Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Improves Its Licensing Terms
prostoalex writes "Microsoft offers to pick up the legal tab, in case anyone gets pulled to court for using its products. News dot com dot com has a rather informative outline of new policies: Microsoft will cover unlimited expenses on injury and infringement claims, the company quadrupled the warranty on its products to a 12-month length, and the companies audited for licensing compliance will now get a 30-day warning instead of 15-day one."
Just to prove that MS is trying to undermine its competition by helping spread FUD against Linux, then promising that its customers won't be liable. This seems like an easy way to make money. Just act like SCO, threatening MS customers with lawsuits, then waiting for a MS buyout.
--
1-800-759-0700
...LAWYERS... "The new provision will also give the company another weapon to take on Linux." They are basically offering to shoulder legal burdens from challengers, unlike those insurgent bands of Linux developers. But we all know that Microsoft "legally" steals its code like its TCP/IP stack, and not "illegally" like SCO alleges. In any case though, if it and IBM's role were reversed, SCO would have been bought months ago.
I think Microsoft purchased a SCO license purely to feed the fire. A large company like Microsoft purchasing a SCO license will make their claims seem more valid in the public eye. It's more of a PR move than anything else.
This is a pretty smart, although probably not overly significant, maneuver on MS's part. It won't cost them very much at all, but gives them an advantage in dealing with those parties who usually aren't central to the software purchasing process, but can get in the way (legal staff, procurement specialists, etc.).
I highly doubt this will impact their competitive stance against other systems, but what it could do is reduce the duration of the sales cycle, and thus help their overall performance as a company.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Looks like SCO has got momentum now, and will Microsoft steering from the back seat, Linux might be in a wee bit of trouble in the hunt for marketshare.
It's only going to get more interesting as the battle continues.
Previously posted on /.. html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419
I wonder how this new policy effects certain SQL Server customer's liability to Timeline's patent coverage.
Is Microsoft now going to indemnify SQL Server users against these patents?
Maybe they figure that perpetuating the Linux FUD campaign is more important any Timeline/SQL Server associated risk?
Just wondering.
MS lost a lawsuit recently (last few months) involving SQL Server 7. Seems that they lisenced some of the technology for DTS but not for resale, so the company that actually created the technology sued MS.... legally, that would have put anyone using SQL Server 7 at risk of having to pay lisencing to the smaller company (whose name I forget) I was waiting for thm to petition to have the ruling extended to SQL Server2k as it likely shares some code in this area with SQL Server 7. It is quite likely a reaction to THAT lawsuit, not the SCO vs IBM lawsuit.
MS's purchase of a unix lisence from SCO also has little to do with the lawsuit. MS produces a cd full of utils for windows server to provide service for unix machine onthe network (including file serving, etc) which does use some unix technlogoy (obviously) so they are just staying in compliance with the law (or at the very least making sure that they are covered shoud SCO actually win)
I reject your reality
I can't think of a more heavy-handed marketing tactic than MS's licenses audit. I worked as an intern one summer, just before MS launched Office XP. They decided that it was a good idea to audit my company. They sent us a letter and ask us for the licenses. Being a bank, we had branches all over the place. Simply finding the licenses was time consuming, thus costly to the company. The interns usually had to drive out to the branches and examine each computer for Office and then hunt for the licenses at the branches. After it was all over, we came up short. We called MS to asked them how we could buy the missing Office 97 licenses. They tell us that it was no longer on sale and that we must buy the new Office XP licenses. Therefore, we shelled out the money for the new licenses. Now, seeing how we were running Office 97 not too long ago, you can imagine what kind of computer we had to run Office XP on. In other words, we pay for a new product, which we couldn't use, to cover for an old product, which we lost the licenses for. It was our fault for not keeping a better track of licenses to start with. However, these heavy-handed ways of pushing for a new product doesn't endearing any customer to MS. We briefly considered Linux and Star Office for a while. All of us in the tech department knew that was the way to go. Not only was it free but no future legal hassles. However, we knew that management would have refused and the bank workers like to complain about even the most minor change and blame everything on the tech. department.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
I'm surprised noboday has pointed out the possibility of a conspiracy theory here. On the surface, the timing appears as if Microsoft is taking advantage of an opportunity to look like they have a better license, making them look like the wiser choice again linux to large organizations...
But what if the timing went something more like this:
---
6 months ago, in a large penthouse office someplace in Seattle...
Gates: "Hey... I have a great idea on how to combat linux!"
Lackey: "That's a great idea sir!"
Gates: "Wait... I haven't said anything yet..."
Lackey: "Oh. Sorry..."
Gates: "We can hit them with their openness... we find some company with a strong unix background, and we make them an offer they can't refuse..."
Lackey: "go on..."
Gates: "We tell them to throw up a nonsenical lawsuit, casting all kinds of doubt on the intellectual property in linux... They won't even have to prove that, and they won't ever actually say what it is... we can lend them our expertise in manipulating the legal system. They can sue someone, oh, like... IBM... I don't like them much anyway."
Lackey: "But how does that help us?"
Gates: "Well, we will come out and acknowledge that they may have some merit by 'buying' a license for the intellectual property."
Lackey: "uh huh..."
Gates: "And then we can blow smoke up a bunch of reporter's asses, and get them to build up this 'lawsuit' as a big threat to linux."
Lackey: "Great Idea, Sir!"
Gates: "Wait... I'm not done."
Lackey: "Sorry..."
Dates: "And then, just when every company is beginning to worry if the IP lawsuit will affect them, we change our license to make it look like we are the only safe choice! The press will eat that up!"
Lackey: "Great Idea, sir!"
Gates: "Now... which 'unix' company can we bribe with this plan? Sun? No... they still hate us over that whole 'Java' thing... Apple? No... they aren't new enough to unix yet, and we are going to screw them with the whole IE annoucement soon anyway..."
Lackey: "What about IBM, Sir?"
Gates: "You dolt... they are the TARGET of the plan! Besides, they have too much cash to be susceptable to my bribe... I know! SCO! Yes, SCO! They are down and out! they need my money! And they just might have the background in unix to pull this off!"
Lackey: "But sir, haven't they been SUPPORTING linux?"
Gates: "Ah, my dear lackey... you underestimate the power of the almighty dollar. Get me the CEO of SCO on the phone...."
Lackey: "Great Idea, sir!"
I know this sounds like a troll (but then again this this is slashdot) and, yes I am wearing my tin foil hat - however could this possibly have been planned by MS long ago? We know MS bought licenses from SCO, maybe that was just a down-payment for SCO to bring their suit against IBM and publicly threaten Linux users. SCO has got an exceptional amount of press which has more than likely got many companies considering the costs of legal action (win or lose) when using any given software. Now MS comes out with this, that's one hell of a coincidence, and for me, MS is certainly shrewd enough to have actually planned the whole thing all along.
like tears in rain - time to die. [Rutger Hauer]
But we all know that the real threat of lawsuits involving MS products are suits against MS, and suits by MS. I'm sure they won't be paying for your costs in either of the above situations.
Another way of putting it: The fact that the neighborhood drunk driver is indemnifying me against lightning strikes doesn't mean much,.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I had to dig this up, thought I'd save you the trouble.
a d_id=20376&noise=show#89229
http://www.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thre
It appears to be the CTO of THOUGHT accusing an open source software project of patent violations. Classic.
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
A blurd
Are you in a bind with the cost of your business software. Do you want a permanet end to endless upgrades and nagging license restriction. We can effetively train your staff to use simple office software, install and maintain your Intranet remotely. Our firm will guarantee your privacy, and effectively make your business software needs a thing of the past! Such is the power of open source software serviced by ..........
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I love this.
The reason I love this is simple.
The new terms work like this: if you purchase a Microsoft product, and you are sued becaues of IP that Microsoft should have kept out of the code, Microsoft will pay for the lawsuit.
The old terms were identical except that if the price of the product was greater than the cost of the lawsuit (always) then they would only refund the purchase price of the product.
So. This seems to be a GOOD THING that Microsoft is doing. Are they doing this with the hope that companies will see this as an advantage for Windows? YES! Is this somehow immoral and evil? NO! Is there something inherently evil in Microsoft making Windows a more attractive product? NO!
Every time Microsoft does anything bad, people here jump all over them for being the evil empire.
Every time Microsoft does anything good, people here jump all over them for "spreading FUD" and being the evil empire.
Would you all equally cry foul should, say, Red Hat tomorrow decide to add similar terms to their license? I think not!
Oh, and one more thing. Why is it "evil" and "wrong" for SCO to sue over Linux IP violations, but somehow you will be the Champion of Justice by doing exactly the same thing to Windows users???
Does this mean that chips and specs that are proprietary to a code base and then are made available to Linux coders are a violation of IP also? Don't forget the whole MS business foundation is based on what Compact did with tech code virgins, helped by Microsoft and IBM dirty people. If this is so then any pc can be considered to be illegally produced, and in reality IBM could sue the shit out of all of us. Is the concept of SMP patented. NO, is the idea of a digital word processor patented, I certainly hope not. Is the idea of a digital spread sheet patented NO because the inventors had the forsight to realise how important it was! Open source code is vital because great ideas will not get locked down, and those that are best will survive. The best coders and innovators will make money. Not like the situation now where any .NET code jockey can become protected from competition as long as they code for an MS based OS.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I have not anywhere seen a list of the other companies that might have made purchases or license agreements from SCO in the same time period as Microsoft made their deal.
Instead of presenting the issue in that fashion, the tactic has been to isolate Microsoft, make it sound like they've paid off SCO as their toady.
Does anybody have a reference to other firms that have 'made deals' with SCO in the time period since SCO opened their lawsuit against IBM?
Can people who are getting letters from the RIAA about fileswapping use their windows licenses to let MS handle the cost of the lawsuit? I mean, without the MS software they couldn't be running Kazaa right?