Microsoft files a patent… “Oh No!”
There's been quite a bit of discussion in the last 24-48 hours on the fact that Microsoft has filed an "adware patent" ( Information Week | ars technica ). I felt that Kurt Wismer's post was by far the most interesting. The post declared the submission of this patent to be unethical given that MS is in the Anti-Malware market now. This was to be expected... just as the majority of my posts seem to be "pro-Microsoft", the majority of Kurt's seem to be "anti-Microsoft". Given that, I completely disagree with Kurt. Would it be unethical for an Anti-Malware company to be involved in the distribution of malware? In most cases... yes; however, I do see legitimate uses of this for Microsoft that I don't see as being unethical.
- This could actually be seen as a form of "Proactive Anti-Malware". By patenting any new or unique means of delivering ads to a customer, Microsoft is effectively prevent other companies from accomplishing the same task. So a malware company comes along and takes advantage of the process that Microsoft is patenting and suddenly Microsoft's lawyers fire off an email and prepare to go to court. This would act to deter certain companies from proceeding. Additionally Microsoft could be preparing to license the technology, allowing them to dictate the usage, providing for stricter regulations around adware distribution. Everyone is quick to jump to the negative, yet no one is willing to look at the possible positive outcomes.
- The second reason, and more likely one, is that Microsoft is finally planning on going ahead with the ad-based versions of Office and Windows that have been discussed for the last 2-3 years. I don't see this as malware. Is it adware, yes... but it's not malicious or unethical. It's providing costly software to users that can't afford it, in exchange for them viewing ads tailored to their likes / dislikes. Users always complain that they pirate software because they can't afford it... they'd no longer have that as a valid excuse. It would be similar to NetZero/3Web (believe were the company names). I had plenty of friends that took advantage of their ad-based free dial-up access because they a) couldn't afford internet access or b) didn't have a credit card so they couldn't get dial-up access.
I don't see any issue with Microsoft filing this patent and am rather eager to see how they utilize it. I am rather unhappy to see that, once again, everyone is jumping to conclusions about Microsoft and assuming the most negative outcome.
Ads in Office? Hehe, that’s about the last thing I want distracting me when I’m working. Or having receptionists click on while they are bored. D’oh!
Regardless, I’d like to see what MS plans to do with this before casting judgement. Who knows, they might do nothing and were just filing it to CYA in case they do do it someday.
@tyler:
you got me, i’m a windows user who’d rather be running slackware…
that said, for point 1: i actually already considered the possibility that this is a pre-emptive move to block malware authors from using various techniques… i discounted it because the difficulty in going after the malware authors for patent infringement isn’t significantly different from going after them for other violations… as for the licensing idea, it’s not going to allow stricter rules about adware unless *everybody* agrees to use their technology, and if they get strict enough to impede the acquiring of ill-gotten gains that agreement is just not going to happen..
for point 2: i’m aware that not all adware is necessarily malware (i believe i may have even mentioned that in my adware explanation), in face i was a 3web and netzero user… the patent doesn’t just describe showing ads, it describes showing targeted ads where the targeting is based on potentially all the data on your hard drive… adware is ‘ok’ so long as it’s up front about what it’s doing and and so long as you have the choice not to use it – the only people who wouldn’t be disturbed by the privacy invasion required for targeting the ads in this case (virtually all data is fair game for targeting purposes) are those with literally nothing to hide and that population is incredibly small so how can such an adware platform be successful and still transparent enough to be ‘ok’? i can’t see a way, but i can see people feeling like they don’t have a real choice except to us microsoft’s products regardless of the ads or anything else hidden in the eula…
@lonervamp:
“Ads in Office? ”
‘hi! it looks like you’re trying to write a letter. you might also be interested in such things as . . .’