Japanese FTC Warns Microsoft

Sign here, no need to read it..... by erick99 · 2004-07-15 11:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

Under the provision, Japanese makers would be unable to sue Microsoft even if the software giant's technologies are deemed to violate their patents.

It does seem a bit unfair to have to agree not to sue Microsoft even if they later violate your patent(s). That seems like a "cake and eat it to" proposition.

Manufacturers have voiced concern that Microsoft could conceivably gain access to proprietary information about their cutting-edge products, and would be able to distribute their technology to competitors using the Windows operating system.

I don't know if M$ would actually do this or not, but the disputed clause in the contracts essentially gives M$ a free ride to do so. If this is as it seems, I have to wonder at the arrogance involved in telling someone that they need to agree to let me violate their patents with impunity. Somehow I think these folks are genuinely confused when someone says, "That's against the law...." or "You really can't do that..."

But he said Microsoft would drop the clause from all contracts signed from August onward. He said this decision was made following internal discussions over the past year.

Perhaps M$ agrees? Sometimes even the 900lb gorilla can catch on.

Cheers!

Erick

--
http://www.busyweather.com/

Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by XeRXeS-TCN · 2004-07-15 12:06 · Score: 5, Informative

"Manufacturers have voiced concern that Microsoft could conceivably gain access to proprietary information about their cutting-edge products, and would be able to distribute their technology to competitors using the Windows operating system."

I don't know if M$ would actually do this or not, but the disputed clause in the contracts essentially gives M$ a free ride to do so.

Is it so surprising that a company like Microsoft would steal technology? They generally license it when they can't get away with it, but if they could steal with no repercussions (as this agreement would technically allow) you can bet that they would steal technology to stay "competitive". They have gone for the most underhanded business tactics against many companies and organisations over the years, most notably the open source and free software movements; and don't forget they essentially stole the original concept for a "windows" system from Apple, so I wouldn't trust them further than I could comfortably spit out a rat.

Additionally, the FTC obviously considers those concerns legitimate, as the article says:

The FTC raided Microsoft's Japan headquarters in February as part of its investigations.

This isn't a *supposedly* "dubious" company like Sharman Networks (KaZaA) are accused of being, this is the so-called "untouchable" Microsoft, who sell nothing but legal product; so for any organisation to go so far as to raid their headquarters, the concern must be very believed and legitimate indeed.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by ZZeta · 2004-07-15 12:09 · Score: 5, Interesting

"If this is as it seems, I have to wonder at the arrogance involved in telling someone that they need to agree to let me violate their patents with impunity."
Sure Microsoft's attitude is arrogant. But that's only because they are allowed to.
I'm glad to see someone showing them how things really work (as usual, Japan). But lets not forget that the only reason they ask such benefits is because they're negotiating from a position of strength.

All I'm trying to say is, it isn't that much of a surprise that they are trying to take advantage of the benefits of having a monopoly. I wonder how many corporations would behave ethically when given such power.

In fact, the real surprise is seeing someone refusing to their terms and conditions. Way to go Japan.
Just my 2c.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by rewt66 · 2004-07-15 12:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

This could be really good. If enough people like Microsoft start realizing that patents are a weapon that can hurt them, we might start to see some patent reform.

Of course, it's going to get worse before it gets better, because right now everybody (Microsoft included) is patenting everything in sight. While Microsoft has given us plenty of reason to doubt their motives, one reason they are doing this is so that somebody else doesn't go ahead and patent an idea that Microsoft is using. This is a distraction from their real business, and it still leaves the possibility of being on the receiving end of a big extortion lawsuit.

When the pain gets bad enough, enough companies will demand patent reform to get it to happen. The only question is how bad the pain will get for the rest of us before the reform comes...
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by LS · 2004-07-15 12:24 · Score: 2, Funny

Sometimes even the 900lb gorilla can catch on.

Hey!! Leave gorillas alone! They are generally very nice creatures.

--
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by bladesjester · 2004-07-15 12:43 · Score: 4, Informative

While I agree that microsoft is rather underhanded in their buisness practices, the accusation of them stealing the windows concept from apple isn't true. Both apple and ms got the idea from xerox...

--
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by ROOK*CA · 2004-07-15 12:44 · Score: 1

Good points Erik .. .

One wonders if this all comes to pass, what Japanese company in there right mind would ever "open the kimono" relative to new product development to Microsoft (come to think of it, what company in their right mind ANYWHERE in the world would do this ?).

On the surface it sure looks like a government sanctioned license to steal to me. I mean it's not as if M$ hasn't been ripping off other companies ideas for years, but this is the first I've ever heard of a major economic powers government sanctioning it... sheesh, J.P. Morgan must be looking up from HELL green with envy.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by achurch · 2004-07-15 12:46 · Score: 5, Informative

But he said Microsoft would drop the clause from all contracts signed from August onward. He said this decision was made following internal discussions over the past year.

Perhaps M$ agrees? Sometimes even the 900lb gorilla can catch on.
Actually, the decision to drop the clause from August onward was made before the warning--the warning was issued because Microsoft refused to drop it before then (which is probably why the article calls it a "largely symbolic" move), and Microsoft is still contesting it.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 13:01 · Score: 5, Funny

Is it so surprising that a company like Microsoft would steal technology?

At least thay made their own OS instead of stealing it from SCO.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Antaeus+Feldspar · 2004-07-15 13:05 · Score: 4, Informative

Is it so surprising that a company like Microsoft would steal technology? They generally license it when they can't get away with it, but if they could steal with no repercussions (as this agreement would technically allow) you can bet that they would steal technology to stay "competitive".
They did.

--
If people are to respect the law, perhaps the law should begin by respecting the people.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 13:25 · Score: 0, Insightful

Oh please, Japan showing how things work? Japan who hasn't come up with an original idea since the Katana (the sword not the motorcycle)? They're great at improving what someone else has thought up though.
They're also great at placing absurd import restrictions, a Chevy in Japan costs as much as a house. If MS wants to screw Japan, more power to them.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by clandestine_nova · 2004-07-15 13:48 · Score: 1

so I wouldn't trust them further than I could comfortably spit out a rat.

As a sort of hypothetical question, if one were to have a rat in one's mouth, wouldn't one be inclined to spit it out as far as physically possible? I mean, I don't know about you, but I'm not one for letting the rodent down carefully - once it's out, it's staying out.

I do wonder what the public's reaction would be if it was obviously and without-a-doubt shown that Microsoft was stealing, blatantly. Like, wholesale your-product-is-now-my-product. What sort of effect would that have on their sales? Do people even care anymore?

--
Discworld.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Pierre · 2004-07-15 14:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

i would agree that apple got the ideas from xerox but would have to say that windows got 'their' ideas from apple.

i didn't see the xerox OS - did it have a trash can?
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by bladesjester · 2004-07-15 14:37 · Score: 1

They both spent a lot of time at Xerox PARC (which is where the ideas for things like that and the mouse were developed IIRC)

--
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 15:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is what MS OEM team referred to as 12.d which is the section of the OEM agreement or NAP - Non-Assertion of Patents. MS lawyers removed the offending section just a short time before the raid occured as they had a tip off. What the trade commission is trying to do now is make it retroactive. MS sold NAP to the OEMs by brute force under the direction of BillG by saying that if you (Mr/Ms OEM) want to pay a license this low (depending on your perspective it is low...) you must sign the agreement with this clause or we will double thelicense fee as we (MS) will have assume reserves for all the lawsuits. The OEM team would also threated not to license Windows to the OEM if they did not sign up for the clause. Think about this: If you are Dell, you love it as you have no IP. If you are HP, Sony, NEC, etc., you hate it as you live and die by your IP.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 15:09 · Score: 5, Informative

Concepts behind the GUI are older than Xerox. Look up Jef Raskin's 1969 paper on the Quick Draw Interface. Engelbart's mouse is similarly dated.

Xerox created a prototype from existing ideas. It was nowhere near as developed as the original Mac.

Apple licenced some concepts and hired developers like Raskin for others.

Microsoft, on the other hand, licenced nothing and had access to Apple source code when developing the original Word application.

Hmm...
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by NanoGator · 2004-07-15 15:37 · Score: 1

" If this is as it seems, I have to wonder at the arrogance involved in telling someone that they need to agree to let me violate their patents with impunity. Somehow I think these folks are genuinely confused when someone says, "That's against the law...." or "You really can't do that..."

Or it's as simple as "Do it our way, and we'll halve the price of our software that you sell your machines with. We both win." Somehow I doubt most of these cases involved a gun to a head or this would have been brought up ages ago.

--
"Derp de derp."
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by sbryant · 2004-07-15 18:55 · Score: 1

You may have been being sarcastic, but there are a number who believe that the rights to significant portions of Windows NT (and therefore 2K,XP) belong to HP - who bought Compaq, who bought DEC, where Dave Cutler and a number of others who architected NT had been working on VMS before they went off to MS.

-- Steve
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 20:31 · Score: 0

You can't "steal" a technological idea. Patent infringement is not stealing. The problem is that patents exist, allowing microsoft to make this kind of stipulation in the first place. If I were microsoft, I'd probably try to do the same. Microsoft seldom uses patents offensively.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Sj0 · 2004-07-16 01:28 · Score: 1

The Japanese have different standards concerning corporate raids. Microsoft, for example, is a foreign company(which makes them a bigger target than a japanese company thanks to japans almost childlike jingostism with regards to it's companies), and has been the target of raids in the past.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by forkboy · 2004-07-16 02:22 · Score: 1

Do it our way, and we'll halve the price of our software that you sell your machines with. We both win

More like "Do it our way or you don't get to sell PCs with Windows at all meaning no one buys your computers and you go out of business." That's the business equivalent of a gun to the head. Do X or you "die."

Hence the FTC stepping in.

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by poot_rootbeer · 2004-07-16 03:02 · Score: 1

Microsoft, on the other hand, licenced nothing and had access to Apple source code when developing the original Word application.

Yep, and Torvalds had licensed nothing and had access to SCO source code when developing the original Linux kernel.

Speculate much?
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-16 03:39 · Score: 0

They were fired and the VMS project was shut down. What more do you want?

Of course they went to Microsoft. They no longer had a job.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Daengbo · 2004-07-17 00:04 · Score: 1

It has happened severa times before, and MS lost the court cases on it, and noone cared. Oh well..

--
Put identity in the browser.
Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by Crispin+Cowan · 2004-07-23 19:26 · Score: 1

Yes, Xerox had the trash can in 1975.
Crispin

that's unfair by dmf415 · 2004-07-15 11:55 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Lets drop microsoft and their unfair licensing agreements... At my campus, microsoft product or no longer free to students, staff and faculty under the new licensing agreement.
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

NEVER would they do that! by unclethursday · 2004-07-15 11:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Microsoft would NEVER knowingly or uknowingly violate anyone's patents. They are the most legal company in the world, and their sheer POPULARITY shows it.

They OBVIOUSLY make all the best software on the planet based on merit alone.

Which, of course, is why I am on a Macintosh... ;-P

Re:NEVER would they do that! by John+Courtland · 2004-07-15 12:55 · Score: 1

This looks like one of the UNIX fortunes where the output is a bunch of crazy shit in capitals adlibed into a sentence. Obviously this is what happened here, because certainly no one could really say these things... :p

--
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Re:NEVER would they do that! by Santarelli · 2004-07-15 13:02 · Score: 3, Informative

This is a good point: from the point of view of a single consumer, there are few options in taking on a giant corporation. There's legal process (we saw how well that works against MS and who can afford it anyway), legislation, (see parenthetical sarcasm above) or, a much simpler solution: do not buy their product. Nothing changes a company's policy more effectively than having their bottom line hit. Unfortunately, this can only be achieved through solidarity. MS, among other giga-corporations, pays big money to advertisers who in turn pay psychologists and other analysts to experiment on how to better make you buy their products. Power to the people! only works when the people are responsible enough to take the power. One of the more powerful tools the people have is the boycott; barring that (it can have catastrophic ripples in the economy), create or join a co-op which will only buy products based on certain criteria for a group of member consumers. ...and for today's paradox: If you are paranoid enough to believe the government wants to read all email, vote Republican.
Re:NEVER would they do that! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 18:09 · Score: 0

Well, a slashbot karma-whore could ;)

Re:all well and good, by Blaskowicz · 2004-07-15 11:57 · Score: 1, Funny

When a man both non-democrat and non-republican gets elected? (after WMDs are found and hell freezes over)

Re:well.. by jawtheshark · 2004-07-15 11:58 · Score: 1

And that is a problem, how? ;-)

--
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)

Re:well.. by deflin39 · 2004-07-15 12:00 · Score: 0, Offtopic

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

I thought it was "So long and thanks for all the shoe's :) (j/j)

ahha! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:00 · Score: 0, Funny

so the government *is* actually regulating microsoft...IN JAPAN

Re:ahha! by suffe · 2004-07-15 22:37 · Score: 1

"In Soviet Japan the government regulates You."

Hmm, no, wait. That didnt make any sence, on any level.

--

Karma: 2.71828182846 (Mostly due to small, fun pills)

In related news ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:00 · Score: 5, Funny

In related news, Microsoft was found to be violating several Japenese patents on "Bukake."

Re:In related news ... by MidnightBrewer · 2004-07-15 13:55 · Score: 1

"Pouring?"

--
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Re:In related news ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 14:07 · Score: 0

Don't watch much porn, do you?
Re:In related news ... by commodoresloat · 2004-07-15 16:05 · Score: 3, Funny

... because XP license activation makes you feel used, dirty, and degraded, and your vision gets blurry.
Re:In related news ... by torokun · 2004-07-15 17:36 · Score: 1

That would be bukkake... ^^ BTW, this isn't actually funny.
Re:In related news ... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-17 03:05 · Score: 0

In related news, Microsoft was found to be violating several Japenese patents on "Bukake."

It's "bukkake" you imbecile! And yes, they are violating (no pun intended), but trademarks, not patents, with the next version of Microsoft Office, codename "Gokkun." Some say, however, that it is a childish softcore. I mean, software.

Logic. by Ms.XingTianCai · 2004-07-15 12:01 · Score: 1

Boy, sometimes it's as if logic just escapes them.

--
As a computer, I am amused by the faith you have in technology.

Re:Logic. by Anonymous+Writer · 2004-07-15 13:02 · Score: 1

Boy, sometimes it's as if logic just escapes them.

Which is clearly evident in their programming logic.

Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:03 · Score: 5, Funny

Microsoft gets spanked for restrictive licensing... IN JAPAN!

Re:Obligatory... by ndogg · 2004-07-15 12:32 · Score: 1

Cool! So that means that will happen here in something like twenty or so years!

--
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Re:Obligatory... by Neo-Rio-101 · 2004-07-15 12:46 · Score: 1

Where the hell did this cliche originate?

--
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
Re:Obligatory... by shigelojoe · 2004-07-15 12:50 · Score: 5, Informative

...in Japan!

Er, I mean... here.
Re:Obligatory... by rd4tech · 2004-07-15 13:17 · Score: 1

"We will urge the FTC to reconsider its position during a hearing or by
other means,"

Everything is possible by 'other means', in Japan.
Re:Obligatory... by Bloodlent · 2004-07-15 13:53 · Score: 1

Argh, you beat me to it :/ ... ...In Japan.
Re:Obligatory... by MidnightBrewer · 2004-07-15 13:58 · Score: 1

Actually, I invented it. Can't believe it wound up on /., but that's six degrees of separation for you.

When I originally decided to move here, my family was somewhat understandably surprised. "Er...but why Japan?" "What, besides the fact that it's cool?"

Sure, I wake up in the morning and brush my teeth just before going to work. Ugh, same as always. But then I remember, "Hey, I'm brushing my teeth...IN JAPAN!" and then I feel much more cheerful.

--
"Give a man fire, and he'll be warm for a day; set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life
Re:Obligatory... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 14:49 · Score: 0

It came from adding "...in bed" to the end of fortune cookies. And by the way, I got the wierdest fortune... it said "You are pretty." Sooo... I guess what it meant was "You are pretty...in bed".

The only time I've heard this is at UCB.
Re:Obligatory... by NanoGator · 2004-07-15 15:40 · Score: 1

"Microsoft gets spanked for restrictive licensing... IN JAPAN!"

Oh boy. I can't wait for two years from now.

--
"Derp de derp."

Oh well... by Kujah · 2004-07-15 12:03 · Score: 0, Redundant

... now Microsoft will just have to buy out the pre-existing patent holders, just like in the old days

Re:Oh well... by techno-vampire · 2004-07-15 12:15 · Score: 1

Yeah, but at least the patent owners will get something for it. I just hope they don't make the mistake one company did: they signed an agreement allowing M$ to use their technology in IE with a royalty for every copy sold, then NanoLimp bundled it with Winderz and paid nothing.

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting

This a joke right? by utdpenguin · 2004-07-15 12:04 · Score: 0, Redundant

The FTC warns micrrosoft . . . . IN JAPAN

Or does life now imitate slashdot?

--
In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes

Re:This a joke right? by techno-vampire · 2004-07-15 12:20 · Score: 2, Funny

In Soviet Russia you dant have to put up with these crappy jokes.
In Soviet Russia crappy jokes have to put up with you!

--
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Re:This a joke right? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:21 · Score: 0

Hm, I must be new here. I don't remember the origins of this joke nor do I get the actual joke... :/

Anyone with clue to spare? Ok, I know 'tis baad karma, a sign of the downfall of civil society, chaos, cats and dogs living together, et al., to "explain the joke" ...but please do so anyway.
Re:This a joke right? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:39 · Score: 0

This joke was invented in some thread yesterday (I don't quite remember which one, but I believe it was the one about putting bracelets on kids), but it went something like this: Things happen in Japan 20 years before they happen in the rest of the world. Say something crazy, and put ...IN JAPAN after it and it sounds better. Kids have RFID tags on bracelets ...IN Japan Atleast that was somewhat how it got invented.
Re:This a joke right? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:40 · Score: 0

This joke seems new from just a few days ago.

Anything way too futuristic or incredible sounds plausible if it's in Japan.

Pretty stupid, ain't it.
Re:This a joke right? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:54 · Score: 0

Hmmm. I've already been modded down as a troll for pointing out that the Japanese language does not have the letters F, T or C. So I am posting this one as an anonymous coward. But the fact is, any translator who would use the "FTC" abbreviation for a Japanese trade commission is doing a stinking bad job.
Re:This a joke right? by Ari_Haviv · 2004-07-15 22:29 · Score: 1

crappy jokes are non-existent...in JAPAN! see I can do this too

--
Join Team Mozilla #38050 Folding@home

That's like Detroit having a license like by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

Use of this vehicle for transportation releases General Motors and its subsidiaries from all liability, including but not limited to, fraud, design or manufacturing flaw, and malice.

It's a nice trick if you can get away with it.

Re:That's like Detroit having a license like by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 13:28 · Score: 0

Right it's just like that. Except for the part about cars killing tens of thousands of people every year. How many have died because of Windows? 0?

Ballmer got his wish by chris_mahan · 2004-07-15 12:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Ballmer: "Xbox can beat up Sony."

Japanese Government:
"You round eye henna gaijin who dances badly, all your base are belong to us. Prepare to die."

--

"Piter, too, is dead."

Re:Ballmer got his wish by LostCluster · 2004-07-15 12:41 · Score: 1

Does Sony sell PCs in Japan like they do here? If so, and Sony agreed to such a contract, then Sony would effectively be licensing all of their patents to Microsoft for free. Even if that resulted in an XBox that couldn't be sold stateside... Microsoft could use that leverage to dominate the Japanese market and rob Sony that important testbed, causing Sony to release costly and embarassing flops in the USA....
Re:Ballmer got his wish by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 13:17 · Score: 0

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Sony sells millions of PCs in Japan and has no such deal.
Re:Ballmer got his wish by chris_mahan · 2004-07-15 13:55 · Score: 1

Ever heard of the Sony Vaio line? ...in USA!

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:Ballmer got his wish by chris_mahan · 2004-07-15 14:07 · Score: 1

I had a brain fart when I read all this.

Does Sony Sell PCs in Japan? Anyone?

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:Ballmer got his wish by smaug195 · 2004-07-15 15:18 · Score: 1

Definitely, there's been lots of slashdot posts about cool laptops and PC's by son only available in Japan.
Re:Ballmer got his wish by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 22:50 · Score: 0

are you retarded or something? of course SONY has the VAIO line in JAPAN. Go to Sony.co.jp. Better stuff than they sell in the US actually.
Re:Ballmer got his wish by poot_rootbeer · 2004-07-16 03:10 · Score: 1

Japanese Government:
"You round eye henna gaijin who dances badly, all your base are belong to us. Prepare to die."

Ahahaha, subtle racism, the best way to get modded +5 Funny. I'm laffin' a lot.

Is this legal anyway? by D-Cypell · 2004-07-15 12:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

It seems to me that a patent is a piece of property owned by a legal entity. Does the ownership of a patent differ from, say, the ownership of a car.

If there is not legal difference between what is essentially two pieces of property, would it be legal for me to draw up a contract with a client that expressly forbid them from filing a case against me if i decide to steal their car?

I do appreciate that this would be a criminal matter, but presumably a civil case could be brought also (lose of earnings for time without transportation perhaps).

Would a contract that legitimizes theft be considered valid if legally tested?

Re:Is this legal anyway? by Trogre · 2004-07-15 12:18 · Score: 4, Funny

Suddenly I picture a hooded Steve Ballmer in his grotto:

"I will make it legal"

--
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Re:Is this legal anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:18 · Score: 0

The legal system recognises the obvious differences between copyright, trademarks, patents, trade secrets and property. Patent law and property law have very little in common.

You can't attach unfair or illegal conditions or penalty clauses to contracts. IANAL, but I do run a business.
Re:Is this legal anyway? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:26 · Score: 0

How about if you sign a contract that lets me drive your car whenever I feel like it and there's nothing you can do about it. Sounds like a sucker's contract right? Well, I guess that just shows the lengths PC manufacturers will go to to get Microsoft to stop stepping on their windpipes.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the alternative to signing this contract was a crushed windpipe.
Re:Is this legal anyway? by Toby_Tyke · 2004-07-15 12:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

If there is not legal difference between what is essentially two pieces of property, would it be legal for me to draw up a contract with a client that expressly forbid them from filing a case against me if i decide to steal their car?

No, not really. At least, not in the UK (I know sod all about US law). On this side of the pond, you cannot sign away statutory rights. What this means is that if something is illegal e.g: assault, it is still a crime even if you consent to it. Or, to put it another way, it is impossible to consent to having a crime being committed against you.

There was quite a famous case involving a group of gay guys who were into BDSM. They made videos of themselves nailing one anothers foreskins to a coffee table (I'm not making this up!). The tape fell into the hands of the police, who arrested them and charged them with assault. Even_though_they_had_consented.

Although, if you wanted to contractually allow me to take your car, why not just sell me it for $2?

--
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
Re:Is this legal anyway? by GlassHeart · 2004-07-15 13:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

If there is not legal difference between what is essentially two pieces of property, would it be legal for me to draw up a contract with a client that expressly forbid them from filing a case against me if i decide to steal their car?
When you rent a car at the airport, you sign some papers, and they tell you where the car is. The key is usually in the car. Without that agreement on paper, you'd be stealing their car. Presumably, for a suitable sum of money, you can persuade the agent to let you use a car whenever you like.
The difference in this case is that one of the parties cannot plausibly refuse to make a deal. For example, if you put a gun to the rental agent's head, then he'd sign any paper you want. Similarly, not shipping Windows is simply not an option for these Japanese companies, who are being bullied into signing away their intellectual properties. It's not a legal contract not because of the "car", but because of the uneven negotiating positions.
Re:Is this legal anyway? by ichandarin · 2004-07-15 14:07 · Score: 1

IANAL, but I do know that according to US law (I know nothing about Japanese or European laws) that -- regardless of antitrust law, which this also involves -- a judge may rule a contract invalid. This occurs most often (but not necessarily) when the contract stipulates something illegal. In this case, that something might involve patent law. Plus of course antitrust law.
Or something like that (uh oh gotta be ready for flurry of angry responses correcting me...)

I hope that made sense and wasn't oo difficult. But at least IANAL -- if I were, I would probably right something even more confusing!

--
Denn wir sind wie Baumstaemme im Schnee. Scheinbar liegen sei glatt auf, mit kleinem anstoss sollte man sie wegschieben
Re:Is this legal anyway? by geoffspear · 2004-07-15 15:08 · Score: 1

So in the UK it's illegal to let your friend borrow anything of yours, because that's larceny?

--
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Re:Is this legal anyway? by torokun · 2004-07-15 17:33 · Score: 2, Informative

(I'm not a lawyer, just a law student. This is not legal advice. Don't rely on it as such.)

First, you're right that you can't contract out of criminal law.

Second, you can contract out of civil law, most of the time. The issue here is that it's not 'theft' if two parties agree to something. The only issue is whether the contract itself is valid...

FYI, legal settlements are basically contracts wherein the plaintiff promises not to sue over a civil offense, in return for stuff...

In the case of property though, we have the concept of title, so a contractual promise not to sue over use of property is not the same thing as granting title to the property. You can still do it though, imho... ;)

With patents, I believe license agreements run with the patent, so sale of a patent to a 3rd party binds the 3rd party to any previously existing promises not to sue...
Re:Is this legal anyway? by 1u3hr · 2004-07-15 20:25 · Score: 1

There was quite a famous case involving a group of gay guys who were into BDSM. They made videos of themselves nailing one anothers foreskins to a coffee table (I'm not making this up!). The tape fell into the hands of the police, who arrested them and charged them with assault. Even_though_they_had_consented.

That was the defence used by the German cannibal who escaped a murder conviction, so it worked to an extent.

German cannibal sentenced to 8 years in prison,
30 Jan 2004 13:32:37

KASSEL, GERMANY - A 42-year-old German man who confessed to killing, dismembering and eating another man who he said agreed to the grisly act was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison. A German court convicted Armin Meiwes of manslaughter on Friday, ruling he had no "base motives" in the crime and sparing him a murder conviction.

The prosecution, who had been looking for a murder conviction and a life sentence, said they would appeal the verdict.Prosecutors had argued that Meiwes, who met his victim over the internet, was satisfying a sexual impulse. They said he filmed himself dismembering the victim before he ate him so he could "admire himself as a human butcher."

But Meiwes' lawyer argued that the slaying was a "homicide on demand." He said it was a form of mercy killing - because the victim gave his consent to be killed and eaten.

In his trial, Meiwes confessed in detail to the March 2001 killing of 43-year-old Bernd Juergen Brandes at his home in the nearby town of Rotenburg.
Re:Is this legal anyway? by Toby_Tyke · 2004-07-15 21:35 · Score: 1

So in the UK it's illegal to let your friend borrow anything of yours, because that's larceny?~

No, because theft requires that the object stolen be taken without owners consent. Thats why theft is a very bad example of this point. Many crimes are only crimes if no consent is given. Others are crimes irrespective of consent.

For example, the statute on rape defines it as sexual intercourse without consent. The statute on assault makes no mention of consent, which is why you can't consent to an assault.

--
"I realise this is not a very popular opinion but it's the truth, and there for needs to be said" -Bill Hicks
Re:Is this legal anyway? by daniel_yokomiso · 2004-07-16 00:36 · Score: 1

My picture is different:

Lawyers, Lawyers, Lawyers, Lawyers, Lawyers!

--
Disclaimer: If I disagree with you I'm probably trolling...
Re:Is this legal anyway? by forkboy · 2004-07-16 02:14 · Score: 1

So why can I consent to letting you take my car but I can't consent to letting you nail my cock to a board? Is English law really this ambiguous or do you just not understand it very well?

--
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.

Another meaningless response from Microsoft by whoever57 · 2004-07-15 12:08 · Score: 4, Insightful

But he said Microsoft would drop the clause from all contracts signed from August onward. He said this decision was made following internal discussions over the past year.
Current contracts remain valid for Windows XP and earlier Windows versions.

So the vast majority of Japanes companies will still be shackled by MS's contracts -- contracts with a company that has a track record of violating patents!

--
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!

Re:Another meaningless response from Microsoft by AgntOrnge · 2004-07-15 12:39 · Score: 1

RTFA it was only a contract signed by PC manufactures. I would not call them the majority of Japanese companies. They also lump electronic device manufactures into this group in the article so saying they had no other choice does not work either. There are plenty of Linux and propriety based devices.
Re:Another meaningless response from Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 13:10 · Score: 0

Everyone with such a contract should switch to Linux - PRONTO. Then MS will lose both the imunity and the customers. It's stupid to put your future in the hands of sleepy government bureaucracy. Wake up, Japanese businessmen.
Re:Another meaningless response from Microsoft by GlassHeart · 2004-07-15 13:50 · Score: 1

[They] will still be shackled by MS's contracts -- contracts with a company that has a track record of violating patents!
True, but if Longhorn contains any patent violations left over from XP, it'll be fair game. It's not the best outcome, but Microsoft should be concerned.
Re:Another meaningless response from Microsoft by Lochin+Rabbar · 2004-07-15 14:23 · Score: 1

Current contracts remain valid for Windows XP and earlier Windows versions.
It's spin, the contracts remain valid except for the clause in question, if Japanese Law is like most places. So instead of saying the clause no longer applies they say the contracts are valid. All part of Microsoft's Trustworthy PR initiative.

This is silly by superpulpsicle · 2004-07-15 12:10 · Score: 3, Funny

Haven't Japan learned that M$ is invincible everywhere even in the U.S. If our very own DOJ couldn't put up a dent, what makes you think Japan would be any different.

Re:This is silly by foidulus · 2004-07-15 12:16 · Score: 1

Haven't Japan learned that M$ is invincible everywhere even in the U.S. If our very own DOJ couldn't put up a dent, what makes you think Japan would be any different.
Japan will rabidly defend any Japanese company from a foriegn company if they find that foriegn firm is a threat. It's happened before, it will happen again. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but Japan looks out for #1 first.
Re:This is silly by Morgahastu · 2004-07-15 12:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe because Microsoft doesn't have a hand in the japanese government and economy?

The US will rarely strike its own down if it will affect its economy or the pocket of politicians.
Re:This is silly by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:22 · Score: 0

If Microsoft ignores the Japanese FTC and retains the unfair provision, it would only make Linux and BSD *even* more attractive to Japanese hardware developers (if they find the OSS licenses more advantageous than the MS license).

If our very own DOJ couldn't put up a dent, what makes you think Japan would be any different.

If Microsoft could release a dirt cheap version of Windows XP for Thailand, why can't it make a license change for Japan?
Re:This is silly by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 13:32 · Score: 0

Unlike the US government which bends over backwards to help other countries before it's own.
Re:This is silly by Atsi+Otani · 2004-07-15 15:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Yeah, I think this looks like the Japanese FTC is fighting to protect Japanese comapanies.

The newspaper I read (the Asahi) reported something like "the FTC decided to act because some computer makers with strong audio/visual technology complained about the contract clause"
Hmm.. a computer maker with "strong audio/visual technology" that wants to fight Microsoft = Sony?

The Japanese FTC's nickname happens to be "the watchdog that never barks," because it rarely does anything. I think Sony (or some other Japanese company) applied strong pressure upon the FTC.

The legal system in Japan is unbelievably slow, so I really don't expect anything to come out of this move, though.
Re:This is silly by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 16:35 · Score: 0

Beause they have bigger balls than Kollar-Kotely or the DoJ eunuches.

'scuse me but... by aka-ed · 2004-07-15 12:10 · Score: 0, Troll

How can this article keep referring to this organization as "the FTC" when none of these three letters exist in the Japanese alphabet?

--
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07

Re:'scuse me but... by chris_mahan · 2004-07-15 12:15 · Score: 3, Informative

> Japanese alphabet

Japanese alphabet?

alpha, beta...

There's no Japanese alphabet, there are character sets.

Three of them: Kanji, Hiragana, Katakana

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:'scuse me but... by offpath3 · 2004-07-15 12:23 · Score: 3, Informative

I believe the technical term for Hiragana and Katakana would be "syllabary".
Re:'scuse me but... by aka-ed · 2004-07-15 12:37 · Score: 1

yeah, I hit the stop button just as that post was going through. Too late. I then spent the next 5 minutes thinkin' up a snappy retort:
Sez you!

--
I survived the Dick Cheney Presidency 7 to 9 AM 7-21-07
Re:'scuse me but... by chris_mahan · 2004-07-15 12:53 · Score: 1

That's probably right.

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:'scuse me but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 13:03 · Score: 0

Wadabout Romanji?
Re:'scuse me but... by chris_mahan · 2004-07-15 13:48 · Score: 2, Informative

>Have you considered fucking off to slashdot.jp? Just a thought.

I'll have more of the fourth word than you in my lifetime. How does that make you feel, troll?

To the others:
Indeed, Romaji is an official character set in Japanese. Also, Hiragana, Katakana, and Kanji _are_ syllabaries.

--
"Piter, too, is dead."
Re:'scuse me but... by Bloodlent · 2004-07-15 14:01 · Score: 1

Holy shit, there's a slashdot.jp?! Is it a happy gizmo electronic super happy bonanza version of /.?!
Re:'scuse me but... by xenoandroid · 2004-07-15 14:17 · Score: 2, Informative

The modern japanese 'alphabet' includes roman characters. Officially there are three character sets: hiragana, katakana, kanji. sound based characters for official japanese words, sound based characters for foreign words, chinese characters respectively. However if you go to any Japanese site you're likely to see roman characters somewhere, often used for modern terminology, titles of some things, and many times company or organizational names, ex. FTC.
Re:'scuse me but... by Roydd+McWilson · 2004-07-15 17:33 · Score: 1

> > Have you considered fucking off to slashdot.jp? > > Just a thought. > > I'll have more of the fourth word than you in my > lifetime. How does that make you feel, troll? Tell me, how do you like working as a man-ho?

--
THE NERD IS THE COMPUTER.
Re:'scuse me but... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 22:10 · Score: 1, Informative

Not quite. Kanji are logographs, not a syllabery (indeed, a word written with one kanji can have multiple syllables).

Is it just me... by 1337+Twinkie · 2004-07-15 12:12 · Score: 1

or does this seem like sometihing that would hurt Japanese companies? I would've expected the Japanese FTC's job would be to protoect the companies in their nation.

Re:Is it just me... by Slashcrunch · 2004-07-15 13:40 · Score: 1

Did you actually RTA?

How is getting MS to remove that clause from the contract hurting Japanese companies??

I would Troll you, but I have no mod points at the moment...
Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 14:00 · Score: 0

Yeah, protect them by allowing Microsoft to screw them over, legally.

I mean, WTF?

I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2004-07-15 12:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

The Japanese Fair Trade Commission has ordered Microsoft to cut a restrictive contract clause, designed to protect the software giant from patent-related lawsuits by PC manufacturers that sell products using Microsoft's Window operating systems. Under such provision, Japanese makers would be unable to sue Microsoft even if the software giant's technologies are deemed to violate their patents.

Assuming that's a fair characterization of the contract provisions, I'd have to side with Microsoft on this one. (Egad! End of the World!)

Consider this scenario:

- Some random branch of Sony (or some other japanese conglomerate) gets a JP patent on some random software/hardware thingie.
- Sony builds it into their laptops and wants Microsoft to support it.
- Microsoft supports it, and includes it in their mainline product (even if it doesn't work on non-Sony platforms). Now every copy of their software shipped on a non-Sony platform is infringing.
- Some Sony competitor clones the hardware. Suddenly the patented-in-japan feature starts running on THEIR platform.
- Sony sues Microsoft. And wins. And collects big bucks for ALL the copies of the software that went out (which WERE infringing...).

So Microsoft gets beaten up for being a good guy and supporting Sony's gimmick.

Of course Microsoft wants to head off this scenario. So they write this clause into their contract. Sony (and every other HW vendor) now has a choice: Let MS use their patents, or don't have MS support of their platform.

What's "unfair" about that? How much is it worth to Sony to have Microsoft support their products? This is the set of terms under which Microsoft is willing to do it. They can take it, leave it, or negotiate a clarifying modification.

IMHO even their defacto monopoly power isn't being misused in this case.

(Besides: If Sony {or whomever} doesn't like it, they can always drop Microsoft and ship Linux, BSD, or what-have-you. B-) )

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way

Now we're talking by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:24 · Score: 0

It's about time the powers that be pointed this out.

Depends on the lawyerspeak... by Kjella · 2004-07-15 12:29 · Score: 2, Informative

...because patents are IP, it can exist at multiple locations at once. It would be possible for Microsoft to licence all their patents through a contract, so I would assume anything less than that can also be put into a contract.

To follow up on your analogy, you could not sign away their right to sue. But they could sign a contract that would allow you to take possession of their car, e.g. as security for a loan.

Now to take that to an extreme, let us say their contract allow you to take possession of it any time you want, by any means, no notice, permanently etc. Essentially, a licence to steal. And they can't sue you for stealing it, since you're allowed to by the contract.

In short, there's a lot of wierd stuff you can do with contracts. Ask a contract lawyer, not slashdot, what is legally possible and not possible.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

Re:Depends on the lawyerspeak... by polveroj · 2004-07-15 13:06 · Score: 2, Informative

To follow up on your analogy, you could not sign away their right to sue.

AFAIK, you can sign away your right to pursue a civil case, but you can't prevent a criminal case from being brought up. If you sign a contract saying you won't sue someone for anything they say about you, you can't later demand compensation for a damaged reputation. However, a contract allowing someone to stab you doesn't prevent them from being thrown in jail for it if the police catch them.

I think your other points are all right; I was just pointing out that there are really two cases. (Well, sort of three: you can allow someone by contract to do something otherwise illegal if you can legally transfer to them your right to do it. Since you can give away patents/cars, you can allow people to "steal" them, but stabbing yourself is a non-transferable right [if it's a right at all].)

sooo.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:31 · Score: 0

Microsoft is patenting upwards of 10 items PER DAY, and will undoubtably sue into nonexistence anyone who violates their patents, but wants a free hand to use anybody elses? The unmitigated gall...the sooner M$ dies, the better...I don't think I can wait another 10 or 20 years...I need to write a GOOD virus that replaces any windows machine it finds with an open source OS...:-) Problem solved. :-)

If I'm not mistaken, by Clockwurk · 2004-07-15 12:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Apache liscense has a similar clause (mostly to protect against SCO-like suits). It will be interesting to see if they are asked to revise their liscense as well.

Re:If I'm not mistaken, by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 21:55 · Score: 0

Does the Apache foundation have a monopolistic position ?

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:35 · Score: 0

How is this different from every other developer? Sony has deep pockets and MS is a convicted monopolist?

It's wrong and immoral, start to finish.

Japanese remake? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:37 · Score: 0

Sounds like the japanese version of Quentins's movie: Kill Bill

Apache License by femto · 2004-07-15 12:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

So what does this mean for the patent clauses of the Apache License?

Is Apache okay because they don't actually say 'you can't take us to court'? Rather they say 'taking action terminates this license'. Consequently the patent holder is free to take action, as long as they wear the consequences of their Apache license being cancelled?

Re:Apache License by polveroj · 2004-07-15 13:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Is Apache okay because they don't actually say 'you can't take us to court'? Rather they say 'taking action terminates this license'. Consequently the patent holder is free to take action, as long as they wear the consequences of their Apache license being cancelled?

The Apache license is very different. It says that any contributors who add patented material implicitly give all Apache users the right to use the specific patents that they added. If you later sue Apache for using the patented material that you contributed, you have to give up the right to use Apache (and the patents granted by that use).

The MS contract, on the other hand, basically says "We can take all your patents and you can't sue us about it. Ever."

Does the clause exist in the US by GillBates0 · 2004-07-15 12:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

contracts that Microsoft has with the PC manufacturers here? Or has it been conveniently overlooked by bought out politicians/FTC? I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.

--
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam

craziness by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:41 · Score: 5, Insightful

I wonder why existing contracts are still valid if the government says it's illegal and wants the clause taken out? Seems to me their FTC should be able to say "take out the clause or we will rule it invalid". That would signal the other companies (and MS) that their patents would be enforceable regardless of the contract. When it got to court, the contract clause would be a useless defense because the court would invalidate it.

And it's right to do so. The only way any company agrees to terms like this is when their arm is being twisted. Wanna sell PC's? Agree to our outrageous terms or sell them without Windows. Sadly, the market for non-win PC's just isn't big enough for Sony, et al (yet).

History shows that a company needs to be VERY careful doing any kind of business with MS. These companies need this protection.

Re:craziness by achurch · 2004-07-15 14:12 · Score: 1

I wonder why existing contracts are still valid if the government says it's illegal and wants the clause taken out?
The FTC has to issue a warning and give the company a chance to correct its behavior before it can start issuing orders--see my post here.

mod parent up, pls by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 12:43 · Score: 0

The force is strong in this one.

Thanks for your clear point, UL. It'd be nice to read the actual clause in light of that.

this reminds me of Sendo by Technomancer · 2004-07-15 12:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6905
http://w ww.theinquirer.net/?article=7015
and so on

They have the Internet on COMPUTERS now??? by BoneThugND · 2004-07-15 12:52 · Score: 0, Troll

Microwho?

Japanese Windows OEM by Neo-Rio-101 · 2004-07-15 12:53 · Score: 2, Informative

I have a copy of Windows XP Professional OEM version running on my PC. It set me back a whole 28,000 yen (Roughly US$280) Please somebody, tell me that what the Japanese pay for Windows is not ridiculously overpriced. The full boxed version of XP over here actually verges on US$400... so the OEM version looks cheap in comparison. MS must think that XP is worth the price of a CPU or top-of-the-line motherboard.

--
READY.
PRINT ""+-0

Re:Japanese Windows OEM by qucmd · 2004-07-15 14:04 · Score: 1

Yes, I can (but won't :-) buy the same around 175 Euros (or $210)
Re:Japanese Windows OEM by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 15:00 · Score: 0

if you go to southeast asia, you will soon find a stripped down version of Windows for a much cheaper price. I don't think MS will ever release a similar version in Japan. if you now pay 28000 yen for a copy of Windoze, the price will stay in that range.
the pricing of windows is "flexible" in order to maximize profit of Redmond. MS wants to suck as much money as possible from you. even if you live in a country which population's average income is $5 a month, MS still want you to spend portion of your hard-earned money for Windows.
that's probably why the Japanese government and the Korean and Chinese joined together to develop a new OS based on Linux. if they ever want to say "no," now is the time to do so.
Re:Japanese Windows OEM by vrai · 2004-07-15 21:55 · Score: 1

Wierd - I just got the OEM version of XP Pro for 90GBP (170USD, 135EUR). Admittedly I bought a new harddrive at the same time, thus qualifying for the OEM package, but normally the UK is far more expensive than just about anywhere.
Re:Japanese Windows OEM by CaptKilljoy · 2004-07-16 11:05 · Score: 1

I have a copy of Windows XP Professional OEM version running on my PC. It set me back a whole 28,000 yen (Roughly US$280) Please somebody, tell me that what the Japanese pay for Windows is not ridiculously overpriced. The full boxed version of XP over here actually verges on US$400... so the OEM version looks cheap in comparison. MS must think that XP is worth the price of a CPU or top-of-the-line motherboard.

Newsflash, nearly everything in Japan is overpriced compared to US prices. For example, MSRP there for Sims 2 will be 8379 yen (~$83) versus $50 in the US.

(It's pathetic that someone actually modded the parent as informative.)

"Warns"? by CAIMLAS · 2004-07-15 12:54 · Score: 1

How exactly is this a warning for MS? Sounds more like a "do whatever the fuck you want, we won't hold anyone responsible" message, to me.

--
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers

What's unfair about this is . . . by achurch · 2004-07-15 13:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Sony (and every other HW vendor) now has a choice: Let MS use their patents, or don't have MS support of their platform.

What's "unfair" about that?

As has been pointed out many times before, Microsoft has a (virtual) monopoly on operating systems. If Microsoft were the little guy, this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but they're not; shipping computers without Windows is tantamount to corporate suicide. This gives Microsoft immense leverage in contracts.

Now, keep in mind this is happening in Japan. Japan's anti-monopoly law has a clause forbidding "yuuetsu-teki chii ranyou", literally "abuse of overpowering status": in other words, if one of the parties to a contract or agreement has significantly more power or authority than the other(s), then that party is not allowed to dictate terms freely--they have to limit themselves to what they could reasonably expect to get agreement on without such power. This clause is applied not infrequently(*); in this case, the FTC decided that OEMs would not have agreed to the no-sue clause if they had not been in the position of having to accept whatever terms Microsoft gave them, and so it declared the clause "unfair" and issued the warning.

(*)For example, the yuuetsu-teki chii ranyou clause was recently used to prevent retail stores from forcing distributors to cut wholesale prices in response to a new law requiring sales tax to be included in display prices.

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by Secret+Agent+X23 · 2004-07-15 13:05 · Score: 1

- Some random branch of Sony (or some other japanese conglomerate) gets a JP patent on some random software/hardware thingie.
- Sony builds it into their laptops and wants Microsoft to support it.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it wouldn't be a patent violation if Sony asks Microsoft to support the thingie, would it?

Your logic is severly flawed. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 13:05 · Score: 0

Microsoft can never be "the good guy"

Formal Apology by chrae · 2004-07-15 13:08 · Score: 4, Funny

Dear Japan,

We apologize for Microsoft. You kneel behind and we'll push them over.

Sincecerly,
The United States.

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by polveroj · 2004-07-15 13:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

Then Microsoft should ask for licenses to the specific patents that Sony wants it to use in Windows. That way, Microsoft doesn't get to steal Sony's patent on a "system and method for inducing the destruction of a city by means of a giant robot" or any other patents totally irrelevant to supporting Sony's hardware.

And it is certainly an abuse of Microsoft's monopoly to demand the use of hardware companies' entire patent portfolios. Choosing to drop Microsoft is committing financial seppuku right now, although in a few years it might not be as big a deal. Microsoft would never be able to get away with a contract like that if manufacturers had an alternative other than bankruptcy.

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by mesterha · 2004-07-15 13:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

There is an obvious way out of your scenario. Microsoft only supports the feature if they are given a license to the particular patent for use in the Windows OS. Of course, even this is probably unnecessary since hopefully the patent is on the hardware and not on some unwritten OS software that communicates with the hardware. (Otherwise, Linux is in a heap of trouble.)

A much more problematic scenario is that Microsoft uses the contract to include patented features in it's hardware products, such as the XBox. Essentially all the Japanese computer makers have to give up their patent rights in order to install Windows, an obvious abuse of the desktop monopoly. Hopefully the forced contract wasn't this broad.

--

Chris Mesterharm

What's worse.... by Slur · 2004-07-15 13:53 · Score: 4, Funny

Microsoft insists there is a sanity clause while the Japanese assert that no sanity clause exists.

--
-- thinkyhead software and media

Re:What's worse.... by Engineer+Andy · 2004-07-15 19:04 · Score: 1

There is a sanity clause - he's the guy who brings me presents and fills my stockings every christmas

--
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" 1 John 4:14

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 14:10 · Score: 0

You don't understand the problem well.

The contract allows Microsoft develop their own products which includes any features or technologies patented by Sony without any fee, if the software was shipped as a bundled software for MS Windows.
And remember Microsoft doesn't support the bundled software.

Besides: Sony (a part of, accurately) seriously considered employing Linux as their bundled OS for VAIO series.
(Sorry let me be anonymous.)

Haijo-kankoku: FTC warnings by achurch · 2004-07-15 14:10 · Score: 4, Informative

How exactly is this a warning for MS? Sounds more like a "do whatever the fuck you want, we won't hold anyone responsible" message, to me.

The haijo-kankoku (FTC warning, literally "recommendation to eliminate [illegal behavior]") isn't just a "slap on the wrist" in Japan--it's the first step in taking real action against the company. The procedure goes something like this:

The Fair Trade Commission investigates and finds a potential violation of the anti-monopoly law.
The FTC issues a haijo-kankoku to the company. If the company agrees that it was in the wrong, it can correct its behavior (possibly paying a fine) and stop the process here.
The FTC holds a hearing on the issue. It may decide that the action does not actually violate the law, and stop here. Otherwise . . .
The FTC issues an order (haijo-meirei) to the company to correct its behavior, possibly accompanied by a fine.
If the company still doesn't obey, various other nasty stuff can happen. Japanese companies rarely go this far--you can get closed down for things like this.

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by spitzak · 2004-07-15 14:21 · Score: 1

That's a ridiculous scenario. Microsoft could negotiate a license for that particular patent, and refuse to support the hardware without it.

I hate to be cynical by Pierre · 2004-07-15 14:24 · Score: 1

but i have to think that all of these governments could care less what microsoft does - they just see an opportunty to have their piece of the cash cow.

then again maybe i live in DC

Analogies for Dummies Vol 1 by VirtuaKnight · 2004-07-15 14:30 · Score: 2, Funny

In other words, the FTCs contract protects Microsoft from lawsuits in the way that plastic wrap protects a steel block from bee stings.

Do'h! by 1337+Twinkie · 2004-07-15 14:43 · Score: 1

You are right. Thanks. I did RTFA, but I was in a hurry and missunderstood it (I thought that the japanese were having M$ add the clause; oops.)

Too much pressure! by StarWreck · 2004-07-15 14:43 · Score: 4, Funny

Ahhh! Software Patents and Frivilious Lawsuits are evil! But Microsoft is also evil! AHHHHH!!!!!! *HEAD EXPLODES*

--
... and in the DRM, bind them.

Re:Too much pressure! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 21:47 · Score: 0

Your head a splode.

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by RickHunter · 2004-07-15 15:24 · Score: 1

Er. Your scenario is fundamentally unrealistic and foolish. Before implementing a patented feature like that, Microsoft would have to obtain a patent license from Sony. Such a license would likely have a clause specifying that Microsoft was not responsible for patent infringement committed by other hardware vendors. So that if some other vendor reverse-engineered Sony's feature and implemented it on their platform to take advantage of existing software support, they'd be the ones liable, not Microsoft.

The Same Microsoft Who...? by Bob9113 · 2004-07-15 15:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Under the provision, Japanese makers would be unable to sue Microsoft even if the software giant's technologies are deemed to violate their patents

Is this the same Microsoft that claims that Open Source software destroys intellectual property?

--
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by NanoGator · 2004-07-15 15:44 · Score: 1

"Microsoft only supports the feature if they are given a license to the particular patent for use in the Windows OS. Of course, even this is probably unnecessary since hopefully the patent is on the hardware and not on some unwritten OS software that communicates with the hardware. (Otherwise, Linux is in a heap of trouble.)"

Doesn't sound much different from what MS has done. Only in their version, one cannot sneak attack them.

--
"Derp de derp."

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by Jeff+DeMaagd · 2004-07-15 15:46 · Score: 1

Why should Microsoft support a particular piece of Sony hardware built-into the OS disc?

If you haven't noticed already, Sony and other hardware companies can provide their own drivers and software. I don't think it is right for Microsoft to get all of Sony's patents just for them to get the Microsoft OS installed on it.

Definitely sign here, no need to read it..... by cgenman · 2004-07-15 15:53 · Score: 4, Informative

While I agree that microsoft is rather underhanded in their buisness practices, the accusation of them stealing the windows concept from apple isn't true. Both apple and ms got the idea from xerox...

True, but Apple engineers took what they saw at Xerox and expanded upon it into a fully-fledged OS. Microsoft added a clause into a product for the Macintosh which Apple believed was giving a license for UI use on just Windows 1.0 as a cooling off period, but instead gave away the look and feel of the Macintosh to Microsoft entirely, which MS then proceeded to plunder in legendary fashion.

Ironically, Either Apple or Microsoft could theoretically have sued many of the Xwindows systems out of existence, but once the (legally protected) Windows prescident was set, the (non-legally protected) flood of similar Operating Systems with similar looks and feels was released upon the world.

Theoretically, this has allowed Operating System creators to learn freely from eachother, which should allow us to reach a state of computing Nirvana. Freeflow of ideas, yadda yadda. Sadly, in many ways it allows the dominant OS vendor to stay "good enough" at all times, freely stealing the fruits of other people's software when it becomes important, and allowing them to fail with their own experiments without contributing to the pot.

So yes, while Apple was inspired by the work at Xerox, Microsoft's arrangement with Apple more directly resembles contract theft.

--
The ______ Agenda

Re:Definitely sign here, no need to read it..... by NutscrapeSucks · 2004-07-15 17:55 · Score: 2, Interesting

At the time, Apple was a much larger and richer company that Microsoft. Apple CHOSE to licence Macintosh tech to another operating system vendor in order to get an Office suite developed for the Mac.

Considering that Microsoft Office ended up dominating the market, and is one of the key reasons that Apple is still competitive today; and considering that the Supreme Court ultimate threw out Look'n'Feel (Lotus v. Borland); Apple didn't do so poorly in with that deal.

Another reading would be "Industry giant Apple attempts to bully software upstart with frivilous lawsuit, but fails." -- but we aren't used thinking about Microsoft that way.

Also, MS was involved with X11 UIs like Motif, partially to develop an alternative, non-Apple cross-platform UI standard.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Re:Definitely sign here, no need to read it..... by Sj0 · 2004-07-16 01:30 · Score: 1

Sorry to butt into your conversation, but Microsoft already had a lucrative monopoly on it's DOS by the time windows came about. Upstart my ass. Maybe if we were talking basic compilers for 8 bit computers? :P

IBM literally made Microsoft what it is today.

--
It's been a long time.
Re:Definitely sign here, no need to read it..... by poot_rootbeer · 2004-07-16 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft's arrangement with Apple more directly resembles contract theft.

Apple shouldn't have signed the contract, then.

I don't understand why you're lambasting Microsoft (even accusing them of "theft") when as far as I can tell they acted entirely in accordance with the law.
Re:Definitely sign here, no need to read it..... by NutscrapeSucks · 2004-07-16 03:34 · Score: 1

The point is that, while MS was doing OK, they were nowhere near the dominant power we know and loath at the time. Compared to Lotus and Borland and some of the other that snubbed Apple, they were pretty small. (1n 1983 MS was had $50M in revenue.)

Apple wasn't the Good Guy in that fight.

--
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.

Do you even know car brands? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 16:03 · Score: 0

Huh, that's funny... nobody in Japan would want a Chevy. Bing! ;) Trust me, I worked at GM, and I'm suprised any of them are still on the road. You want absurd? The auto unions in Detroit.

Have you ever been to Japan? Seen how narrow the streets are? Probably not, because otherwise you'd realize that most of the Chevy cars wouldn't FIT. Also, gas in Japan, Europe, etc. is much more than in the U.S.

What about Subaru? GM owns 20%. Hmmm. What about Saab? Did you even realize that they're owned by GM (50%)? Hmmm. What about Suzuki? I see that you did GREAT research. So good to see American ignorance at work. Back-country dipshits like you shouldn't be commenting on the originality of others.

Re:all well and good, by commodoresloat · 2004-07-15 16:09 · Score: 1

Oh, it will happen, mark my words.

In Japan!

Contract vs. License by shadow255 · 2004-07-15 16:16 · Score: 2, Informative

The Apache liscense has a similar clause (mostly to protect against SCO-like suits). It will be interesting to see if they are asked to revise their liscense as well.

Don't confuse licenses with contracts. As much as some entities would like us to believe they're one and the same, they're not. What's more, the Apache Foundation doesn't charge money for use of its licensed software, in contrast to Microsoft.

--

Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought. -Terry Pratchett

Re:Contract vs. License by Anonimo+Covarde · 2004-07-16 10:31 · Score: 1

Liscense and Contract don't especially matter in this case. Neither does the cost of the software or the fact that MS has a monopoly. The Japanese trade commission is stating that an agreement regarding use of the software can not include a clause that revokes the users right to sue for patent infringement if they discover something they feel is infringing while using the software.

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by iamacat · 2004-07-15 16:20 · Score: 1

1. You are a human being who is capable to learn how to shoot and possibly kill me
2. ???
3. I will just kill you first, just in case

Real societies tend to adopt more restrictive laws, where self defence is allowed, but restricted to cases where the threat to your life is immediate and obvious. On the same note, Microsoft can update their contracts with a provision that if using a patent is the most straightforward way to run Windows on the hardware and utilize all it's features then Microsoft gets a free license for any use of the patent in computer operating systems. It would be too inconvinient for Microsoft to have it's own code that can not be copied to other places.

On the other hand, it's ridiculous if Microsoft releases headphones that uses Sony's patent without licensing it. Mind you, I hate patents for anything but extremly complicated, non-obvious ideas. But any contracts to bypass them should be mutual and matched in scope on both sides.

I Have Read the Original Japanese Decision by Karl-Friedrich+Lenz · 2004-07-15 16:29 · Score: 1

dated July 13th. It is here:,

The legal reasoning at the very end of the document is just slighty longer as your average haiku . All it says is (translation mine):

"This is imposing unfair restricting conditions on the enterprise activity of PC makers and sellers in doing business with them and is therefore a case of number 13 of unfair business practices (FTC notice number 15/1982) and as such violating Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act."

Readers of this reasoning are left without a clue when this kind of clause might be legal. There are many possible situations where this kind of defense against software patent claims might be quite reasonable.

One obvious one is a wide cross-license agreement between two companies. Did the FTC just outlaw those and make it impossible to cut through the software patent thicket?

It will be interesting to see if the FTC issues a less cryptic decision after the hearing with Microsoft.

--
Lenz Blog

Re:I Have Read the Original Japanese Decision by frank_adrian314159 · 2004-07-15 18:42 · Score: 1

Readers of this reasoning are left without a clue when this kind of clause might be legal. There are many possible situations where this kind of defense against software patent claims might be quite reasonable.
This is actually a good thing. Even though it opens the door to selective enforcement, a fuzzy legal region stops bad behavior much further from the boundary than a precise line located at the centroid of the legal region. It's a way to balance the conservative nature of legal council against their requirement to give advice that furthest advances their clients' interests. When the line is fuzzy, legal council tends to stay close to the legal side of the fuzz, not wanting to test the limit; if the line is sharp, they suck up against it like a leech.

--
That is all.
Re:I Have Read the Original Japanese Decision by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 21:00 · Score: 0

From your quote, it seems that the decision relies on law and the specific interpretation of the law is outlined in a 1982 public notice. The FTC does not claim to be making any new case law here. Did you also have a look at the notice, or the actual law?

WMV9 by News+for+nerds · 2004-07-15 17:45 · Score: 1

Actually, Windows Media 9 codec (VC-9), which was adopted as one of codecs in HD-DVD, violates the patents of many Japanese electronics giants involved with H.264/AVC, but because of the NAP(non-assertion of patents), they couldn't sue Microsoft.

compare to Linux indemnity by Qrlx · 2004-07-15 17:58 · Score: 1

I guess this is Microsoft's answer to the threat of getting sued by some random IP company because your shop uses Linux and oops! that little bit of IP has strayed far from home. (See SCO vs Autozone on the front page).

Rather than indemnify the customer, microsoft blocks the others in the industry from suing the customer. That's actually quite clever and a good example of what they call "leverage."

Apache has no commercial monopoly. Period. by News+for+nerds · 2004-07-15 18:02 · Score: 1

and Apache Foundation and users have no commercial relationship.

Re:Apache has no commercial monopoly. Period. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-16 07:26 · Score: 0

No, but they have a relationship!

And as the original poster points out, they are legally trying to do the same thing.

Sony....Pony ? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 19:09 · Score: 0

Sony....Pony!

Shortsited Americans. by Puls4r · 2004-07-15 19:38 · Score: 1

As usual, Americans only see as far as the end of their nose, and no further.

The Japense government is working to forward their own businesses. When's the last time you saw our government smacking the europeans or Asian Pacific around on issues like this?

Re:Shortsited Americans. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-16 04:05 · Score: 0

Last month. And last year... (bananas)

Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) by mesterha · 2004-07-15 21:03 · Score: 1

The difference is between a few patents and all patents. Pretty big difference.

It also seems you are worried that the computer company may not reveal the patent, however, the license would be for interfacing with the feature. It would cover any of the patents needed for that interface.

You may complain that this is not air tight. Well tough luck for Microsoft. They shouldn't be able to exploit their Monopoly to force a better contract.

--

Chris Mesterharm

Remember Be Inc by DABANSHEE · 2004-07-15 21:03 · Score: 1

Maybe such license conditions helped tempt Sony to test the waters with the Bezilla

Favourite Quote... by b06r011 · 2004-07-15 21:08 · Score: 1

"We will urge the FTC to reconsider its position during a hearing or by other means," Takashi Hirano told a news conference...

"other means"... why do i have images in my head of dark alleys and baseball bats?

Humbug by DABANSHEE · 2004-07-15 21:11 · Score: 1

The only differance between boxing & assualt is consent.

The only differance going on a private garden tour & trespassing is consent.

You see once one consents then the action is no longer a crime.

Afterall the only differance between borowing & theiving is consent

Microsoft - champions of IP by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-15 22:43 · Score: 0

All of Microsoft's attacks on Linux lately have centered around IP. Between the nonsense suite from SCO and the continued FUD that Linus really didn't write Linux in the first place, they continue to hammer on the IP issue.

And now this: they want to completely excuse themselves from any IP violation. As well they should; none of their "innovation" is their own!

More and more, Microsoft shows their true colors, and they are black and white with a skull and crossbones. With just a few more bribes and just a little more legal action, they will soon be the only ones allowed to steal IP. Everyone else will be prosecuted!

All your IP are belong to us!

One word by daniel_yokomiso · 2004-07-16 00:33 · Score: 1

Gojira.

--
Disclaimer: If I disagree with you I'm probably trolling...

The important thing by jav1231 · 2004-07-16 00:40 · Score: 1

is that M$ may finally be getting smacked for its tactics abroad. Now if it would happen here at home! I'm of the opinion that not enough ill can befall M$. At least let them feel some retribution for their evils.

what worms by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-16 00:42 · Score: 0

when will people get tired of the sleasiness.

Just say no to Microsoft.

Instead of Microsoft
Invest in People
Go with Linux!!

Oh ya by the way fsck off Microsoft, Bill and Steve.
Linux Rocks!!!!

Re:what worms by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-16 07:23 · Score: 0

Twit!

You make Linux look worse than Windows with crap like that.
Re:what worms by Anonymous Coward · 2004-07-16 08:13 · Score: 0

which crap are you talking about?

all of it or just a portion?

and if linux is depending on my reply to this article to look better than windows well we are all SOL.

Laying low. by blanks · 2004-07-16 00:51 · Score: 1

It seems to me that microsoft, because of all the lawsuites and issues with them not being competative, is laying low so to speak, they are not planning on too many major releases anytime soon, or creating to very much new technology. But whats the best thing for them to do in the mean time? Buy up or "create" every type of IPO they can think of to insure that no one else can make it happen. Works well for them, because it will insure the fucture technology to them.

This works well for them because it would allow them to try to contol the IPO that exists or owned by other companies.

--
TruePunk | Games

the law does not equal right/wrong by jonskerr · 2004-07-16 07:18 · Score: 1

lambasting M$, even accusing them of "theft" is perfectly right. Just like the Credence Clearwater Revival contract ripoff, whoever presented a contract with dishonest provisions on it is still a thief. Scamming is scamming. Should I trick elderly people into signing their life's savings over to me? That's a scam too, same thing. Tricking other people is still tricking them regardless of the law.

--
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon

IANAL, just a law-talkin' layperson by poot_rootbeer · 2004-07-16 09:14 · Score: 1

Should I trick elderly people into signing their life's savings over to me? That's a scam too, same thing.

Horrible analogy.

It can be assumed that an elderly person does not possess the facilities to practice due diligence -- they can't be reasonable expected to understand what it is that they're agreeing to. Such a contract would be null and void, and would indeed constitute fraud.

Unless you're arguing that Apple's legal acuity was so bad as to have been absent (and if it were, we would have seen a lawsuit from their shareholders for negligence), it's NOT the same thing.

Apple made a bad, but completely honest, business decision. If they thought they were being scammed, they would not have signed the contract. And they had the resources to reasonably have known whether or not they were being scammed.

Re:IANAL, just a law-talkin' layperson by cgenman · 2004-07-16 13:02 · Score: 1

Apple made a bad, but completely honest, business decision. If they thought they were being scammed, they would not have signed the contract. And they had the resources to reasonably have known whether or not they were being scammed.

Not true. Actually, as has been revealed before, Microsoft misrepresented the contract, saying that it was something quite limited whereas it was actually tremendously broad in scope. "Hi sign here whoops is that what it said."

Apple should have practiced due dilligence, and known what they were signing. But that doesn't mean that Microsoft's hands are clean for misrepresenting the contract. If someone explained to you the terms of your morgage, then gave you a contract to sign, and you sign it without noticing that the APR was one hundred times higher than you were told, the person who gave you the contract and misrepresented the contents is an asshat.

You should practice due dilligence to protect yourself from the asshats of the world, but they're still asshats.

--
The ______ Agenda

204 comments