Slashdot Mirror
Japanese FTC Warns Microsoft
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."
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?
"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.