Comments on: Microsoft using patents to shape standards

By: Jay Carlson

Jay Carlson — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 00:32:36 +0000

That’s a novel template for spam.

By: Vadym F

Vadym F — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:36:56 +0000

Yes, example with proving age to be over 18 is great.
It is not quite clear whether it is actually doable with specifications released.
It seems proving statements about integers requires a group of order hidden from proving party.
This could be done with a multiplicative group and a composite modulus.
Am I the only one who do not understand how to do that with a group of a known prime order?
The same applies for credit score, of course.
Well, this is not exactly OSP, but something journalists could follow.
Thanx!

By: Jay Carlson

Jay Carlson — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:10:43 +0000

The original Java books from Sun included a similar license grant for implementations to be able to conform. That didn’t work out so hot for some people.

By: bhyde

bhyde — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:23:23 +0000

Christian – Thank you for the clarification, but let’s not confuse a discussion of the exactly where the boundary of the license is with the key point that the license works to guide developers into implementing standards that create synergies for Microsoft and away from alternatives that might undermine those synergies, innovate new solutions, or better serve other platforms vendors.

By: Christian Paquin

Christian Paquin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 06:59:52 +0000

Hi Ben,

As one author of the specs, I’d like to shed some light on your last comment.

Microsoft’s Open Specification Promise (OSP) certainly allows developers to safely implement the optional parts of the specs. The OSP FAQ (http://www.microsoft.com/Interop/osp/default.mspx#EWDAE) states:

Q: The specification I am interested in has some required portions and some optional portions, does the OSP apply to both?

A: Yes, the OSP covers Necessary Claims for both required and optional portions of the Covered Specifications. Under the paragraph entitled “Covered Specifications” is the language that makes it clear that the OSP applied to portions of the Covered Specifications that are optional. (“This Promise also applies to the required elements of optional portions of such specifications.”)

Regards,

Christian

By: bhyde

bhyde — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 16:15:54 +0000

I can’t quite parse Ben Laurie’s critique about why I’m wrong. But chatting with him … but there is a point hidden in there.

One of the specifications included in the list is “U-Prove Cryptographic Specification V1.0″ and that spec consists of an outline for the patterns of computations necessary to gin up the tokens needed. That’s great. It means you can use the tokens in all kinds of applications.

I will further highlight though that phrases like: “Both the Prover and the Verifier MAY independently archive (e.g., in an audit log) the protocol inputs
specified in Figure 9; this data constitutes an unforgeable proof of the token presentation.” are not necessarily invitations for implementors to be lazy, but should be read as a red flags. The license only covers required portions of the spec, other stuff, including clauses with MAY, is fair game for the courts.

By: Links » Selective Disclosure, At Last?

Links » Selective Disclosure, At Last? — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 04:33:59 +0000

[...] not going to re-iterate what selective disclosure is good for and apparently my friend Ben Hyde has spared me from the need to be cynical, though I think (I am not a lawyer!) he is wrong: the OSP applies to each individual specification [...]