Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Admits Japanese Monopoly Battle Hurting Image

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the saving-face dept.

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."

24 of 133 comments (clear)

  1. ah, the old trilateral switcheroo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

  2. 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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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"

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
  3. 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?
  4. 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

  5. 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)
  6. 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 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?
    2. 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.)

  7. 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.

  8. 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 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.
    2. 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?
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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