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."
In related news, Microsoft was found to be violating several Japenese patents on "Bukake."
Microsoft gets spanked for restrictive licensing... IN JAPAN!
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."
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?
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:
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.
"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.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
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...