MS DRM OS

[Graham Lally]

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."