MS DRM OS

Michael Motyka mmotyka at lsil.com
Thu Dec 20 08:20:05 PST 2001


My thought is that it is not novel in any way save that it witholds root access
from the owner of the machine.

Graham Lally wrote:

> Michael Motyka wrote:
>
>  > Since it seems that the possibility to accomplish what Microsoft has
>  > patented has existed for years prior to their disclosure isn't their
>  > patent a bit weak?
>
> While I must admit that the implementation of such an idea is intriguing
> from a purely technical point of view (and has probably been much
> discussed in various circles), the transition to patenting it with an
> eye to produce a working product makes its threat to consumer choice all
> the more real. This is the next, logical step following
> application/hardware-specific DRM that we are seeing now. After that,
> it's a small jump to global AOLness - an OS that will only accept
> content from specific sources, rather than a source that will only play
> on a specific OS...
>
> The patent was filed Jan 8th 1999, so they've obviously been keeping it
> in consideration for a while before that, I would assume. It also proves
> that MS haven't just filed this in light of the recent paranoia or the
> increasing tension amongst the music industry over the past year or so -
> according to the kids' FAQ at the USPTO it does take about 22 months to
> get a patent, so this would have happened in spite of the fearful state
> of the current music and film industries. This probably means MS have
> code written for it, a database set-up waiting for the INSERTs to come
> flooding in, a launch party planned and years of security patches waiting...
>
>  > BTW - what is pedanty? Peasantry? Pedantry?
>
> Definition in a previous mail, but it's an assembly of pedants...
> There's probably an amusing collective noun for it too :)
>
> .g
>
> --
> "Sometimes I use google instead of pants."





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list