Apple has filed United States Patent Application (#20070288886). The application was made on April 27, 2007 and published on December 13, 2007 by the US Patent and Trademark Office.
Apple’s Abstract: A digital rights management system permits an application owner to cause code to be injected into the application’s run-time instruction stream so as to restrict execution of that application to specific hardware platforms. In a first phase, an authorizing entity (e.g., an application owner or platform manufacturer) authorizes one or more applications to execute on a given hardware platform. Later, during application run-time, code is injected that performs periodic checks are made to determine if the application continues to run on the previously authorized hardware platform. If a periodic check fails, at least part of the application’s execution string is terminated–effectively rendering the application non-usable. The periodic check is transparent to the user and difficult to circumvent.
Apple’s description, in part: The invention relates generally to digital rights management and more particularly, by way of example, to performing a check at run-time to determine if a software application is authorized to execute on a specific hardware platform.
More info: United States Patent Application #20070288886
[Attribution: MacNN, MacObserver. Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “MT” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take: Apple could use this for applications, application suites (for example, iWork), and/or for Mac OS X (to permit its use only on Apple-labeled hardware as stipulated in the Mac OS X Software License Agreement). It could also be intended to permit Mac OS X on Apple-approved hardware (ominous chords: Return of the Clones!) Or it could simply be a patent application that remains unused (Apple certainly has plenty of those) or is not planned for use until some future date.
I think it’s for the iPhone SDK.
Or it could be that Apple intends to license OS X to certain OEM vendors…
SJ, don’t do it!!!
I think it is more likely that Apple wants to get in first and have the option in the future of technically enforcing application DRM as and when they wish.
Could this be meant for iPhone app’s?
RoughlyDrafted has an article discussing how it might be for iPhone applications. Everybody else, however, has already decided it can only be “Mac Genuine Advantage.”
Hey! I wrote an application in the 1990s that linked the ethernet card’s unique MAC address with the serial number to only let that one Mac run the application. You then embed the MAC address as a string inside you’re app as a resource in case the user moves it. Is this prior art?
This is a dud. People have been linking software to specific machines since the ‘Lotus 123 floppy’ days.
“…during application run-time, code is injected that performs periodic checks are made to determine if the application continues to run on the previously authorized hardware platform. If a periodic check fails, at least part of the application’s execution string is terminated…”
This seems to suggest both that a) running on an unapproved platform is “discouraged” and b) not running on an approved platform could be discouraged. So I could fail to run (eg) Backup for, say, a month and then discover I can no longer run it.
Most likely, this is a language problem … a failure to say precisely what they mean. Once they discover the loophole created, though, will they simply say “Oops” and decline to use it? Or …
Dave
Just don’t bring back the dongle. What a pain.
Seems like Apple is about to open the MacOS X floodgates to the masses. Don’t be surprised if Apple makes a major announcement at next years MacWorld Expo pertaining to this; revealing that they’ve been holding closed door discussions with a major OEM and possible licensing of its OS.
1. Apple restricts OS X to run on only certain types of OEM hardware, and level sets this by getting guarantees from its partner OEM that they’ll not make and or enhance their hardware to outperform and or compete with Apple’s latest offerings, thus avoiding a repeat of the pre-Jobs Apple licensing agreement. *Note: Prevents OEMs from cannibalizing Apple’s hardware sales.
Guys, you heard it here first!!!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Hmmmm, could this be for rentals. When you rent a video, it injects this drm code into the file as it down loads, that keeps you from copying it to other items (except for your synced iPod).
this would allow mulitple viewing of a rental movie but only on the original hardware that it was downloaded to……… I think.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” /> ???
en
Just don’t bring back the dongle. What a pain.
FYI, in some application areas (computer forensic software comes to mind), the dongle has never left. It has just moved to USB.
“Hmmmm, could this be for rentals.”
Or for a Windows-based version of iWork? Well, Apple produced a Windows-based version of ClarisWorks.
This sounds pretty much windoz-like! ;(
It all depends on how Apple uses the patent (assuming it’s granted) of course, but I for one do not like the idea of a software supplier restricting what platform I use my legally purchased software on.
If virtual machines take off a bit more, I could easily see running various flavors of OS’s in a virtual machine on whatever hardware is around. If, for example, I buy Mac OS X, why shouldn’t I be able to run it virtually?
Why is it that for virtually any product out there except software, buyers can do almost anything they want with it*. But when it comes to software, so many people fell it’s perfectly acceptable to have artificial restrictions placed on the products they buy?
*-within legal limits, of course, and not necessarily without breaking a warranty or otherwise losing support.
Forbes.com thinks this patent is a precursor to an application that would allow users to order coffee, etc., on line at participating vendors (eg. Starbucks) and then bypass the [physical] line to pick up their order. You would need software that could check against the hardware to ensure that it was authorized since money would doubtless change hands.
Apple’s software, except for Pro apps, are low-cost because the software is designed to enhance the hardware. Period. Apple wants to be selling really cool hardware. That’s where the money is. No clones coming to town.
“Guys, you heard it here first!!!”
No offense but I hope we heard it here last too. I agree with coolfactor.
… and yet another thing to hate about Apple. But the sheep remain oblivious!
Do we really need Apple to tell us how and what to use our software on? The iTMS/iPod lock is bad enough.
What a hypocrite Jobs is… when it comes to music and other content, he calls on providers to remove DRM. When it comes to Apple software, he wants to add more DRM.
I think the Forbes article and the movie rental business that has just come in the news might be the reason for Apple doing this.
IF, it will be used to register OS X in a way that M$ does at installation of ‘Doze, then I’m outta here… moving to Linux!!
I don’t really think Apple will do something like M$ does though with the registration process – it just goes totally against Apple’s culture and (so far) business practices. Here’s hoping not anyway.
“he iTMS/iPod lock is bad enough.”
What lock?
Apple has been able to see with every registration how many people are puting a single copy of the operationg system on multiple machtines – virtual or not. The implication I see here is that they would like to have
All you people with single licenses of Mac OSX running on multiple machines will soon see what this patent is for. We’re all gonna be buying the Family Packs from now on if we have more than one machine to load it on.
This patent is most probably for the iPhone unfortunately.
Concerning OS X, this patent has only one application: to stop people from hacking OS X to run on non-apple hardware. Apple makes most of its money on hardware, and a big reason why people buy their hardware is OS X. It’s reasonable to assume that Apple would want to stop people from running OS X on hardware they don’t approve off. In my opinion, this is better than the MS activation crap any day on the week, and Mac owners won’t even notice it if it’s implemented.
This patent could also be used to license OS X, but I seriously doubt it.
Grrrilla wrote:
All you people with single licenses of Mac OSX running on multiple machines will soon see what this patent is for. We’re all gonna be buying the Family Packs from now on if we have more than one machine to load it on.
If that happens it’ll be a pretty bad sign. It would be a very MS like move on Apple’s part. Right now I’m dual booting with Ubuntu, and if things got any more MS-like I would just run Ubuntu as my main OS.
Peter wrote:
Forbes.com thinks this patent is a precursor to an application that would allow users to order coffee, etc., on line at participating vendors (eg. Starbucks) and then bypass the [physical] line to pick up their order. You would need software that could check against the hardware to ensure that it was authorized since money would doubtless change hands.
I pray to God you’re right Peter.
@shiva105
You *bought* the hardware, you only *licensed* the software. That horse was let of the barn decades ago. And it’s not going to be possible to put it back in anymore.
>Ampar wrote: The iTMS/iPod lock is bad enough.
Open your eyes blind sheep. Does this really need to be explained because you choose to ignore it over and over again?
Post above was a reply to your comment:
“What lock?”