November 8th, 2004
Internet toll booth: Has Microsoft dropped the other shoe?
eWeek’s Steven Vaughan-Nichols has written an alarming report regarding Microsoft’s publication of a Royalty-Free Protocol License Agreement. The agreement starts off by saying "If You want a license from Microsoft to implement one or more Protocol(s) (as defined below), You must (1) complete the designated information in the box below, (2) check one or more boxes on Exhibit A, and (3) sign and return this Agreement AS IS to Microsoft." The agreement goes on to define the sort of protocol implementation it covers as server-side software (ie: applications, operating systems) that interoperates with Windows clients over one of the protocols found in Exhibit A.
So what’s the rub? Well, Exhibit A for starters. It’s a list of more than 130 protocols that reads like a who’s who of how every computer network works. Included in the list are Appletalk, ATM, several Bluetooth protocols, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), HTTP (the Web), Universal Serial Bus, Kerberos, and the IETF’s RFCs for the Domain Name System (DNS), Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP), Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP), Telnet, and Traceroute.
While the agreement acknowledges that Microsoft may not be the sole intellectual property (IP) holder to each of the protocols listed, the document suggests that interoperating with Windows over one or more of the listed protocols may in some way shape or form cause server software developers to technically invoke Microsoft’s IP. Although some may breathe a sigh of relief because the license is royalty-free (RF), they may have been better off holding their breath because many RF licenses, including this one, have other strings attached. One of these strings — the same one that raised eyebrows regarding Microsoft’s patent claims to the Sender ID protocol for e-mail authentication — prevents licensees from sublicensing their relevant implementations (an unacceptable "toll" to many).
While the various intellectual property experts quoted in eWeek’s report question any intellectual property claims that Microsoft may be making to such standard protocols, they also acknowledge that the license’s existence, backed by Microsoft’s war chest, is cause for concern. Microsoft, on the other hand, is saying that it’s a misunderstanding that will soon be clarified.
