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 . . .’

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.