge like-thing, with a 500MHz core and shared sistem meory.

Now how come i can't run Crysis @ 1280x768 and medium quality presets on a Phenom II X3 720 + on board Radeon 3200 running at 700MHz?

Sure there are hardware diffrences (for example, the CPU has a diffrent, proably more efficient architecture, RAM works diffrently for a xbox, etc)



Now back to the point. My opinion is that microsoft wants to charge us extra for something we allready have avadible. If that is their case, i invite them to sodomise theirselves with a retractable baton.

On the other hand, if they sell the cheapest version of the OS for say 50$, 1/3 the price of the fully enabled sistem, than it's an advantage.