Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japanese FTC Warns Microsoft

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the firing-back-at-redmond dept.

ChibiOne writes "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 Windows 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. The Japan Times Online has the scoop."

6 of 204 comments (clear)

  1. Is this legal anyway? by D-Cypell · · 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?

    1. Re:Is this legal anyway? by Toby_Tyke · · 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
  2. Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... by ZZeta · · 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.
  3. Does the clause exist in the US by GillBates0 · · 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
  4. this reminds me of Sendo by Technomancer · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  5. Re:Definitely sign here, no need to read it..... by NutscrapeSucks · · 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.