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."

Comments

Double Standards?

[Dominatus]

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.

Re:Double Standards?

[bstone]

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.

Re:Double Standards?

[Dominatus]

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.

Specifics about the JFTC ruling

[Pahalial]

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.

what company image ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Easy fix

[lukewarmfusion]

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.

Whew!

[Otter]

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.

Re:Lets See...

[James Turpin]

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.

Re:Boosting the Company Image?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Based on the definition of "hypocritical"...

[Aim Here]

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.)