Microsoft Owns Patent to Restricting Your Software

[razzb3d]

sorry for my crappy spelling and misstyping. I hate laptop keyboards...

 

[ThePatriot]

Not going to work.

 

[Guest]

If system manufactures like HP or Dell would adopt this feature on their hardwares. Doesn't it lock out other OSes like Linux or BSDs from the upgrades if the unlock mechanism only runs on the Windows OS and HP and Dell denies supporting other OSes? Or worst, the hardware refuse to run other OSes other than Windows because the hardware can't retrieve the required digital signatures to run.

 

[harshahorizon]

greediness is epic

 

[Guest]

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.

Funny, that's almost the exact argument Time Warner used to justify their tiered services.

On the one hand a tiered functionality scheme for hardware could actually make high-end hardware less expensive since manufacturers would only need to make one model as opposed to several. On the other hand, it's not a very practical solution.

Unless motherboard manufacturers restrict the OS that can be installed (a la Apple,) you could simply bypass the scheme with a non-Windows OS. No to mention there will likely be a firmware hack to get around it.

It would also be an incredible waste of materials if a consumer never unlocked their hardware. However, a lot of low-end hardware these days are just crippled high-end hardware anyway, so that may not matter.

All in all this just seems more like a way to nickel-and-dime consumers and tie them to a particular software setup.

 

[Windaria]

So... the logic is "We put all this money into developing windows... now we're going to put extra money, time, and resources creating various crippling techniques, and charge you less for it, while gouging you for what we really developed in the first place."

I mean, if you are developing the full-fledged version ANYWAY, then it actually doesn't cost anymore to only use that as your system... it just prevents you from gouging for it when you charge users for using your software. The logic in this statement alone just... it's utterly baffling, and only someone with a complete lack of technical understanding could ever nod their head at it:

"One problem inherent in open architecture systems is they are generally licensed with complete use rights and/or functionality that may be beyond the need or desire of the system purchaser. Consequentially, the purchase price of these systems being indifferent to usage scenarios means users with limited needs pay the same rate for these systems as those with universal needs.”

How do they say this with a straight face??????!!!!!

 

[starryman]

Every company should be limited to 10 patents per year. If they own more than 100 patents, the only way to have new ones is to get rid of the old ones. F#@$!cking patents are stifling innovation these days. Enough said.

 

[bad_code]

[citation][nom]IronRyan21[/nom]Doesn't Microsoft own half the patent dept. It seems every other day we hear about some new patent.[/citation]

IBM has more patents than any other company it just that MS will patent anything anytime. Not that they are valid in the end.

I would be pissed if I had to deal with this pay as you go scheme. The nice thing about open source is that I can learn about the power and advantages and make use of them. I'd rather not have an OS that is a marketing platform letting me know if I pay $100 bucks I could get 10 FPS more on my game because they will free up a utility to over clock my video card but still at my own risk. Not to mention that nvidia is not charging us for the drivers now but with this they could give us the standard then charge us $20 for more functionality.

This is the land of the dollar home of the conservative republican. Right? Or is it the land of the free to charge whatever you want if you can find a way to do it?

 

[WyomingKnott]

Imagine this: Internet Explorer is a pay-to-play option, and no-one pays to enable it. Firefox and so forth everywhere.