Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Admits Japanese Monopoly Battle Hurting Image

News for nerds writes "The head of Microsoft Corp.'s Japan unit, Michael Rawding, acknowledged that the battle with Japanese anti-monopoly authorities over a controversial licensing clause has hurt its corporate image. But he said the company will continue to oppose a Fair Trade Commission ruling ordering Microsoft to retroactively remove the clause from its licensing agreements, as similar investigations in the United States and Europe found it 'lawful and appropriate' according to him, though Longhorn faces another delay. Commission officials are not certain any patents have been violated by Microsoft. But several Japanese electronics makers have complained about suspected patent infringements since December 2000, especially regarding multimedia technologies (VC-9 and H.264/AVC, anyone?). Major Japanese CE companies that are partners with Microsoft include Sony, Toshiba, and Matsushita."

133 comments

  1. In Other Microsoft News by ackthpt · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In a pilot project, Microsoft will be selling a skeletal Windows Starter Edition in asian countries Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia. Priced lower as an effort to reduce the attraction of piracy and compete with Linux. More details in this InformationWeek article.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:In Other Microsoft News by foobsr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      On Wednesday, Microsoft for the first time divulged specific information about what the Starter Editions will contain. For instance, the bare-bones operating system's screen resolution maxes out at 800-by-600, it lacks support for home networking and shared printers, and only allows three programs to be running simultaneously.

      ... as an effort to reduce the attraction of piracy and compete with Linux ...

      My power of speech left me while trying to comment on this. I have to look after it.

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    2. Re:In Other Microsoft News by Tsiangkun · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems to be working, 95% of people polled said they wouldn't bother to pirate this POS as long as a pirated version of the full blown windows was still available.

    3. Re:In Other Microsoft News by the_mad_poster · · Score: 1

      My power of speech left me while trying to comment on this. I have to look after it.

      That's one of those things that is just so absolutely braindead that you can just let it speak for itself...

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
  2. ah, the old trilateral switcheroo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    $COUNTRY1 and $COUNTRY2 did it, $COUNTRY3 must too!

  3. Double Standards? by Dominatus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The question is, is it hypocritical to nail Microsoft (in the community) for patent violations and at the same time consider software patents wrong by their very nature.

    1. Re:Double Standards? by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It comes down to the old adage live by the sword, die by the sword. MS uses patents as weapons whenever it can. Since this is anathema to the community, they cheer when the same thing happens to MS. Kind of like how everyone cheers when the bully gets beaten up;-)

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    2. Re:Double Standards? by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      Could you please stop nagging.

      You're making me feel bad.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    3. Re:Double Standards? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, it's not hypocritical. Just because software patents are wrong does not preclude you from saying that it is wrong for an entity to violate what currently is the law. Until software patents are outlawed, only outlaws will violate software patents.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    4. Re:Double Standards? by pHatidic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think there is anything wrong with the concept of patents, only that the U.S. patent system is deeply flawed because it grants patents left and right where no real innovation has occurred. I think it would be fair for everyone to be able to patent something or for no one to be able to patent anything, but microsoft is reaping the double advantage here. Because they are an 800 lb corporate guerrilla they can not only prevent other people from using things they patent but can also use others peoples patents with impunity. When our founding fathers came up with the patent system they didn't evision the amount of corruption plaguing the U.S. government today.

    5. Re:Double Standards? by Dominatus · · Score: 1

      "Until software patents are outlawed, only outlaws will violate software patents."

      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/05/ 12 34237&tid=136&tid=163&tid=155

      "This comes following an independent study by insurance firm OSRM who revealed this week that the Linux kernel might use up to 283 patented methods."

    6. Re:Double Standards? by bstone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't see anything wrong with being against software patents in general while at the same time being against companies that abuse the patents they have. How is that "hypocritical"?

      In this case, a company with a virtual monopoly forcing anyone who uses their software to give up their own patent rights. How many companies don't have at least ONE copy of windows, especially if they're writing and patenting software themselves? If they want to test their software to insure that it works with Windows, they have to agree to give Microsoft their patent rights.

    7. Re:Double Standards? by the+quick+brown+fox · · Score: 4, Informative
      Is that really true?

      A google search for "microsoft patent lawsuit" comes up with a ton of examples of them settling or losing lawsuits where they're the defendant, but I don't see any where they're suing someone else for infringement.

    8. Re:Double Standards? by Dominatus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I dont think you are understanding what's going on here.

      "Commission officials are not certain any patents have been violated by Microsoft. But several Japanese electronics makers have complained about suspected patent infringements since December 2000, especially regarding multimedia technologies (VC-9 and H.264/AVC, anyone?)"

      Microsoft (potentially) violated software patents. If you are against software patents, its hypocritical to want MS to suffer from them..

      It's like someone who says they are completely against war but being OK with a war as long as it's against a country they don't like.

    9. Re:Double Standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you consider the idea of software patents wrong. However, I don't and I bet many agree that software patents are legitimate. Its just that the USPTO is bad at execution (sorry football seasons coming up).

      Besides, we are human so we can prioritize. So even if you feel parents are bad, Microsoft is worse so who cares if they use a weapon we don't agree with. I generally don't believe in murder, but if somebody killed Bin Laden or Charles Keating, I'd be happy.

    10. Re:Double Standards? by rokzy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      what makes you think that it would get as far as a court case if they decided to go on the offensive?

      kinda like saying, "no one I've killed ever complained to the police, so they must have all been fine with it"

    11. Re:Double Standards? by Dominatus · · Score: 2

      How is this trolling?!

    12. Re:Double Standards? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Does this argument remind anyone else of the standard line of debate whenever copyright infringement comes up?

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    13. Re:Double Standards? by Veridium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you miss something about this particular story, at least from my perspective... This isn't about Microsoft violating patents, it's about microsoft making people agree that they are free to violate the patents of anyone who agrees to that license. I don't like software patents, but if you're going to be a major holder of patents, thereby playing the game of patents, then this is a dirty dealing.

      And really, what is the logic of making someone agree to let you violate their patents as part of a licensing agreement with software? Maybe someone in the audience has some insight on the reasoning behind this? I admit I'm not an expert in this type of thing, so I'm open to hearing how wrong I am...

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    14. Re:Double Standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if the contract were modified to say that if companies can't sue even if they suspect Microsoft of stealing their source code? That's the next logical step.

      Besides, if Microsoft wree on the wrong end of a patent suit, they might adjust their lobbying accordingly. Think of it as negative behavoir modification for an 800lb gorilla.

    15. Re:Double Standards? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Hey, idiot moderators: parent is not a troll. Mod points are not supposed to be a way for you to push your own agenda.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    16. Re:Double Standards? by Dominatus · · Score: 1

      "several Japanese electronics makers have complained about suspected patent infringements since December 2000, especially regarding multimedia technologies (VC-9 and H.264/AVC, anyone?)"

      Is what I'm referring to, not the former part of the story. Sorry I wasnt clear :)

    17. Re:Double Standards? by Dominatus · · Score: 1

      Ignore my last reply, I just confused myself. What I meant to say:

      I'm not referring to the contact being right or wrong, I'm referring to the very act of violating patents and getting punished for it. If Microsoft is using this contact to avoid being punished for software patent violations, but software patent violations are wrong anyway, then what's wrong with the evasion? I just feel its hypocritical to want a company to get punished for something you think is wrong to begin with.

    18. Re:Double Standards? by foidulus · · Score: 0

      Which is why the overrated mod should be banned, mods can easily use mod points to push agendas without getting caught in meta-moderation.

    19. Re:Double Standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will but it may take some time to convince the others.

    20. Re:Double Standards? by Veridium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm referring to the very act of violating patents and getting punished for it. If Microsoft is using this contact to avoid being punished for software patent violations, but software patent violations are wrong anyway, then what's wrong with the evasion?

      If they provided a reciprocal clause, I'd say nothing. As it is, it is a one way street AFAIK, and that's kind of dirty, don't you think? Especially since it's a software license and not a patent sharing agreement.

      That's the key thing I think should be stopped. I'm not rooting for them to be found guilty of patent violations. Though I suppose that alot of people in these parts just want to see the hurt put on microsoft no matter what... I see where you're coming from.

      --
      Think for yourself, destroy your television.
    21. Re:Double Standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The questionable clause Microsoft is using also lists copyrights. I think there are a lot more people here who support at least limited software copyrights.

      I know, I know, it's pointless to respond to people baiting Slashdot, but it's not less pointless than most things I do.

    22. Re:Double Standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of us want software patents to go away, but would just as soon see Microsoft suffer from them in the mean time =)

    23. Re:Double Standards? by theLOUDroom · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, it's not hypocritical. Just because software patents are wrong does not preclude you from saying that it is wrong for an entity to violate what currently is the law. Until software patents are outlawed, only outlaws will violate software patents.

      You could have said the same thing about slavery.

      The reality is that sometimes the government does things that are just wrong and it's better to work outside the system. Whether this is one of those cases is up for debate but pretending that one should ALWAYS follow the law is asinine.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    24. Re:Double Standards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? Mods On Crack.

      This is why I meta-mod EVERYTHING unfair - the whole system is unfair.

    25. Re:Double Standards? by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      "If you are against software patents, its hypocritical to want MS to suffer from them."

      Anything that makes Microsoft oppose software patents is good in my book. I don't want a software patent system with which Microsoft is comfortable; I want software patents out of the system.

      Its like waging war against a country that is on the offensive (e.g. Japan and Germany in the '40s; Iraq in the early '90s). The real issue here, as regards Microsoft, is abuse of monopoly power. I would be satisfied with this clause being removed from the contract and the software patents being ruled invalid. Software patents are wrong and monopoly abuse is wrong. Two wrongs does not make a right. There is no reason to give Microsoft a pass on monopoly abuse, even if they are using that monopoly abuse to protect themselves against patent system abuse.

      Finally, are we sure that these are software patents (I didn't RTFA)? Electronics makers are saying that Microsoft is in violation. Microsoft does make electronics equipment (e.g. XBox). These could be patents on circuits, etc. Even if this regards software patents, is the clause restricted to software patents?

      P.S. I will metamod your Troll as Unfair and Insightful or Interesting as Fair. While I disagree, you clearly weren't trolling.

    26. Re:Double Standards? by Dominatus · · Score: 1

      But Microsoft doesn't use patents offensively. Shouldn't we do things that attack them on the correct front?

    27. Re:Double Standards? by identity0 · · Score: 2

      Sigh... no, it's not hypocritical. What I am saying is that the law is wrong, but that it should be applied evenly if it is to be enforced at all.

      Microsoft are one of the main proponents of software patents. If they were to be hit by some patent cases, perhaps they will re-think whether software patents are a good idea. Speaking of which, don't you find it hypocritical of a software patent advocate to be violating other's patents at all?

      To use an analogy, it's like how I believe the drinking age in the U.S. should be lowered to 18, but I don't think the President's kids should be given a break when they get caught drinking 'underage'. Special treatment for a few is not the solution to bad laws, changing the law is.

      Or with your war analogy, it's like what happened during Vietnam: the poor or middle class were drafted, but the rich could hide away in college or the national guard. Is it hypocritical for an anti-war protester to decry the war *and* how the rich weren't being sent off to fight the war? No it wasn't, because the fact that the rich were insulated from the war and its deaths through the selective draft meant that they supported the war and it was prolonged. If the draft had taken an even sample of rich or powerful people's kids, it's likely they would have ended the war sooner. Why do you think Michael Moore made such a big deal about senators not having kids in the military in his big anti-war movie?

      Selective enforcement of the law should be fought at every level, because they lead to stupid, unjust, unfair laws. If the war on drugs actually caught all the people that did drugs, our current and previous presidents would have served jail time. Do you think that sort of thing might get them to re-think drug policy?

      I don't like software patents, and I want a world where everyone, even Microsoft, can be free of them. The way to do that is through abolishing software patents, not by letting a few people and coporations 'off the hook' and making the rest held accountable.

    28. Re:Double Standards? by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Disagree.

      Patent stakes out your right to solely exploit your invention for commercial purposes. This was the original idea behind patents. It has been lost over the years.

      In fact it has been lost for 100+ years now. AFAIK the first to start the practice of filing/buying patents and shelving them for purely defensive purposes was Dupont in the beginning of the 20th century. They patented and shelved numerous inventions which prolonged tire life so that they could continue generating revenue by selling loads of quickly wearing tires.

      Methinks that patents that are not being used must be declared void same as trademarks after 2 years. Use it or lose it. If you do not defend it for a specific period of time or if you defend it selectively you should lose the right to profit from it full stop.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    29. Re:Double Standards? by the+quick+brown+fox · · Score: 1
      Fine. I changed "lawsuit" to "attack" (I couldn't think of a more suitable word) and the results didn't change much... although it does surface a lot of hits speculating that MS may launch a patent attack on Linux in the future, and coverage of their announcement that they will beef up their patent portfolio.

      So again... anyone have any evidence?

    30. Re:Double Standards? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      What if I'm against software patents, or other patent/copyright/IP law abuse, yet am still in favour of upholding the law while it is the law? Then it's not hypocritical to feel that MS should feel the full impact of the law. This has a double effect. It may show the burden software patents place on society, and it shows the possible hypocrisy of corporate giants supporting software patents when even they can't operte without knowingly or unknowingly violating them.

      So, while I'm in support of some serious software patent reform (or abolition), I'm still in favour of upholding those laws until such time as they are changed.

      P.S. There are, of course, some reasons that a law should be violated. There are some laws that are immoral, or violate basic human rights (which may functionally be the same thing). Then it's time to pull a Ghandi, and do something about it.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    31. Re:Double Standards? by Dominatus · · Score: 1

      But microsoft *doesn't* use these patents to hurt others. Apple gets software patents all the time, yet this community doesn't criticize it. Therefore, it's only reasonable that the community is against companies being hurt by them.

      For example, if Linus decided to file for a patent for some algorithm he made, I don't think many people on this site would protest. If, however, company X were to sue Linus for abusing their patent, there would be outrage.

      There's no consistancy in the community about what is right or wrong with patents. Those who argue they are against the patents but for upholding the law, if Linux gets sued for infringing a patent, will they sing the same tune? I just see a lot of hypocrisy in all this, and a lot of people *just* wanting to see MS hurt..no matter the reason.

      If the Japanese government sues MS for violating patents, it could give MS a "license" to use their patent portfolio, which could destroy many a company and product. I don't think its a good idea.

    32. Re:Double Standards? by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      This is attacking them on the correct front. This is cancelling an abuse of monopoly power. That is the important precedent that is being set. The fact that it could allow other companies to abuse the patent system is irrelevant. If Microsoft does not have enough resources to protect itself from bad patents without abusing monopoly power, then what hope do the rest of us have?

      To get back to the war analogy, this is like forcing a small country to disarm its nukes (monopoly power). This has the side effect of making the small country more vulnerable to attack (software patent lawsuits). However, that does not make nuclear disarmament (anti-trust) pro-war (software patents).

      Your original point remains true. Some of the people who support this are doing so for the wrong reasons. However, it is perfectly reasonable to be glad that Japan is forcing Microsoft to clean up its contracts and be against software patents.

    33. Re:Double Standards? by sjames · · Score: 1

      he question is, is it hypocritical to nail Microsoft (in the community) for patent violations and at the same time consider software patents wrong by their very nature.

      No, because MS is the one being hypocritical. They claim to believe that strong enforcement of IP is a good thing and that IP violators are ethically defective, but their actions prove otherwise.

      So, I personally nail microsoft for such blatant hypocracy as demonstrated by their history of IP violations rather than for the violations themselves.

  4. Boosting the Company Image? by knix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Besides the release of SP2, what has Microsoft done recently to actually boost its image? Hurting the image wouldn't be so bad if they tried to do good things every now and then.

    1. Re:Boosting the Company Image? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Will SP2 boost the company image? We'll see what the ratio of machines that NO LONGER BOOT after spending several hours downloading through Automatic Update is. After all, just a few days ago it was 3 out of 5 wouldn't boot after SP2 was applied- either the fix was dead simple, or Microsoft decided to release with bugs intact.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    2. Re:Boosting the Company Image? by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the just busted their collective asses for a few days and got the bugs fixed.

    3. Re:Boosting the Company Image? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      New York -- People for the Ethical Treatment of Software (PETS) announced today that seven more software companies have been added to the group's "watch list" of companies that regularly practice software testing.

      "There is no need for software to be mistreated in this way so that companies like these can market new products," said Ken Granola, spokesperson for PETS. "Alternative methods of testing these products are available."

      According to PETS, these companies force software to undergo lengthy and arduous tests, often without rest, for hours or days at a time. Employees are assigned to "break" the software by any means necessary, and inside sources report that they often joke about "torturing" the software.

      "It's no joke," said Granola. "Innocent programs, from the day they are compiled, are cooped up in tiny rooms and "crashed" for hours on end. They spend their whole lives on dirty, ill-maintained computers, and are unceremoniously deleted when they're not needed anymore."

      Granola said the software is kept in unsanitary conditions and is infested with bugs.

      "We know alternatives to this horror exist," he said, citing industry giant Microsoft Corporation as a company that has become extremely successful without resorting to software testing.
    4. Re:Boosting the Company Image? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has been covered elsewhere on Slashdot, but the infamous "3 of 5" machines statement should read "3 of 5 machines infested with malware".

    5. Re:Boosting the Company Image? by malfunct · · Score: 1

      Thats 3 out 5 five with a pool of 5 machines tested if I remember correctly. If I gave my success stats (4 out of 4 successfully booted) it would look like SP2 was a perfect patch. I think either the guys that tried it had bad hardware or bad software or something else wrong. Not that it justfies the fact they were broken by the patch but its a bad stat to keep using.

      --

      "You can now flame me, I am full of love,"

    6. Re:Boosting the Company Image? by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Like I said- maybe the bugs were simple enough to do this- but given Microsoft's history- do you really believe that their bugs are that simple?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    7. Re:Boosting the Company Image? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      See, there's this word that is used by software developers called "beta". "Beta" means that software is NOT complete, HAS bugs, and is NOT recommended for use. The service pack that caused this was a BETA. SP2 is currently being rolled out as we speak, with no real widespread problems. Good shot at a troll, though.

    8. Re:Boosting the Company Image? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Besides the release of SP2, what has Microsoft done recently to actually boost its image?"

      My TabletPc is pretty damn cool.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    9. Re:Boosting the Company Image? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Considering how much I despise XP I have to admit that the new firewall is nice, and actually pretty sane. I'm quite impressed that MS actually took steps like this to lessen how much XP sucks. So yeah I would have to say that it did improve my view of Microsoft a small bit.

  5. Specifics about the JFTC ruling by Pahalial · · Score: 5, Informative
    HTML Version of the recommendation

    Specifically:
    Microsoft, when licensing Windows OS to personal computer manufacturers (hereinafter "PC manufacturers"), has concluded agreements with PC manufacturers containing certain provisions that a licensee covenants not to sue, bring, prosecute, assist or participate in any judicial, administrative or other proceedings of any kind against Microsoft, its subsidiaries, or other licensees for infringement of the licensee's patents. Such conduct by Microsoft shall be construed as dealing with PC manufacturers on conditions which unjustly restrict their business activities, which the JFTC concluded correspond to the Subsection 13 of the Unfair Trade Practices, violating the section 19 of the Antimonopoly Act.

    So Microsoft is forcing people it deals with to stay quiet if MS happens to infringe on their patents? I don't think there's any doubt whatsoever who is (*should be) in the right here. Of course, the frightening part is the US & Europe both found this perfectly normal.
    --
    Stuff.
    1. Re:Specifics about the JFTC ruling by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Please cite where the US and Europe said this was OK. That is just MS spin AFAIK.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:Specifics about the JFTC ruling by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      simple solution, invest in a corporation which buys the patens off the original holder, while never using a microsoft product (running operations on either Mac or *nix) then they sue microsoft, and any profits from the lawsuit are paid as dividends, while i know such shell games are frowned upon, a situation like this does justify such action.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
  6. Culture by c0dedude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most of Japan, as I understand it, actually cares whether its companies are following its laws, especially foreign companies. This could actually hurt, instead of drive up (publicity), sales of Microsoft products in japan.

    --
    Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
    1. Re:Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean that Japanese companies can drum up xenophobic complaints against foreign competitors? Sure, but other than that, Japan is hardly the Naderite paradise you imagine it to be. Companies and the government call the shots and command tremendous respect and acceptance.

    2. Re:Culture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Companies and the government call the shots and command tremendous respect and acceptance.

      There's a reason why that happens. When somebody screws up, the top guy takes the blame in Japan. Thats the way it should be.

      http://www.tompeters.com/toms_world/t1987/072787 -p ractical.asp

      Compare that with the way its done in America, where some low level guy takes the blame when something goes wrong. Or some CEO gets fired with a $20 million settlement, but the company loses $100 million that quarter and 5000 people lose their jobs.

    3. Re:Culture by Jesterboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure where your "understanding" comes from, nor why this is modded "Insightful", but I suggest you read Dogs and Demons to get a more complete understanding of Japan's situation. It was assigned reading for a n English class I took in Japan, assigned by a native Japanese teacher. While you won't benefit from my teacher's ability to fill in holes with other tragic incidents inflicted upon the area of Japan he calls home, I believe it provides a cursory understanding of some of the problems that plague Japan's bureaucratic system.

      One of the main points of the book is the absolutely disgusting interaction of Japan's goverment and corporations. Try googling "amakudari" (lit. "descent from heaven"), and see if you still feel the same way.

    4. Re:Culture by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      I think you should mean "Only foreign companies"

      Japan goes out of its way to make it harder for international interests to do ANYthing, while their own companies are very much the Megacorps of Shadowrun/Cyberpunk literature

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
  7. Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Commission officials are not certain any patents have been violated by Microsoft. But several Japanese electronics makers have complained about suspected patent infringements since December 2000

    Hooray for software patents! Down with Microsoft!

    (Did I get that right? TIA)

  8. Different country, different laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    as similar investigations in the United States and Europe found it 'lawful and appropriate'

    Surely he realizes that that doesn't matter, since United States and European laws and rulings do not apply in countries other than the U.S. and the European Union, respectively.

    1. Re:Different country, different laws by the+quick+brown+fox · · Score: 1

      ...or in Guantanamo Bay.

    2. Re:Different country, different laws by tonyr60 · · Score: 1

      I think it is a matter of perspective. When you are a senior manager of a company that controls your market and suppliers you may think it logical to assume that US law applies to the rest of the world. I know that may seem a giant leap in logic for many of us, but it is the only way to explain his comment.

    3. Re:Different country, different laws by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Gitmo *is* US Territory, leased from the Cubans.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    4. Re:Different country, different laws by the+quick+brown+fox · · Score: 1

      You need to read the previous two posts again.

  9. Lets See... by Izago909 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The US and Europe consider MS to be a monopoly. Japan looks like they will come to that conclusion too. How many more countries need to declare them a monopoly before it becomes true?

    1. Re:Lets See... by James+Turpin · · Score: 5, Informative

      The question is not so much whether they are a monopoly, but what (and how much) illegal activity they have done. And even more importantly, in what way (and how much) will Microsoft be penalized. Since anti-trust laws vary from country to country, this must be determined individually by each country. In fact, the US and Japan have very different anti-trust laws. For instance, Japan allows businesses in the same industry to cooperate in ways that are illegal in the US (such as pooling R&D resources). The laws Microsoft violated in the US do not necessarily apply in Japan, and visa versa.

      --
      Mathematics is not a crime.
    2. Re:Lets See... by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "The US and Europe consider MS to be a monopoly. Japan looks like they will come to that conclusion too. How many more countries need to declare them a monopoly before it becomes true?"

      It's a delicate situation to deal with seeing as how it's a de-facto monopoly.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Lets See... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      And has it all REALLY made much of a difference? In the U.S. MS has gotten away without a scratch. The ruling in the EU has yet to really show results (and no, some measily fine is not a result). Does it even matter any more? No matter how much MS sucks, or how bad it gets, most people are totally unaware or simply do not care. That seems to be carrying over to the govenment.

    4. Re:Lets See... by red+floyd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, in the US, since a court has ruled so, Microsoft is a de jure monopoly, not a de facto one.

      I'm not sure whether the EU has ruled one way or the other on this.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  10. what a deal ! by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1, Interesting

    On Wednesday, Microsoft for the first time divulged specific information about what the Starter Editions will contain. For instance, the bare-bones operating system's screen resolution maxes out at 800-by-600, it lacks support for home networking and shared printers, and only allows three programs to be running simultaneously.


    Hmmm, while the cheapo version of windows may have a market, I can think of three different kernels that support a whole GNU world of software running simultaneously, for much less money. Of course getting a networked printer to work still requires a google search.

    On a more serious note, are all the little nasties that windows aquires from the web going to count towards the three processes ?

    1. Re:what a deal ! by Kenja · · Score: 2, Interesting
      "On a more serious note, are all the little nasties that windows aquires from the web going to count towards the three processes ?"

      Proccess != Programs. Open up task manager, first tab is Applications (aka Programs) the second tab is Processes. A single application can be running several processes and background tasks such as spy/mail ware dont show up as applications. So rest assured, you'll still be able to run your favorite trojan.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:what a deal ! by RidiculousPie · · Score: 1

      On Wednesday, Microsoft for the first time divulged specific information about what the Starter Editions will contain. For instance, the bare-bones operating system's screen resolution maxes out at 800-by-600, it lacks support for home networking and shared printers, and only allows three programs to be running simultaneously.

      So they're bringing back Windows v3.1 then?

      Im not sure about the max resolution though ...

      --
      ah, mod points ... now where is my crack?
    3. Re:what a deal ! by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      FlameBait ??? I thought this was informative, funny and insightful.

    4. Re:what a deal ! by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      a program can choose if it's on the list labeled as tasks or in the one labeled as processes.

      a piece of code running is a program none the less.

      you run a firewall *bang* there goes one 'program'(no matter how you count it is a program), then you have the special volume changer app for your sound card *bang* another program...

      so this starter edition is going to be a painful edition.. just another product in the line of *intentionally limited* products(ie, there went work into making it a lousier product, so you're paying for it being shittier - nice).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:what a deal ! by sloanster · · Score: 1

      Of course getting a networked printer to work still requires a google search.

      "Of course"? I've always found setting up a networked printer in linux to be a matter of a few mouseclicks and the printing of a test page -

      Perhaps you could let us all in on the private joke it seems you were trying to make? I think you lost your audience here, but perhaps they are all too polite to mention it.

    6. Re:what a deal ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      duh. They obey the *letter* of the law, while abusing (think violent rape here) the *spirit* of it. All perfectly legal, and SOP too. M$ is just the most visible entity doing it ...

  11. what company image ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful


    i think worms,spammers zombies, viruses,spyware,dialers,malware,160+ internet explorer exploits, even mobile phone viruses !

    MS's image was damaged the day they decided software quality was secondary to marketing, quarter balance sheets and screw the customer for everything you can

    1. Re:what company image ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      MS's image was damaged the day they decided software quality was secondary to marketing, quarter balance sheets and screw the customer for everything you can

      You mean the day they opened?

    2. Re:what company image ? by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention that little issue of being convicted of breaking anti-monopoly laws in the US.

  12. Who the hell do they think they are? by intnsred · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who the hell do those Japanese think they are? Do they think they run their own country?! Do they think that the Japanese Parliament gets to enact laws that protect their citizenry from monopolies?!

    Don't worry though; they'll soon fall into line lock-step behind the American and European plutocrats.

    1. Re:Who the hell do they think they are? by foidulus · · Score: 1

      Who the hell do those Japanese think they are? Do they think they run their own country?! Do they think that the Japanese Parliament gets to enact laws that protect their citizenry from monopolies?!
      Shows you don't know Japan very well, they are under the influence of monopolies(just look at the farm market) and the politicians are almost as corrupted by special interests as they are in the US. The difference is they are willing to take action against a foriegn company(much like the way the US took protectionist actions in the car market in the 80's in the face of huge foriegn competetion).

  13. Easy fix by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 5, Funny

    All they have to do is give up the New York Ave and Illinois Ave monopolies. They can have Boardwalk, but the Japanese are particularly frustrated with the free parking corner.

    *sigh* The end of the day is always my most productive.

  14. Different country, different laws by scd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    as similar investigations in the United States and Europe found it 'lawful and appropriate'

    Surely he realizes that that doesn't matter, since United States and European laws and rulings do not apply in countries other than the U.S. and the European Union, respectively.

  15. Re:Rapist admits accusers giving him "Bad Image" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are an ignorant, self absorbed, leeching shit hole. Stop trying to attach your little tempest in a tea kettle of a software political agenda to a real, human tragedy.

  16. Re:Rapist admits accusers giving him "Bad Image" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps some of us (see above) need to temper our talents for overstatement.

    Comparing Microsoft to a rapist? You can easily get out from under Microsoft , don't buy their software. I have yet to talk to a rape victim who had a choice in the matter.

  17. Whew! by Otter · · Score: 5, Funny
    For a while, it looked like we were going to have to go through a day without a "Longhorn is delayed!" story! I applaud the submitter's ability to jam "...though Longhorn faces another delay." into this writeup for no apparent reason.

    Let's see -- we've had the Two Minutes of Rage Against SCO, Google IPO, Sun vaporware and Wireless Technology That Americans Must Be Forced To Want -- if the editors can scrape up an new IE vulnerability and a stupid Linux Is/Is Not Ready For The Desktop article, we can call it a day.

    1. Re:Whew! by LiMikeTnux · · Score: 0

      And in other news, a new vulnerability in IE has been found, allowing a remote user to 0wnz0r your computer by getting you to click on a link, and like dumbasses, you ie users will. Also, Linux is ready for the desktop because, well, because, um, BECAUSE I SAID SO, NOW USE LINUX!

      --
      yap
  18. Based on the definition of "hypocritical"... by brunes69 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I would have to say YES.

    Based on the definition of "Slashdot Fanboy", however, I would probably say "no". At least not in this "community".

    Those who really care know software patents are bad, period, no matter what company is being hurt by them in the news. But to many /. people just the idea that Microsoft is hurting will cause them to turn a blind eye to the larger issue - that this could set a precedant that would hurt other software companies, and open source, in the long run.

    1. Re:Based on the definition of "hypocritical"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on hell bashing slashdotters get *ALWAYS* modded up... on slashdot ?!

    2. Re:Based on the definition of "hypocritical"... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And I would have to say this is not a troll. The parent makes a valid point. If you are against them, then you should be against them regardless of whom they are directed towards. It is not a point I happen to agree with (see earlier live by the sword, die by the sword post), but that doesn't make it any less valid, and is certainly not a reason to call it a troll.

      All I ask is that you think before you mod.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    3. Re:Based on the definition of "hypocritical"... by Aim+Here · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, but you're missing the point. The fact that the legal immunity that Microsoft is pressuring these guys into signing happens to be with respect to patent law is somewhat irrelevant.

      If Microsoft used it's monopoly power to force these guys to sign an agreement allowing it to breach their copyrights while still being able to enforce it's copyrights in return, then that would clearly be an unfair agreement. The fact that it's patents, not copyrights or trademarks, makes no odds to the unfairness of these licenses.

      Sure the laws regarding software patents are bogus, but even you should be able to tell the difference between a bogus law applied fairly and one applied unfairly. It would be a bogus law applied fairly if Microsoft allowed it's customers to use Microsoft's patents in return. It would be a bogus law applied fairly if we could be sure that Microsoft wasn't going to use it's patent portfolio against it's customers.

      But when Microsoft can go to the patent office 10 times a day, while at the same time denying other patent holders the rights to use their patents in return, then that's not fair. See?
      (Yes, I know Microsoft's track record at initiating bad IP lawsuits isn't that bad at all, but the mere fact that MS or anyone else has patented your favourite algorithm to perform function X is enough to stifle competition, since the risk of lawsuits still has to be taken into consideration.)

  19. MS uses laws as it sees fit, see lindows case by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Insightful
    An american judge ruled against MS so MS went to europe to fight lindows. Europe rules against MS and MS claims that the american verdict shows europe has no case.

    MS reminds me most of the mafia from the movies. The mafia is free to kill rape and plunder but if someone kills a mafia member they sinned against the family. A real case of being able to dish it out but not being able to take it. Or a cry-baby bully.

    Lets see that the Microsoft apologists come up with this time. Will they as ever reach a new low?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:MS uses laws as it sees fit, see lindows case by udowish · · Score: 1

      I would expect no less from MICROSHAFT..uhh I mean Microsoft...hum.......that is a great analogy to the US in general is it not?

      --
      when in doubt press enter and we'll figure it out later..
  20. Wrong. by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft has a long history of seldom using patents as an offensive measure, and only resorting to them in defence when another company sues *them*.

    There are any number of patents Microsoft could be using to try and hurt Linux right now. Have you heard of any lawsuits? I haven't.

    1. Re:Wrong. by dmanny · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I find your position interesting. Could you elaborate on their history of defensive use of patents?

      --
      All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used. :-(
    2. Re:Wrong. by brunes69 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One in recent memory was the Sun case.

      Sun sued Microsoft for its use of their corrupted non-Sun JVM. Then Microsoft counter-sued Sun for technologies in Java that are patented by Microsoft.

      Of course then Sun counter-counter-sued for technologies in .Net that they have patened.

      They end dup reaching a settlement where Microsoft paid out some money and now they both get free unlimited use of each-other's patent portfolio.

    3. Re:Wrong. by arose · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is not the type of defensive use grandparent was talking about. If they would only raise patent claims in response to patent claims that would be another matter.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    4. Re:Wrong. by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 4, Insightful
      To elaborate a bit. MS does not need to file numerous lawsuits in order to utilize patents as coporate weapons. As their own patent head, Marshall Phelps said he's running a "licensing shop, not a litigation shop." Since MS is also attempting to up its patent output to 3,000 this year (think 8 a day!), it follows that they would apply pressure to their competitors through restrictive licensing, more so than through the courts.

      How many of those 3,000 patents do you think are truly valid? How many companies are actually capabale of initiating and following through the neccessary litigation required to invalidate just one of those 3,000 patents? The issue at hand is the restrictiveness of the language in MS's licensing agreements, because that is how MS asserts itself with patents.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    5. Re:Wrong. by LS · · Score: 1

      Do I have a misconception here? I thought patents were used to protect the owner from others using their ideas for profit. Linux is not for sale, it's written by people for free, often by people at home in their den. Does this imply that I am not allowed to, for example, build a go-kart at home with some patented engine technology?

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    6. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, well, I guess SCO vs. IBM isn't a /patent/ lawsuit, save that IBM has used them in its counterclaims against SCO, so I suppose I don't know offhand.

    7. Re:Wrong. by CGP314 · · Score: 1

      Sun sued Microsoft for its use of their corrupted non-Sun JVM. Then Microsoft counter-sued Sun for technologies in Java that are patented by Microsoft. Of course then Sun counter-counter-sued for technologies in .Net that they have patened. They end dup reaching a settlement where Microsoft paid out some money and now they both get free unlimited use of each-other's patent portfolio.

      This word `defensive,' I do not think it means what you think it means.

    8. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Of all the 'look, it has 17 syllables so it's a haiku' haiku I've ever encountered in the world of IT geeks who've never read real haiku, yours is the ONLY GOOD ONE.

      Your prize is in the post.

      If I had to nitpick -- and I do, cause that's how it is -- I'd say I don't much like the word 'clever'. One, I think it would be better to describe some externally-visible aspect of the sig. Two, one could say that it can't be clever or it wouldn't lack depth.

      I don't really know what I'd put there though.

    9. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In this case, Sun did not sue MS for patent infringment. They sued infringment of a contract. In order to use the Java brand name, MS agreed to follow certain (fairly reasonable) rules, for instance if they wanted to add classes to Java, they could not do it in the core libraries but had to do it in separate packages. Neither could they change the functionality of core libraries.

      Microsoft immediately and deliberately broke those two rules so that Java programs created on the Windows platform would run reliably, or run at all, only under Windows. This was done because the platform independence that Java promised risked reduce the OS to an irrelevance.

      When this was taken to courts it was such an easy case MS folded immediately and instead released and started to hype their J++, which was basically a complete copy of Java with only the name changed. As this didn't go to well, they tried again a few years later with C# and Dot Net and a few more billions spent on hype. And a lot of suckers are buying it this time it seems.

  21. Re:Rapist admits accusers giving him "Bad Image" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow! Moronic, racist, sexist and creepy -- all in just a few lines.

  22. It sounds like Windows 3.1 is making a come back by jaberwaki · · Score: 0, Redundant

    From this InformationWeek article:

    "On Wednesday, Microsoft for the first time divulged specific information about what the Starter Editions will contain. For instance, the bare-bones operating system's screen resolution maxes out at 800-by-600, it lacks support for home networking and shared printers, and only allows three programs to be running simultaneously."

  23. Only now they see... by JOhn-E+G · · Score: 0

    Only now is M$ saying that it is getting a bad publicity? And I thought windows 95 and on was bad publicity. (NOTE: I didn't use 3.1 so I can't speak for it)
    If they are worried about a bad image one would think that they would start trying to better their image verses destroy the competition in effort to leave them as the only choice.

    --
    Who needs windows when you have linux.

  24. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its called "Poetic Irony."

    It is a wonderful thing.

    Nothing would please me more than to see great evil forces serve as their own mutual undoing. :)

  25. Re:It sounds like Windows 3.1 is making a come bac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Gee whiz. Gotta love the artificial limitations Microsoft shoves into its operating systems. Yeah, I'm sure releasing that bastardized system will stop piracy.

    Program_Count++
    If Program_Count > 3 Then Print "Pay us more money damn it!!11!!"

  26. Land of Rising Sun Didn't Fall off Turnip Truck by 10101001011 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    While I could go into a long tirade of how this works, Japan is generally considered more self-centric when it comes to businessand as a rule, if the Japanese company feels threatened (and it has reason to feel so - no FUD allowed), the Japanese courts will deal harshly with it. If you have ever read Michael Chricton's Land of the Rising SUn, it goes into a surprising amount of depth (albeit with alot of fictional twsits).

  27. Another delay...yawn... by OmegaBlac · · Score: 0, Redundant
    though Longhorn faces another delay.
    Can anyone say "Longhorn Forever"? Seriously when this os ships, they should package it with Duke Nukem Forever. Can't beat that combo.
  28. Which is.... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So then 3 out of 5 of 80% of Windows computers in use today, or whatever outrageous percentage of Windows computers out in the wild happen to have a lot of malware.

    Still pretty high. And the kind of people to get hit are probably the ones least likley to know how to fix the issue. Proabably Best Buy and other computer-fixing places will be swamped after.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  29. Re:Rapist admits accusers giving him "Bad Image" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bow before you, O master of flamebait.

  30. Did anyone look at Japanese FTC copyright notice? by rfc1394 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is probably off-topic but I found it kind of humorous.

    At the bottom of the document it says "Copyright (C) yada, yada, yada All Rights Reserved"

    "All rights reserved" is a notice used to claim rights under the Buenos Aires Convention, a copyright treaty between the U.S. and most South American countries. I don't think Japan is a member of the BA Convention, but even if it was, they're still using a notice that has no meaning, since Japan - like the U.S. - is a member of the Berne Convention and so is every other country that is a member of the Buenos Aires Convention. In short, the additional notice is totally superfluous and has been since 1988!

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  31. Monopoly Battle Hurting Image? by OmegaBlac · · Score: 1

    I cannot be the only one that finds the title of this /. article amusing. So I guess all the complaints over the years regarding the security vulnerabilities in their software and the outcries of people annoyed by their business practices didn't have the same or greater negative impact on their "image" as has this "monopoly battle"?

  32. Can you blame them? by gphinch · · Score: 1

    I'd oppose the Fair Trade Commission too. I mean, good god look at their web page! What's fair about using a lens flair in your logo?

    --
    in bed.
  33. What clause by imp · · Score: 1

    Can someone post the clause in question, preferably translated into English?

    1. Re:What clause by achurch · · Score: 1

      Antimonopoly Act, section 19: Businesses may not make use of unfair trade practices.

      Unfair Trade Practices, subsection 13: Restrictive Conditions on Trade - Placing unfair restrictions on trade with or other business activities of a trading partner.

  34. Re:Did anyone look at Japanese FTC copyright notic by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

    Oh my God, that's hilarious! I'm laughing my ass off here! You know, just the other day I was watching the movie Airplane and I heard the line, "looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue" and I thought to myself, "that is perhaps the funniest line in any movie ever." But, man, you've shown me. This is much more hilarious! You could make a fortune on the stand-up circuit.

  35. What hurting microsoft by Thaidog · · Score: 0, Troll

    Is biil gates is a tight-ass... I can alomst see it now... I HAD to take your money.... you don't understand

    Get bent Bill... and while you're at it pay the nation ddebt off to China.... it's the same as your fucking net worth.. obviously it's your then and not ours. THEN DROP OFF A FUCKING CLIFF TIGHTASS

    --

    ||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.

  36. Suggested Rule by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    Licenses have to fit on a single page in a 12 point font with reasonable margins and no words above three syllables.
    Less is more, and greater is (baroque|broke).
    Feed ye not the sharks.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  37. Go Japan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope they make them take it out of their license agreement.

    If they were smart they would not allow their piece of shit software in their country.

    Just go open source now and save all the trouble later when you have to switch anyway.

    Please - this is from someone in the states - Just say no to Microsoft - you do not need them.

  38. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect it's more hardware patents that are the issue. The companies in question are all hardware manufacturers.

  39. Imagery of article by ChronoWiz · · Score: 1

    Who else gets pictures of Godzilla vs a Borg Cube in their minds? Go Godzilla!

  40. On a side note? by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    This may be slightly off topic, but interesting nonetheless. I just read in the Wall Stree Journal that Windows XP Starter Edition can only run 3 applications at a time.

    3 seems a little low when you figure you have to first start up your antivirus program, anti-spyware program, and firewall. And does spyware itself count for software running?

  41. "Go to sleep, there will be peace in our lifetime" by johannesg · · Score: 1
    ...or in our case, Linux will not be threatened by Microsoft patents. Do you really believe it? Or would they, perhaps, be holding back until patent law is in place in all major territories?

    If Microsoft strikes before Europe introduces software patents, the future of those software patents might very well be rather limited in Europe. Thus they wait until those laws are on record before acting.

    If that doesn't convince you, this *Microsoft* we are talking about - one of the most ruthlessly aggressive companies there is. Why would they hold back against what they perceive as their most important competitor? That just doesn't make sense, unless it is part of a greater strategy.

  42. The title should read... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 1

    Microsoft Admits Monopoly Battle Hurting Image... in Japan!

  43. This Is Going To Be Interesting. by LifesABeach · · Score: 0


    I know it sounds Troll, but if its truth...

    I give the ministers of Japan about 9 months before they roll over like cheap whores. Just like the Justice Department did here in the U.S. on the M$ anti-trust verdict.