MS Patent for DRM OS

[Jonathan Care]

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
>
> Forgive my ignorance, but even under US law, does a patent not require an
> inventive step? From the abstract this seems to cover all DRM
> OS's, and not
> be inventive at all. The idea has been around for ages. I would
> think there
> was prior art as well.

There have been a number of stories in the press over the last two years
indicating that certain patent offices are eager to grant patents, as this
demonstrates their value in government circles, ensures funding approvals,
and makes them popular at parties :-)

>
> If content can only be played on this OS, isn't that restraint of free
> trade?

I would imagine that the large record labels will state that they reserve
the right not to sell to customers who evade their "revenue protection"
technology.

>
> Not that it matters much - M$ has so much market coverage, and
> political and
> lesliglative clout, that they can impose whatever they like. But - will it
> be compatible with Windoze and Windoze software? I don't think it
> could be,
> so M$ may be digging their own grave, or at least an expensive hole.

Forced upgrades (or strongly encouraged ones, through methods such as lack
of old version bugfixes, lack of backward compatibility, and aggressive
marketing such as that used for Win95) can be a positive benefit to various
industry sectors. Not just ents, but hardware manufacturers, OEMs, high
street retailers, field service engineers, admen, and of course consultancy
organisations.

> M$ have been writing OS's without regard to security for so long, I doubt
> they can write a secure one anyway. And if they can, why haven't they done
> so already?

M$ have some incredibly bright people there. I know of a close friend with a
PhD in digital signal processing who used to work Malvern-way has now gone
across to Seattle. I know of another acquaintance with an awesome,
encyclopaedic knowledge of VMS kernel and the security issues associated
with it who is also in Redmond. It appears to me that Microsoft have the
resources and the will to create an operating system should they desire to.
I suspect that the market place has not, so far, been sufficiently
responsive to the need for security to make it worth their while to do so.
Certainly it appears to me that IT managers will buy features over security,
every time (for example, how many organisations run their mail on Exchange
just because of its workgroup features?). Executive management see the
benefits of the easy-to-use interface, simplifying training and
administration costs.

I also remember the old IBM slogan which has now translated to Microsoft -
"No one ever got fired for buying our product". It's safe. It's the same
reason that most ISP's run Cisco - it does what you want, its easy to use,
and if you have a calamity and go off the air, then "it's ok" because most
of your trading partners have the same shitpile in their back yard, and they
are all too busy clearing up to smell the odour coming from you.

In short, MS haven't created a secure operating system because right now,
they don't see the market benefit. Security doesn't improve EBITDA, or P/E
ratio. Having more features which drive increased sales does. Should there
be a "good" commercial reason (such as the DRM issue) to change their
marketing/product mix, I would expect to see MS get really secure, really
really quick.

With kind regards,
Jonathan Care CISSP
Tel/Fax: +44 7092 016192
Technical Director, Omnes Ltd.
Exploring & exploiting technology