Under the title "Restricted software and hardware usage on a computer," the U.S. Patent Office granted Microsoft innovative invention status on May 19, 2009 for their resourceful business idea. Microsoft had filed the patent in 2005 and now the ideas of its coworkers Joachim Kempin, Carl Gulledge, Edward Stubbs and others were finally considered worthy. The patent text, in all its arcane language, gets to the bottom line of a concept not totally unfamiliar to Microsoft: make selected portions and functionality of the operating system unavailable to users or limit their ability to add software applications or device drivers until an "agreed upon sum of money" is paid to "'unlock' or otherwise make available the restricted functionality." The patent seekers see this as a safeguard against the following situation: "One problem inherent in open architecture systems is they are generally licensed with complete use rights and/or functionality that may be beyond the need or desire of the system purchaser... [so that] users with limited needs pay the same rate for these systems as those with universal needs."

So Microsoft has a remedy based on a brilliant idea. The "Summary of the Invention" section of the patent statement provides a scenario: "a consumer initially purchases a computer with restricted functionality at a price that is less than the price that would be charged for a computer with full functionality. Subsequently, the user can, at an additional cost, acquire a digital key that allows the restrictions to be removed, upgrading the computer to full functionality." The Microsoft co-inventors see revenue in it: for a few dollars more a new digital signature will open up further applications and drivers. The hardware maker (read "OEM"), under an agreement with Redmond, can thus determine what apps or drivers to switch on or off based on what users pay. The trick: it will cost the user even just to peek at the OEM's digest catalog of available programs. Also, "the consumer can be given a limited amount of time (e.g., one month or one year) within which he or she can access the OEM's digest catalog."
There's further rationale Microsoft has to provide crippled functionality: "An additional problem with open architecture systems is that virtually anyone can write an application that can be executed on the system." Microsoft will need to work hard to get the extra revenue they seek with this solution. Apparently unfazed by the millions of dollars paid in fines to the European Commission on antitrust charges, they're looking for help in their endeavor. Their conclusion in the patent write-up: "Thus, it would be beneficial to provide a way for the manufacturer of the system to control the extensibility of the system."