Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Will Microsoft Put The Colonel in the Kernel?

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the is-that-anything-like-the-lime-in-the-coconut dept.

Microsoft 359

theodp writes "The kernel meets The Colonel in a just-published Microsoft patent application for an Advertising Services Architecture, which delivers targeted advertising as 'part of the OS.' Microsoft, who once teamed with law enforcement to protect consumers from unwanted advertising, goes on to boast that the invention can 'take steps to verify ad consumption,' be used to block ads from competitors, and even sneak a peek at 'user document files, user e-mail files, user music files, downloaded podcasts, computer settings, [and] computer status messages' to deliver more tightly targeted ads."

cancel ×

359 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (4, Insightful)

Whatsmynickname (557867) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856379)

[paranoia] Wonder when you'll be downloading this important security update from Microsoft? [/paranoia]

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (4, Funny)

zionian117 (1068050) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856387)

What? weren't "General Failure" and BSOD enuff?

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (5, Funny)

iamdrscience (541136) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856495)

What? weren't "General Failure" and BSOD enuff?
Yeah, I mean, General Failure outranks the Colonel, right?

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (1)

zionian117 (1068050) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856585)

[conspiracy] Microsoft is making a whole army under the command of Colonel against the users in your computer. What now after General Failure, Colonel whatever maybe lieutinents and foot soldiers are coming [/conspiracy]

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (5, Funny)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856703)

What now after General Failure, Colonel whatever ...
Don't forget Major Flaw and his Battalion of Bugs.

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856741)

"Colonel whatever..."

HEY! That's Colonel Panic to YOU, soldier!!! Now gimme fifty!

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (3, Insightful)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856681)

I thought it was General P. Fault in Windows. Wasn't General Failure the guy that had so much trouble reading floppy disks in DOS? And everyone knows that Microsoft didn't actually write DOS. So you can't really credit them for General Fault.

-matthew

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856485)

You will be forced to update after you bite into the
EULA leg that will be available in KFC's new "nuthin'
but EULA leg!" bucket.

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (4, Interesting)

Whammy666 (589169) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856509)

I suspect that once the patent gets a little further along that MS will begin introducing bits and pieces of this bullshit as a service packs into Vista. These unwanted 'features' would blend right into Vista's DRM system. Given Vista's new security emphasis, I imagine that MS will make it damn hard to block any of the this by hacking or using external ad-blocking software. I'll think I'll stay with my old W2K system. Fuck MS.

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (2, Interesting)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856789)

So will the Windows Malicious Software Tool thus flag the Kernal as AdWare?
On a flip note, ad supported Vista? Free, but we get to serve you ads?

but a 100% over my dead body for looking at user files!

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (2, Insightful)

bdhall1313 (202306) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856893)

Maybe this idea came from a Linux "sleeper agent" inside Microsoft?

What better way to piss off your customers than forcing them to view adds from the OS? This will be great "advertising" for Linux if they are dumb enough to implement it.

Go for it Microsoft.

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (2, Interesting)

DrLov3 (1025033) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856593)

Remember "I, robot" .... The NS-5s robots turning all evil and stuff when the red light was on(Communicating with central office for automatic updates), I'm starting to think that way back then, Isaac Asimov was really onto something :P

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (4, Informative)

SirTalon42 (751509) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856619)

*cough* You didn't read Asimov's books, did you?

the movie wasn't a telling of the story I, Robot...

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856799)

Correct, but because titles are not copyrightable they can use the title. Personally if I was a heri of the Asamov estate I would have sued over the use of the NS-5, USR&MM and "Nestor" names and trademarks.

Just sayin...

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856643)

You seem to be confusing that shitty movie with the Asimov stories to which aforementioned movie bore almost no resemblance. Please hand in your geek card.

Re:Wonder when this will be an "important update"? (2, Interesting)

tehmorph (844326) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856689)

I'd expect never if I ran Vista Business edition of any sort. Of course, expectation and reality are different things...

It's only a patent application, it's not granted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856837)

EOM

Free OS (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856407)

This seems like something that would be useful to have a free home desktop OS. I bet they patented it just to keep some Linux distro from doing it.

Re:Free OS (1)

zionian117 (1068050) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856551)

Huh! Isn't linux free already as it is? I wonder what you were smoking when you came up with that idea!

Re:Free OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856715)

Maybe they're going to create an ad-supported linux distro.

Re:Free OS (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856735)

Yeah, but that's free as in communism. This gonna be free like America!

Re:Free OS (1)

glavenoid (636808) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856787)

"Whoosh!!" is the sound of the joke going over your head...

And for the record, it was probably Indica that the parent was smoking when he/she came up with the idea, which strangely enough seems to be of the same strain that Microsoft was smoking when they came up with the idea first. Probably grown just outside of Vancouver, if that makes any difference...

Already done (1)

A Numinous Cohort (872515) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856775)

See OSDavid [google.be]

From the third link down: "OSdavid is a free and open-source, advertising supported Desktop-Linux Operating ..."

Re:Free OS (1)

.orvp (208389) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856961)

Actually, I have to agree with your subject, but I still see your joke.

I would assume that this patent would allow for Microsoft to offer a fully Windows Compatible OS at no "cost" to the end user. OEMs would be allowed to install it for free and still be able to have crapware installed on top of it. To top that off, the end user would still be able to run Microsoft Office and everything else that they consider lock ins for actually using Windows, the games, the corporate programs, the like.

For the end user, especially for the poor end, they would have the option of having two identical systems, one for $499 and the other for $680, except that one has ads, and the other one doesn't. Some parent on welfare is most likely going to take the ad supported one, because it costs less, is legal, and still gets updated correctly. The OEM likes it because they still get their $150 for installing trialware (or whatever) and Microsoft LOVES it because they get $10 a month from advertisers.

But by patenting it, you are right, they don't have to worry about some other competitor (See Google) having another ad based system, or patenting it first.

KFC (4, Funny)

zionian117 (1068050) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856417)

Does this in any way relate to KFC... i nearly ditched linux got vista so that Colonel would get me some fried Chicken!! Then I read the story.... Damn it makes me hungry!

Re:KFC (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856925)

Now with the Colonel Kernel, get an 8-piece bucket of security pop-ups, with a heapin' order of Vista Ultimate and a free side of RAM just to hold it all in!

More Monies Please... (5, Insightful)

rizzo320 (911761) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856421)

Microsoft has realized that protecting consumers and selling high quality products are not ways they can make money any longer. Getting in bed with corporations and ad agencies and selling out the customer is looking to become much more profitable for them.

What really scares me is that for this to be successful, without some type of backlash from the user community, it would have to be forced on us. As in, forced so you could no longer install another operating system on your computer. Perhaps this is there for when they sue Linux out of oblivion, or at least try to. Otherwise, who would ever use another Microsoft product.

Then again, the data collected from such an endeavor would be so valuable, Microsoft could market computers for free with this software installed. Perhaps that the only other way this is successful.

Re:More Monies Please... (2, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856443)

Microsoft has realized that protecting consumers and selling high quality products are not ways they can make money any longer.
Microsoft made high-quality products?

Re:More Monies Please... (2, Interesting)

pasamio (737659) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856487)

Microsoft bought high-quality products and then resold them. Large portions of Microsoft top products were written externally and bought later. Take Office, I think that Word and Excel were the only two products that MS wrote out of the entire collection. Microsoft has made its money historically by buying a product and then reselling it (e.g. DOS) with their strong backing (Halo is an interesting example of this as well though not 100% relevant).

Re:More Monies Please... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856759)

Who needs to give away computers when you can give away the operating system? I bet a $40 discount would be enough to convince most people to choose the version of windows with advertizing. Most probably won't even know what they bought until they start seeing ads.

Re:More Monies Please... (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856841)

Hey, it works for the phone companies.

Re:More Monies Please... (1)

micksam7 (1026240) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856957)

As the summary points out, Microsoft has in the past worked to stop spyware companys and the like. Perhaps this is a attempt to patent this form of spyware so they can slap a patent lawsuit in the face of companys that try it, instead of using it themselves?

Of course, it could be for those free and/or low-cost pcs they were planning as well.

How standard is this clause? (2, Interesting)

sunwukong (412560) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856427)

[0038] Although the forgoing text sets forth a detailed description of numerous different embodiments of the invention, it should be understood that the scope of the invention is defined by the words of the claims set forth at the end of this patent. The detailed description is to be construed as exemplary only and does not describe every possibly embodiment of the invention because describing every possible embodiment would be impractical, if not impossible. Numerous alternative embodiments could be implemented, using either current technology or technology developed after the filing date of this patent, which would still fall within the scope of the claims defining the invention.
Seems awfully vague and encompassing. If this is standard to all patents (or of a certain type) then is it necessary for inclusion?

Re:How standard is this clause? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856465)

i may be a cynic, but i do honestly believe that if an everyday person attempted to patent something so vague, it would have a slim chance of getting approved. the people at the patent office probably saw a big name, like microsoft, and said 'surely whatever this says must be ok, surely their lawyers looked at it. we can trust them'.

Re:How standard is this clause? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856511)

Nah, little guys can get stupid patents, too. It's a function of how little time the examiners have, and the sheer volume of applications they have to process.

-jcr

Re:How standard is this clause? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856543)

isnt that really fucked up, though?

they should either hire more people to go through these, or simply let them queue up for a long ass time. approving things that you are supposed to be doing checks on simply because you dont have the time or manpower gets other businesses in a shitload of trouble. its bad practice at the very least. can you name any other businesses that approve things, this important, simply because they dont have the time to look through it?

Re:How standard is this clause? (1)

Cassius Corodes (1084513) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856601)

Um.. the legislature - e.g. the patriot act

Re:How standard is this clause? (4, Insightful)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856729)

The detailed description is to be construed as exemplary only and does not describe every possibly embodiment of the invention because describing every possible embodiment would be impractical, if not impossible.


A statement like this in a patent application should be grounds for automatic refusal of said patent. If you can't describe the specific implementation of an "invention"... no patent for you!

-matthew

Re:How standard is this clause? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856737)

Yes. I got a patent once while working for a corp (so the corp, which no longer exists owned the patent, so I'm not sure whose patent it is now). I filled out some documents describing the invention, and by the time the patent attorneys were done with it even I could barely understand what it was. They seem to use language that attempts to say, "We patent this idea and anything and everything that may be similar to it, even though we don't mention it here."

From what I've seen most patents are "defensive patents." It's not that the idea is groundbreaking or innovative and a company thinks they can make money off it. It's more that they want to make sure no one else will patent the idea and prevent them form using it, or make them pay licensing fees. In fact, with most defensive patents, companies don't bother to prevent others from using it because they really don't care. It's just a case of CYA.

ummmm? (5, Insightful)

isthisorigional (527077) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856433)

i think i speak for everyone when i say "what the fuck??" when did OPERATING SYSTEMS become billboards? so when the next MS OS comes out, instead of everyone looking for activation cracks they'll be looking first for how the hell to get the adds off of their desktop? asking people to view shit at the bottom of msn messenger is one thing, but there is a line.

For nearly ten years... (1)

Andrew_T366 (759304) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856561)

Windows has been a virtual billboard since IE 4/Windows 98. Remember the advertiser-branded Channel Bar and IE logos in every corner?

Re:ummmm? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856661)

Maybe Microsoft is patenting this retarded idea to block any evil computer company that would actually implement such a dastardly idea.

Re:ummmm? (1)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856797)

Maybe Microsoft is patenting this retarded idea to block any evil computer company that would actually implement such a dastardly idea.
You mean like Adobe and their ad-pumping Flash plugin, coupled with their home-phoning Acrobat reader?

Re:ummmm? (1)

wasted (94866) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856825)

Maybe Microsoft is patenting this retarded idea to block any other evil computer company that would actually implement such a dastardly idea.

Fixed.

The sound you hear is... (4, Interesting)

The Optimizer (14168) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856441)

My limits finally being hit.

After swearing it off since my disaster with RedHat 4, I now know I am going to make the effort to explore Linux again. My email, browsing and documents are mine, and if the OS is capable of poking through them to advance the interests and profits of someone else, then the party is over. I can't trust them when they say they'd never do that; if the capability exists, it will get used at some point in time. I'll keep a windows box for gaming, but not much else, and certainly not any accurate identifable personal information.

Re:The sound you hear is... (1)

maelstrom (638) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856545)

If you need some help, let me know. I'd be happy to provide some advice / troubleshooting. -- Long time Linux user.

Re:The sound you hear is... (3, Funny)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856851)

And long time slashdotter! Do you impress the chicks with your low user ID? :-)

Re:The sound you hear is... (4, Informative)

grammar fascist (239789) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856667)

Everything's gotten tons better since RedHat 4. Try Ubuntu - it seems to work with almost everything, and has a very large and helpful user base.

Re:The sound you hear is... (4, Insightful)

The Optimizer (14168) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856707)

Thank you, both of you who replied...

Your helpful attitude is totally opposite of the attitude I ran into 10 years ago when I asked for help online.

If that's a common reaction, then the Linux comminty has come a long, long way along with the OS and software. I'm looking forward to trying it out and feeling secure again.

Re:The sound you hear is... (4, Insightful)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856889)

If that's a common reaction, then the Linux comminty has come a long, long way along with the OS and software. I'm looking forward to trying it out and feeling secure again.


It depends on the distribution and your attitude/skill level going into it. Fortunately there are enough distributions that you should be able to find a good match. But regardless of the distribution, I think it is important that one changes one's expectations of what software is. Once you go with open source software, you should expect to take on an attitude of exploration and community. There is no more expecting software to do exactly what you need right out of the box (although Ubuntu has gotten pretty good about this). Nobody owes you anything (you didn't pay for anything). Whatever anyone in the community does for you (whether it is writing the code or supporting it) is purely voluntary. That is both the strength and weakness of free/open source software. Embrace it.

-matthew

Re:The sound you hear is... (2, Funny)

plover (150551) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856691)

Don't worry. There will be an open-source version of this available for Ubuntu sometime in the next month, long before the patent is approved. But it'll be a lame version like 0.89 and only show "Hello, I'm a Mac" ads.

Re:The sound you hear is... (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856913)

I recommend Ubuntu.

So I guess this makes Microsoft... (4, Interesting)

camperdave (969942) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856445)

...which delivers targeted advertising as 'part of the OS.'...

So, I guess this officially makes Microsoft Windows adware/spyware. I wonder if Spybot and Adaware will now remove Windows as part of it's run-through. One can certainly hope so.

Re:So I guess this makes Microsoft... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856479)

So it Microsoft patents spyware, does that mean they will start suing companies like Gator?

Re:So I guess this makes Microsoft... (1)

Barny (103770) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856663)

No, they can't, gator is gone and finished, it was spy ware and it was bad.

Now this new thing called claria... that must be ok, it sounds legit.

In all honesty though, at a guess they will introduce this on a cheaper version of windows, thus using advertising money to subsidies the selling, plus they can give them away in 3rd world countries and be seen to be doing humanitarian work, when in actual fact it is cruel and vicious to inflict on people, maybe they could use it at Guantanamo on "clients" that regular torture methods aren't as effective on?

Re:So I guess this makes Microsoft... (2, Interesting)

misleb (129952) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856831)

In all honesty though, at a guess they will introduce this on a cheaper version of windows, thus using advertising money to subsidies the selling,


Oh please. You don't need to "subsidize" the selling of software. A copy of software is worth no more than the media it is written on, the box it is packed in, and the paper the EULA is printed on. If there is no media (i.e., you download it), any sale is pure profit.

plus they can give them away in 3rd world countries and be seen to be doing humanitarian work,


They already do it in certain situation for schools and special promotional programs because they know that a) copying the software is nearly free and b) users will eventually become indoctrinated and therefore become future paying users of their intellectual property. The only difference in this case is that Microsoft will be able to have their cake and eat it too. They can give away something that is virtually free in the first place (and get good press) AND make profits from advertising.

-matthew

finally a real advertiser (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856855)

what do you think of when you hear the word advertiser? Someone who paid money to get their message put out? Someone who is trying to increase demand for their product? Or someone who wishes to inform its potential consumers about why their product is right for them? The first two don't require any targeting and really are not that effective. They depend on making consumers, this requires forcing people to change their mind about a product or service. If you can identify people who would use your product if they knew about it, currently this is done in a similar manner to a shot gun where by you reach as many people as you can. Only a fraction of these people are interested since they too often see things that are uninteresting so they tune it out. Of the people who have yet to realize that ads are poorly targeted thus riveted to their seat in anticipation of the next product to discover only a fraction will be interested yet you will still have to pay for the "impression" good or bad. Targeted advertising eliminates both problems, first more relevant products are shown to you and you remain interested because the gain to be had at a wonderful discovery will out weigh the cost of time spent "searching" for that new exciting thing you have yet to find out about. If done carefully they will not alienate targets who will avoid this altogether. Google has managed to do this for a surprising amount of time. Just think first they know all the web sites then they know what you are looking for and finally through their network of ad toting sites they know where you go and how deep into the site you go. Its no secret either they have the processing power to troll for use full tid bits. I would rather be sold a dozen use full products that I actually wanted in turn for quality service. Now it goes both ways I need good product information AND good service to patronize their digital market. As a corporation they have consumers in their services and stock and an obligation to serve both by providing one with use full services and the other with the profit of their work.

The end (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856449)

That's the end of it for me. I'll never again knowingly purchase a Microsoft operating system. This is just unbelievable arrogance.

It's MY f***ing computer! I paid for it! I don't want ANY part of it working to show me any more ads than I already have to put up with.

Control is worth more than convenience, and it's usually much more satisfying.

Google already does this (0, Troll)

Andrew Tanenbaum (896883) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856451)

The trollish submitter demonizes Microsoft, saying that "[Microsoft] goes on to boast that the invention can 'take steps to verify ad consumption,' be used to block ads from competitors, and even sneak a peek at 'user document files, user e-mail files, user music files, downloaded podcasts, computer settings, [and] computer status messages' to deliver more tightly targeted ads."

But Google does ALL this when you use their services. What's the big difference between using a web app and a local app?

Mercy sakes, you are ignorant (4, Funny)

Eustace Tilley (23991) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856471)

You do not understand the difference between an application and an operating system. Please stop posting.

^Bump^ (2, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856517)

But Google does ALL this when you use their services. What's the big difference between using a web app and a local app?
Indeed, my first thought was that MS is just one-upping Google in the Advertising wars.

Though I think the difference is fairly obvious: Google is an optional service for 100% of the computer using market. Using Microsoft Windows is not so optional for ~90% of the market.

I can't imagine that very many companies will be able to subsidize Windows Vista 2020 licenses through advertising, whereas MS can reap substantial profits from doing so, especially as they continue to move the computer from the desktop into the living room.

Re:^Bump^ (1)

babbling (952366) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856963)

I think the most important difference is that GMail isn't your entire computer. This sounds like it will be accessing every document you've got.

Re:Google already does this (1)

rossz (67331) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856917)

Let's compare.

Microsoft: Convicted monopoly. If you are in business, you often don't have any choice but to use their crapware. If you buy a computer, you get Windows preinstalled or you buy a Mac for a lot more. They load trojans (it breaks the OS, so it's a trojan) under the pretense of installing critical updates. Threatens to sue people for using competing open source software. Illegally crushes all competitors. Now they want to load your personal computer with popup ads and spy on you even more.

Google: Owns slightly more than 50% of the search market, so isn't a monopoly (a monopoly is defined as 75% or more of the market). Clearly marks ads on search results. Doesn't sneak peeks at your personal docs to target ads. You aren't stuck with them, use Yahoo or some other search service if you don't like them. Doesn't stifle innovation, in fact, invests big bucks in the open source world. Doesn't charge you a dime to use most of their services.

Yeah, they're exactly the same. OH MY GOD!

Yeek... (3, Informative)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856453)

I'm not sure about the legality of Claim 11... I'm not an ambulance-chaser, but it'd seem that retrieving "user document files, user email, user music files, podcast files, computer status messages, and a profile database storing existing tag data" without our consent/knowledge would be prosecutable...

Re:Yeek... (1)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856537)

That's what the EULA and the "I Agree" button are for.

Re:Yeek... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856587)

Silly person. That's only for the little people. Of corse it's ok for the big boys. In fact, I'm sure they'll gladly share those sneak peeks with those orgizinations that you would hope would put a stop to their practices.

Love it! (3, Interesting)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856489)

Everyone who wants to see Microsoft's hold on our industry diminish should strongly encourage Ballmer and the rest of his numbskulls to pursue this plan with all possible speed.

-jcr

General Stallman trumps Colonel Gates (1)

slickwillie (34689) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856497)

Isn't this type of thing covered in GPLv3?

First spyware, now adware (4, Insightful)

robo_mojo (997193) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856523)

First MS decided to start distributing spyware with the OS when they created WGA. And now they want to top that off by including adware as well?

Lovely (1)

Quatl (927704) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856529)

I'll have to tell my grand kids about how when I was young the corporations didn't track my bowel movements via satellite uplinked anal probe, they had hide in the sewer and count them one by one as they floated by. "That was good honest work Jr" I'll say, "real work done by real men ,down in the stink with their own two hands. Ah how I longed to be a Terdcountsman myself one day." I'll wax mournfully, just the hint of a tear glimmering in the corner of my eye. "Such a time I would have had counting the peanuts. But Jr, such honorable work is gone from the world now. Maybe you should go into marketing?" sigh ... Much more entertaining than our grandfathers' tales of newspaper shoes. Maybe it's getting to be time to move to a mountain top and grow that beard I've always wanted.

This is their "innovation" (5, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856531)

to fight Google.

You see, they look at Google and do not get jealous of Google's achievements per se, they get jealous of Google's revenue streams and hence are attacking the revenue stream (advertising) without adding value to the consumer.

Now, you may argue that this bloatware will make the OS cheaper, but what I think will likely happen over the long run (if this ever goes through) is that the cheapest OS will cost the same and people will have to buy a "premium" version to avoid the ads. If people complain, Microsoft will point out that they got the ad-supported version "free" with the OEM computer (while not mentioning the OEM also paid for that copy).

Microsoft Puts Corporations before Customers (1)

vertigoCiel (1070374) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856549)

The invention can 'take steps to verify ad consumption,' be used to block ads from competitors, and even sneak a peek at'user document files, user e-mail files, user music files, downloaded podcasts, computer settings, [and] computer status messages' to deliver more tightly targeted ads.
This is a stunning example of why I refuse to use Microsoft products. They put the wishes of corporations before that of their customers. I will be highly surprised if this is an opt-in "service" - hell, I'll eat my hat if it's even opt-out.

The only reason Microsoft still has any customers is because most of the computer-using world is locked into using their products by default. If Microsoft were just starting out today, they'd never get anywhere with priorities like this. Hell, if you could go back to zero and start the computer industry all over again in the present day, they still wouldn't get anywhere.

Microsoft cares about the satisfaction of whomsoever has paid it the largest sum of money recently, not their end users. I truly hope this will motivate a large amount of complacent Windows users to change, but if history has taught us anything, that's not likely.

Corporations are the customers... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856857)

the poor users are the "product" that microsoft deliver to the customers...

Here's the obligatory... (1)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856553)

... Wholly big brother Batman!

Enough to make me switch back to windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856565)

'take steps to verify ad consumption,' be used to block ads from competitors, and even sneak a peek at 'user document files, user e-mail files, user music files, downloaded podcasts, computer settings, [and] computer status messages' to deliver more tightly targeted ads."
Woweee, that sounds just dandy thanks bill. Because that really is all I want to do with my computer - "consume" "tightly targeted" adds. I will be uninstalling linux on all of my computers just as soon as this comes out, that's for sure. ...ah fuck it, I can't be bothered extending the sarcasm... you can take your absurdly silly idea and cram it up an appropriately tightly targeted orifice, Billy boy.

Not yours. (5, Funny)

trudyscousin (258684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856591)

When I first heard the name "Windows Genuine Advantage," I thought, "hey, great; I've finally got an advantage over those smug Mac OS X and LInux users!" Then, of course, came the awful truth.

When I first heard the name "Trusted Computing," I thought, "hey, great; does this, like, mean I can make clicky-clicky on links in the sketchiest of web pages without gasping in shock at the horrors of pathological proctology?" Then, of course, came the awful truth.

This evening, upon reading the name "Advertising Services Architecture," I thought, "hey, great; is this a cool new enabling technology that will this help me sell more stuff and make more money on eBay?" Then, yet again, came the awful truth, as pointed out in the link to this article.

As far as I know, these are but three of the 100 reasons [microsoft.com] I'll be speechless for Microsoft Vista. Or saying "Wow!" But: Is there some context in the English language in which "Wow!" means "I've got an axe buried in my head?" (Being speechless does, after all, seem to be an appropriate response to such trauma, and so I was trying to make the connection between the two.) Because after all the all the aforementioned truths, after finding out that this vast infrastructure for which I'm paying has nothing to do whatsoever with that for which I want to use a computer, well, that's kind of what I imagine it feels like.

Re:Not yours. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856843)

If they make a version of windows with this technology embedded in it to subsidize the cost of development, then I would take it -- why not?

As an aside, I think if advertising was really well targetted, then I wouldn't mind seeing it. That is to say -- If I am interested in Harry Potter, seeing 1 trailer and some reviews and an advert about it wouldn't bother me. Seeing 5000000000000 adverts and something about dog sex is what bothers me. Sadly, the latter is most common today, so advertising in general is frowned upon, while the former is actually sought after as a form of information rather than noise.

At least there's a ten-second Conan clip. (1)

trudyscousin (258684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856959)

Shell has begun the thoroughly annoying practice of placing a video monitor above its pumps that blare commercials at its customers (except for an all-too-brief Conan clip) while they refuel their cars. You're a captive audience. Where are you going to go? They've got you.

Meanwhile, does watching that commercial subsidize the cost of your fuel? None at all.

I realize that what holds true for Shell may not necessarily hold true for Microsoft. But I somehow find it perfectly reasonable to think so.

kicked off (1)

kollywabbles (645848) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856613)

Update: Sorry, the Sentinel article has apparently been achived and the link works no more. And welcome to the PlasticBag readers; you guys have made a month worth of traffic in one day.

Re:kicked off (1)

kollywabbles (645848) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856645)

forgot the quotes

Colonel? Kernel? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856709)

I always wondered why both words sound the same although they look completely different.

No No No, Thrice No Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856765)


If this
  1) Gets granted
  2) Gets implemented

Then Microsoft can expect some BIG problems in parts of Eruope.

Knowlingly putting stuff like this on a Computer and sending private data to some server somewhere is in breach of the Computer Misuse Act (UK)

There are copious laws in Gemany & France as well as the UK which should stop Microsoft from implemeting this.
We Europeans take Compute Privacy pretty seriously.
So, If as reported this gets implemented in a way that the user can't control (Make a positive decision to Allow it) then they will be in deep do-do with the bouys in Blue.

So as not to appear totally -ve towards Microsoft,
I suppose they could sell some "Spyware Riddled" vesion of Vista for half the price of the current one.
OR (as more likely)
All OEM versions used by the likes of Dell, HP etc etc (I'm not deliverately targeting Dell or HP) will be shipped with this stuff installed by default.

Personally, I find the whole concelt of this totally offensive. Soory M$. This should be consigned to the great incinerator in the sky and NOT the Recycle Bin.
Just my 0.02p worth.

*throws popcorn in microwave* (1)

Monoliath (738369) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856777)

This should be interesting.

I've never had front row tickets to a company suicide before...

in the kernel (1)

piojo (995934) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856791)

Wait, microsoft has a kernel now?

Re:in the kernel (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856847)

Yes. Microsoft has a kernel. Has since windows 95 at least (3.x wasn't an operating system. It was just a shell)

jealousy of Google explains EVERYTHING (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856803)

we tell google where we want to eat
we tell google where we go on vacation
we tell google when we are sick
we tell google where we work and want to go to school
we tell google what movies we want to see
we tell google what words we have diffoculty spelling
we tell google where we live
we let google read our mail
we let google give us ads

but...

we don't tell MS a darn thing
we don't want to tell MS anything
we don't need to tell MS anything

MS is Jealous of our relationship with google
this drive EVERY sick thing MS does do to stalk us.

Re:jealousy of Google explains EVERYTHING (1)

piojo (995934) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856919)

That may be because it's our operating system. If I want to cut down on the information that google has about me (and I do, incidentally), I can restrict sketchier searches to other browsers / not use gmail's web interface / close by browser and delete cookies with non-zero frequency. Or I could stop using it. On the other hand, my operating system is a very personal thing, and it has no place going behind my back to do things that I don't sanction.

Re: MS spyware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856809)

the invention can 'take steps to verify ad consumption,' be used to block ads from competitors, and even sneak a peek at 'user document files, user e-mail files, user music files, downloaded podcasts, computer settings, [and] computer status messages' to deliver more tightly targeted ads."


Personally, I relish the vision of Balmer working as a shipping clerk in the warehouse of an office furniture distributor. And Gates? Is it too much, to hope that when MS goes belly up he has to work as a medical tape tester? Wrapping and rewrapping his spectacle frames to pay the mortgage on his billion dollar playhouse? That's gotta be good for a several millenia of regret.

Just wait until you see... (1)

stox (131684) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856881)

The Microsoft Election Services Architecture!!!

Candidates are already signing up for the beta.

Free edition (1)

solanum (80810) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856905)

I would imagine this would be either implemented in embedded devices for public terminals or that sort of thing, or perhaps for cheap/free versions of Windows/Office for the developing areas of the world, like the 'Starter Edition'. You know, here have a free ad supported OS and software, then when you don't want the ads you have to pay $699 for ad free version.

I seriously doubt even MS would put this in the mainstream paid for consumer OS.

what most people still ignore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856909)

Windows is already a giant bug capable of spying on users activities. This is why governments love it so much: they need a tool like that and Microsoft gets tons of money to keep it functional under government control.

The biggest reason to switch to Open Source Software is not about stability, no fees or paying less, but about being able to discredit the above sentence as a pile of crap coming out from a conspiracy theory nutjob, which is another kind of security closed source cannot give.

FUD (1)

networkzombie (921324) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856921)

Wow. Quite a few belligerent posts. Microsoft has a lot of patents. No one knows how or even if this will be implemented. Microsoft is less than perfect but FUD goes both ways. I expect nothing less from posters who don't understand the difference between publishing and assigning in Active Directory. I dumped Novel years ago. I haven't regretted it for one second. Goodbye karma.

Actually... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856949)

I don't think MS will use this at all, this is purely patent trolling against Google. Why? Think about it, if Google made an OS, they'd put ads with it as well to make the OS free like all their other products. MS patenting this ensures that Google can't use this idea, unless they find a loophole in the application. Will this stop Google from supporting an OS? I hope not, I really want MS to finally get some strong competition.

The inhumanisation of marketing: Badvertising (3, Insightful)

merc (115854) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856951)

An OS that watches you and markets products to you... far off ?

A TV station that markets to you during your favorite program [consumerist.com]

Advertisements that come inserted into your bills ...

You are required, at your place of employment to endure compulsory marketing.

What's next, tatoos in the inside of eyelids when you're born?

In the world of marketing it seems there are no bad ideas. Overstep boundaries, go to far, garner enough negative attention and you're still golden. It's about brand recognition, not about stimulating support for a product.

Personally I've become revolted by all forms of marketing. I'm "turned off and tuned out"... to paraphrase what I feel.

I'm waiting for a consumer revolution in a world of sheep.

Windows O/S (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19856965)

Since when did anyone think Windows was anything other than an ad platform for Microsoft and its business partners? Damn Windows users, quit being so naive! Why do you think Windows security has never and will never be fixed? All virus and spyware vectors into Windows are there primarily to allow Windows to be used for a sales platform, doesn't matter to Microsoft that these paths also allow for easy malicious sofware infection as well.. duh. Windows is crapware designed to sell products to the clueless masses; get over it.

Ummm, No (1)

MrCopilot (871878) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856977)

No.

That's it I've had it. I'm just gonna start answering every rhetorical question asked by Slashdot.

Manjusha's Comment (0, Offtopic)

manjusha (1127921) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856985)

This is comment by manjusha

Re:Manjusha's Comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19857005)

reply

Through Rose Tinted Spectacles (1)

DrNoNo (976214) | more than 7 years ago | (#19856999)

Through rose tinted spectacles, it could be that MS might only plan use this patent to stop anyone else doing it - for example by providing MS with a cause for action against anyone providing a root kit to do the same - and maybe providing a cause for action against anyone advertising in that way. I would hope that this is what this is about.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>