I would tend to agree that the MS patent is fairly limited on its face, although I am not speaking as an attorney (due to my inactive Texas bar card, retired status, darn near zero patent experience, and so forth). I am also not speaking for my current employer TI (which seems regrettably more & more in bed with M$ lately - WinCE? WinMedia? c'mon....). I believe there are quite a few differences in the update process and underlying technology which anybody who has used both MS-Windows and GNU/Linux can appreciate:
1. MS stores its .DLL/.EXE/etc. version/date information in the all-encompassing Windows Registry - thus the "registry key" references in the claims. Debian uses DPKG (sorry, but I'm not very familiar with apt/dselect/dpkg inner workings) and RedHat/Mandrake/clones use RPM databases. These are analogous but probably not infringing, since they rely not on dates but on version numbers (e.g. aspell-.30.1-1.deb, gaspell-.30-2rh61.i386.rpm) (see also http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/packaging.html/ch-versions.html ) to uniquely identify packages. In any case you really don't even need a package database - just have e.g. 'rpm -Uvh' compare version number[s] of existing installed package[s] vs. available package[s] (as long as they increment sanely ;-). Of course, version numbers sometimes are constructed from dates, but usually only for devel snapshots... 2. As Anne mentioned, MS uses a server-side database to compare against, while the Linux utilities use a client-side database. This is probably the best argument technically speaking, since the Linux way doesn't require any intelligence on the server side - just throw the files up there, and let the client sort them out. (Kinda like "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" [even though I am a pacifist agnostic] ;-p). 3. Debian and RHAT use ftp/nfs/localfiles/(http?) for net transport whereas MS uses HTTP and DCOM/ActiveX (inside IE) I believe. Fortunately, you don't need an "integrated" web browser running to update Linux. Unfortunately something like MandrakeUpdate might blur the lines.... 4. Linux does not use "software program module components" - we like files, executables and libraries just fine thank you very much ;-) Yes, mere semantics I know (but even retired lawyers like stuff like that). But MS does tend to look at everything differently, whereas in UNIX-like OS's we know "everything's a file"... this kind of also gets back to the Registry in point 1. 5. Other stuff I'm sure we can come up with... any real practicing patent attorneys out there? -- Eric R. Sherrill, WF Software Systems Engineer Texas Instruments HFAB1 Automation Systems Stafford, TX 77477-3006 281-274-4133 -----Original Message----- From: J.A. Bezemer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2000 5:59 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: Help: Microsoft patent covers package download and upgrade On Tue, 2 May 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Hi all, > > Microsoft was recently granted a patent that covers a core > part of Debian, and probably Red Hat too. (If you have No, it doesn't. See below. > Filed Nov 14. 1997, granted Oct 26, 1999 > US5974454: Method and system for installing and updating > program module components > > Abstract > > Installing and updating a software program module component. > A determination is made whether the current date is on or > after a date stored in a registry key on a computer. If the > current date is on or after the date stored in the registry > key, then a computer transmits a database query via the > Internet to a database server. At the database server, a =================^^^^^^==== > determination is made whether an upgrade package for the ========================================================= > software program module component is available, such as by =============================================== > performing a database lookup. If an upgrade package for the > software program module component is available, then an > upgrade package message is sent from the database server to > the computer. At the computer, a determination is made whether > the user wants to download the upgrade package. If so, then > an upgrade package query is sent by the computer via the > Internet to a package server. At the package server, in > response to receiving the upgrade package query, the upgrade > package is retrieved and sent over the Internet to the computer. > The upgrade package is then installed on the computer to update > the software program module component. I've followed a course on patents at our Univ, and learned that formulation is EXTREMELY important. And M$ happily formulated things in such a way that Debian and RH are not affected. In the M$ way [translated2debian], the FTP server would determine if there were newer package versions available. In the Debian way, the FTP server just sends a list of _all_ available packages, and the _client_ computer determines if there are new versions. This is clearly a different solution to the underlying problem, so Debian/RH do not infringe M$'s patents. Regards, Anne Bezemer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
