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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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.)