Slashdot Mirror
MS Indemnifies Customers Against IP Threats
bigtallmofo writes "Microsoft announced today that it will indemnify nearly all its customers against claims that their use of Microsoft software infringed on any intellectual property rights. The only exception will be for embedded versions of Windows, since vendors are able to modify the source code. Is Microsoft opening itself to defending thousands of lawsuits against their customers?"
I don't see any coming, either. Of course, this might just be a trick to prevent a big one that MS knows could come, but I doubt it.
Of course, they are saying the following:
1) We have never stolen anyone else's code
2) Even if we did, we believe it cannot be proven
3) If someone does claim to prove it, we will destroy them in court
1 + 2 + 3 = We own all software anyway, so you don't have to worry...
A summary of some posts below:
SCO sues Linux users, prompting fears that Linux is legally scary to have deployed commercially in your business.
Microsoft says, "See? TCO for Linux rises because you need to be ready to pay the legal costs of defending yourself. We at Microsoft, however, will do such defending for you."
A summary of other posts: "Screw you, M$!"
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
One thing that occurs to me, not that I harbor an ill will against Microsoft , is that this could be the call to arms of MS gettingready to start trying to collect/stifle with their patent suite. After all, just last week(?), MS pointed out that they feel they have all sorts of rights regarding myriad open protocols. Perhaps this is just to make their customers feel safe, considering what they may be about to try with Linux customers? Thank heavens that IBM can fight this one toe-to-toe.
As SCO enjoys the free publicity :(
Everyone buddy up and sue each other now! Microsoft will have to defend us against ourselves.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Only is Microsoft stole the source code, but we all know that would never happen *cough* *cough* IP Stack *cough* *cough* (Although that might have been in the public domain...)
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
This is just a case where instead of both customers and MS as target. MS says that customers are not the target its only MS. Also they probably think they could counter sue any big player suing them.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
Samba share and initiate the associated
> application.
I don't like this suggestion at all. This is part of the reason virus and worms are so prevelant on Windows systems today.
I understand the usuablity behind it. It makes it so much easier for the user to start working. Likewise, it makes it so much easier for a little bad program to have its way too....
Henry Ford did something similar to this in the early 20th century. Other automobile manufacturers claimed to have a patent or some such nonsense on what a car is. They didn't like Ford and wouldn't "license" the idea to him, and threatened to sue anyone who bought a car from Ford. Ford insured his customers against any lawsuit brought against them by the other car manufacturers. It was a huge coup for his business and Ford eventually won out his lawsuit against the other manufacturers.
Founder, Americans Allied Against Alliteration
I think it's fairly obvious it's a publicity stunt. I hadn't heard of any lawsuits affecting customers anyway, and it's just extending an existing policy.
It's just another tool to take on Linux and OS advocates. It doesn't make Windows any less bloated or secure.
However, this does spell out some of their battle plan - they're going to play up the IP angle more.
I'm curious as to how the Linux/OS community will respond.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
You missed...
smart... so now they are ready to launch a new marketing campaign about how linux and open-source in general does not stand behind it's customers and how the poor customer does not know what they are getting into while MS will defend it's loyal customers...
They are basically saying I'm suing your customers, and you can't stop me. Try to sue mine, but I'll stop you 'cause I already secured all those IP rights with Sun Microsystems and all.
Mwaaah
Or maybe I am being over-paranoid.
But on the other hand, I have to say it is nice to have a manufacturer stand behind their product. Although I would preffer if M$ withheld windows release dates until they had all the bugs worked out.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
RedHat, or whoever, aren't. They simply can't make comporable promises. Mix in some FUD from MS's attempts to get licensees from TCP/IP, HTTP etc (slashdot, passim) and you'll keep your business consumers scared away from Open Source.
Ob/. : 3) Profit...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Microsoft's going to defend me when I get sued for IP violations? Wow, that's great!
Now all I need is a legitimate copy of Windows.
There's a company called Acacia that's suing lots of .edu for streaming media patent infringements. Looks like MS has offered a pretty big shield for .edu here - so long as you stream using MS tech, they'll protect you.
That'll be a blow for Acacia - their business plan relies on suing individual institutions in a 'divide and conquor' manner and persuading others to license the right to stream media for a pretty substantial fee. They won't want to take on MS.
-EvilMagnus
Is Microsoft opening itself to defending thousands of lawsuits against their customers?"
I'd say it's more likely that by a remarkable coincidence, a rogue company, with no discernible ties to Microsoft, will begin suing Open Source end-users for IP infringement, effectively underscoring the significance of Microsoft's indemnification. Remind you of something?
--
I write stuff, but not that often and not that well...
indemnify
IANAL, YMMV. TTFN.
3D Printing Tips and Tricks at Zheng3.com
Answer: No.
This whole notion that users are facing some threat from patent infringements in someone else's software is pure nonsense. It's one kind of FUD when Bruce Perens and PJ Groklaw do it to sell Linux insurance, and it's a not-especially-different bit of FUD here.
Note that they're not indemnifying in the one context where it might actually matter...
What possible relevance could this have to core Microsoft products? Very clever actually, insulating MS clients from a non-existent risk in order to imply it's a valid concern. There's no legal path from seller code theft to client culpability. Microsoft's way once again of bolstering the SCO suit (unless they're genuinly worried their Shared Source Initiative unearthing skeletons.).
If a company doesn't have an airtight case, they're not going to go up against someone who is going to be defended by Microsoft. So anyone who gets sued will be doing MS a favor, because it's an easy way for MS to find companies with good IP that they can then buy (or crush and then buy), then turn around and sue other software companies for violating their newly acquired IP. It's freaking brilliant if you ask me. Brilliantly evil, but brilliant nonetheless.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
I mean - it sounds stupid if every profit seeking software vendor have to state this indemnity explicitly to its customer.
Sunset over the lake, cool mist over the bridge; A leave upon the ripples, the snow reflects its glow.
Yes
OK, I've had enough of MS, Ballmer and company spouting off about protecting their customers against IP litigation, etc.
Lets end the bullshit now and have someone like IBM suit MS for patent violations and force MS to open up their source like Linux can to absolutely prove they do not violate anyone's IP.
Sure like Windows code is absolutely pure! It may be proprietary but that doesn't mean its pure... until ya prove Billie and SteveO!
Developers, developers **SMACK** Ahhh shut up!
Microsoft allows piracy of Windows, et al to go on.
why? why not, you still get to be the dominant OS out there and that is one of their goals. if they went after every person who priated windows xp they would have no one using windows...
but corporate customers are differnet, i can see them going after them
> Is Microsoft opening itself to defending
> thousands of lawsuits against their customers?"
No. They are revealing that they know that there is no significant risk of end-users of software being sued.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
This is just M$ preparing the field, in preparation with what will be unleashed to Linux Users...
The Great IPocide is looming in the horizon.
Software patents will serve their masters.
for getting phuqued by using your os and software, and then mayhaps we shall chat of licenses et. al.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
As we always do: By continuing to write and release useful software. Companies which are scared off can just go ahead and tie themselves (and an increasing portion of their profit margins) to Microsoft. Smarter organizations will benefit from what is freely available, and will prosper in the long-term. Microsoft will adapt or die.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
... in the plan for Microsoft to go to war against it's rivals in the courts and in the media. They plan on using their patent portfolio as a big stick, and start whacking with it, over and over again, because A-they *have to* now, they have no choice because they are rapidly losing mindshare in the IT world, and B-they can because of the way the "law" is setup and C-they can maintain the "shock and awe" whacking in the courts and in the media for a long time. They could easily devote some incredible sum to the task and not break sweat and their shareholders would love it because they are being "protected" and the company would be "proactive" for them, etc.. Expect a lawsuit and propoganda and governmental lobbying blitz soon.
I doubt very much that Novell have, or would claim to have a patent on word processing, embodied in WP or otherwise.
Any lawsuits based around WP will be due to MS anti-competative behaviour, i.e. deliberately changing the Windows API in order to break WP so that Word would gain market share.
Microsoft just wants to make it harder for the little software developing companies and individuals.
It is a really stupid patent system when someone who buys a product in good faith is liable for the other person's mistakes. That's why the big companies - with lots of dough - are promising to fund the legal expendures of their customers. The threat of these kind of lawsuits haven't changed much in the last twenty years (and IANAL); however, the fear of them seems to be increasing. This is extortion insurance - in my outraged opinion.
If this becomes standard practice, then these guarantees to indenify users will cost the individual and small software company developers much more than the big guys. Imagine that the only reason people can't start a development factory are the (non life altering insurance) legal costs rather than physical constraints. That's f'''ed up!
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one has plenty of work to do.
- Jerome Klapka Jerome
Not only am I indemnifying you from damages from the bottle, but also the contents!
You may now all pay homage to me as your God.
The real attack will begin with openGL. This is not about the server space (where they have to fear IBM/HP/SUN/Novell/ etc.). This is about the desktop.I am guessing that it will probably start in the new year.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
This may be a ploy in Microsoft's battle against open-source. Even though this may be a solution in search of a problem, big-corporate types may not realize this and think they're about to get hit with a zillion lawsuits unless they use microsoft.
America is bricking itself off. Now every idea will have to be bought and paid for. The barriers to entry will be such that what created America will cease to exist.
Since any idea can be found to originate with the words used to express it, that will mean the slow strangulation of original thought; just because you'll have to pay God knows who, probably some lawyer who's acquired a bunch of patents, God know how much, every time the light bulb goes off in your head. (The imagery owes something to Edison.)
It won't take too long before you stop attempting to act and then to even think.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Why does noone point out that
...
Opens Source Risk Management do that for opensource products in a vendor-neutral way ?
And, btw, MS new "indemnification" doesn't come for free like Internet Explorer, all MS users will pay for that
#include "coucou.h"
I'd be on Linux all the time if it weren't for some software that only ran on Mac or Windows that I need to use for my digital camera. I'll get a Mac just so I don't help that stupid monopoly!
In light of the switch in tactics by the RIAA and MPAA, it might have dawned on Microsoft that future litigants might go after consumers of Microsoft products, rather than Microsoft itself. Such a tactic could, potentially, reap plaintifs far more money for a lower investment. If used by a competitor, it could also potentially cripple Microsoft by scaring off customers in future.
I think Microsoft has a great deal of reason to be concerned, especially if they are continuing along the path of misappropriating other people's stuff.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The thing that I find heinous is that there are hundreds of lawyers employed by MS to probe IP licensing and patenting opportunities. Every time we license an MS OS we pour a large percentage of money into useless lawyers, advertising, packaging, princely facilites, yet very little money into legitimate R&D. What a crime.
I'd heard rumblings that MS were trying to come up with an attack on non-MS OS implementation of vfat/NTFS (read Mac and Linux), fortunately there was a revelation that IBM might have the patent on FAT type schemes.
Oh yeah, and those Acacia bastards... I seem to remember when I was a kid, there were on-demand tape-streams over the phone lines-- seems like that predates any of their so-called intellectual property surrounding network streaming...
Simpletons like me stand no chance against expensive, lexus-driving lawyers!
Subject says it all, are Windows Mobile customers protected? after all handhelds and mobile gadgets are quite popular and a money spinner for many companies.
Now when a company is purchasing software, the indemnification of risk will becom a tick box on the business case evaluation. Mircosoft has made it easy to tick the box for them, but what about RedHat or SUSE or Lindows?
If I can't get indemnification for using open source software then I will be forced to buy only Microsoft products.
Time to do so with your Linux products!
Here's a good business plan.
1. Start one company and get some Patent, any patent, having to do with software. 2. Create a second party company that uses Windows and infringes on the patent. 3. Have your first company sue your second company.
Since company2 will be indemnified, they'll care very little about winning, so will put up a poor defense. Company1 will win, but Microsoft will compensate company2; so its free money for you.
They want to do it because:
a) they have a patent warchest to make cross-license deals which don't cost them a dime and let their products off the hook.
b) they have a $30bn warchest for those that can't be threatened into a cross-license
c) Linux, OpenOffice, Apache and other free projects don't have these advantages.
They're trying to increase the cost of doing business for all programmers by saying "here's a money source, do you have a patent we can license?".
Was this backed by in-house council, or was it backed by an external Law Firm.
If it is inhouse council, if the wheels fly off and there is a tide of litigation, Microsoft can only really fire the Council, David Kaefer and staff.
If it is an external law firm it is different. There are apparently only a handful. If they frig it up, microsoft can sue them for giving them the wrong legal advice. These law firms' worth may not add up to the same amount as Micorosfts liability, but it helps
So I think the cream of the Intellectual Property lawyers have advised Microsoft what their exposure to any possible liability is. Law is hard and difficult, but there are a lot of very talented, very experienced lawyers out there, and they work for huge corporates, like M$. If they have mapped out every single current possible legal avenue, then taken into account some possible shifts in Case Law, and possible new laws from government, they could be fairly sure what the exposure could be.
Actuaries do this for insurance all the time, and it makes insurance companies £££ x 10^£££.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
With open-source there are NO such issues; if any infringing code is found, it is simply replaced.
End of story.
Way to confuse and complicate things for your clients, Microsoft.
That's another reason why no one should run MS products, it's legally entangled.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I always like 'dual prong' strategies. Buy into SCO and get them to smear GNU/Linux with FUD and lawsuits,and then offer guarentees that Windows closed code doesn't have that problem. Kinda like the good cop/bad cop treatment.
"Look, I'm trying to help you, but if you don't use our product I can't help what Guido here might do to your kneecaps".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Claims of patent liability can be applied directly to those who "use" a given piece of software, which is very different than copyright. One can effectivily deny the legal use of a given software implimentation by patenting the method it uses, and then sue end users who do use it regardless of how it is received. In fact, one can receive and distribute software that infringes on a patent (as a case in point, "hinting" in freetype), since patents only effect use (while copyright only effects "distribution"). This announcement suggests that Microsoft does intent to make use of gaming the legal system to their favor by denying all others the right to use software through the threat of patent intimidation, which, really, is the only practical use they could make for their portfolio of patents on other people's ideas.
Even Microsoft's 2004 May 27th changes which apply only to customers under enterprise licensing contracts, which Microsoft claims grants greater immunity, contains many loop holes which greatly negate Microsoft's liability.
r _developers_face_huge/ 4 1479.html
w ww.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/
The section 6 clause contain exceptions:
Our obligations will not apply to the extent that the claim or adverse final judgment is based on (i) specifications you provide to us for the service deliverables; (ii) code or materials provided by you as part of service deliverables; (iii) your running of the product, fix or service deliverables after we notify you to discontinue running due to such a claim; (iv) your combining the product, fix or service deliverables with a non-Microsoft product, data or business process; (v) damages attributable to the value of the use of a non-Microsoft product, data or business process; (vi) your altering the product, fix or service deliverables; (vii) your distribution of the product, fix or services deliverable to, or its use for the benefit of, any third party; (viii) your use of our trademark(s) without express written consent to do so; or (ix) for any trade secret claim, your acquiring a trade secret (a) through improper means; (b) under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (c) from a person (other than us or our affiliates) who owed to the party asserting the claim a duty to maintain the secrecy or limit the use of the trade secret. You will reimburse us for any costs or damages that result from these actions.
Loophole #1 "(ii) code or materials provided by you as part of service deliverables" This would effectively still indemnify Microsoft against most of the Timeline Inc patent claims, as it is the developer/end user's code ( even visual basic code ) which would be in violation of Timeline's patent claims.
Microsoft licensed Database/Datawarehouse technology from Timeline Inc, but unlike Oracle and other database vendors, Microsoft chose a license that did not grant Microsoft's customers the right to fully use that technology.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/20/sql_serve
Timeline has extended it's patent claims to cover many featured widely used by developers, both ISV and in house.
http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/41479/
Timeline Inc has won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft for the right to sue Microsoft's customers, and subsequently sued Cognos. On February 13, 2004, Cognos settled at cost to Cognos totaling $1.75 million.
http://www.timeline.com/021304PR1.htm
Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers and users exposed to IP threats. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents
http://web.archive.org/web/20020806173115/http://
"Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to software developers or third parties who use Microsoft toolkit, language, development or operating system products to provide GIF read/write and/or any other LZW capabilities in their own products(e.g., by way of DLLs and APIs)."
Other Loopholes include (v) and (vii), but the killer is (iv), which disclaims any
indemnity for users who wish to input any data. (ix)(a), also since literally it excludes trade secret liability for improper action on
anyone's part, including MS.
Does Microsoft's new agreement include such loopholes? Anyone have a link handy?
Yea, does this include the protection of those of us you are using a "borrowed" copy of Windows? Or how about DOS? Is that covered somewhere or no one will even give the time of day to me for even mentioning that? :)
Are the crazy rumors true that Longhorn will have a Unix kernel?
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
When a company offers an indemnification clause, it will contractually require you to assign it total and complete authority to defend, compromise and settle any case regarding the matter to which it grants indemnification. That means Microsoft - not company 2 - decides how vigorously to defend the lawsuit and whether or not to settle.
With very limited exceptions that don't apply here, this is the standard rule, e.g. when you have automobile insurance. If you are involved in an auto accident and considered by anyone to be at fault, your insurance company provides you with a lawyer and defends you, and if you lose at trial or they decide to settle, they pay the amount of damages up to policy limits. But the insurer decides if it will settle or defend; you do not.
Having been both the party at fault in two accident and the injured party in two others, I am fully aware of how this works. In every case the injured party and the insured usually have no contact at all, the insured's insurance company - who is providing indemnification - does everything with the injured party, the insured doen't even get involved unless it proceeds to suit.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
This is just FUD, I think.
Intellectual property falls into the following general areas. Infringement is completely different for each area:
sigs, as if you care.
Following their logic:
Microsoft had legal issues before because they didn't indemnify. Now they have legal issues because of indemnification. So they just have more legal issues, which means you should pay SCO a license to avoid infringement of their copyright in using Microsoft's products.
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
..this could be the call to arms of MS gettingready to start trying to collect/stifle with their patent suite.
I believe it unlikely that Microsoft will start to pull out the patent weaponry against anyone at this time.
A patent attack is different from claiming copyright infringment in the code: SCO public propaganda aside, remedying copyright violations (if any exist) is a relatively trivial matter of rewriting the sections of code proven to have been unlawfully copied. Patent violation, on the other hand, is far more serious to Free software. A successful suit of patent infringment would very likely declare that key functionality of a program (not the code itself) is illegal, thus crippling the target.
As you pointed out, there are many players like IBM who will seriously fight for any Linux on any moves like this by Microsoft. MS would not look good in the press trying to wage this war, and could very easily lose big in court, as well.
This strikes me more of an extension of the FUD campaign: scare potential Linux switchers that there may be IP issues, then note that they will protect you if you stay. Never mind that many Linux vendors provide similar protection. Never mind that there are no facts to back up the scare, only innuendo. It doesn't matter. Anything to keep companies on Windows until they're safely trapped into Longhorn in a few years.
Then.. you may see the lawsuits from MS! As I understand it, they've patented a bunch of stuff that will be part of Longhorn, and any interoperation attempts with it on a network will be violating their patents. They will attempt to make Microsoft an island: continue to not support others' technologies, but also keep others from supporting theirs. No more Samba, WINE, Crossover, no more opening Office files in anything but Office, hell maybe even no more viewing web pages served from MS servers if they like! You will then have the choice of using Windows exclusively, or using alternatives exclusively (with all of the migration headaches cranked up to the maximum, since it could not be a gradual migration, but rather a complete flip-the-switch to a whole new IT infrastructure for any company considering doing this).
They also stand a greater chance of success in court at this point (clear violations of their patents). It will still be risky from a PR standpoint, and they may not play that card unless Linux starts putting a serious hurt on Microsofts revenue streams, but it will be far more viable goal if they choose to at the point they have their patent cards in hand and patent-encumbered software in wide use.
So the strategy at MS will be more FUD on top of FUD, desperately trying to keep people off of Linux for the next five years or so, until Longhorn is entrenched. For MS, Linux cannot be permitted to gain enough of a marketshare that a significant chunk of the IT industry could survive being unbeholden to them. Hold on, the noise from Redmond is going to get much louder over the next while. Plus, I'm sure another SCO-alike or two may be thrown in as well to keep the pot stirred. Anything to keep business and government off of Linux at all costs.
So, long-winded rant finally at end, the best thing that we can do is to encourage Linux deployments in government and big business. Any and all effort to make such moves possible is a good thing, far more so (in my opinion) than working on stuff aimed at the home user (games, media players, etc). The home user will not save Linux: we will be marginalized any possibly even forced into hiding for using "illegal" software if this goes badly. We need heavy hitters on our side, a lot of them, and we need them soon. They don't have to care about Free software, only have their bottom lines threatened by its potential extinction!
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
If Microsoft infringes on someone's IP, it is Microsoft that is liable, not their customers.
Indemnify means to protect or compensate for damage, injury or loss. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=indemnify
All I read was indemnify, not assume liability. Could be a significant difference depending on exactly what they mean by indemnify. It might mean if you defend a lawsuit and the judgement is against you, MS will pay the judgement. Still part of a big FUD campaign though.
If this is Microsoft's strategy against open source, then I would say that are going to lose this battle.
With this decision, Microsoft is making it clear that one of their main strategies against the onslaught of open source is to spread fear of lawsuits. They are setting themselves up to have the "better story" when it comes to the indemnification question.
This makes the arms-length support of SCO (by licensing its "IP") make more sense. The more Microsoft can do to fund linux related lawsuits, especially those against end-users, the more effectively it can use fear to sell software.
This may work for some time with very large accounts, but this strategy is a loser in the long run.
People will view this whole indemnification business with a cynicism that will only grow with Linux's market share.
didn't M$ fund some of SCO's IP lawsuit? Now they are defending against IP lawsuits?
Count Ballmer: I have good news for you, my Lord. War has begun.
Darth Clippius: Excellent. Everything is going as planned.
You are being totally suckered by Microsoft and now is the time to start thinking about what alternative software solutions exist for your enterprise.
No, I am not talking about rolling Linux out on all your corporate desktops and servers overnight - far from it.
However, as every day goes by, you are being dragged deeper and deeper into the Microsoft web without realising it. Attractive licensing deals from MS offer financial discounts to you but in the long term, they lock you more and more into the proprietary world one a single organisation who is just out to do one thing - to make money.
So while you may be spending less money on MS products, just how much money are you now spending on securing mail servers and your intranets from the endless assaults of virii and worms? How much extra have you had to spend on virus checkers in the past year? How many "personal firewalls" have you now deployed over and above the two layer firewalling system that worked perfectly adequately until 18 months ago? How often are you replacing laptops and PCs in your organisation because of the extra demands Microsoft products now make on those machines?
Now Microsoft make this offer of indemnity. What do you think this means to you? What it actually does is drag you in deeper with your Microsoft partnership, you become more dependent on Microsoft, you cannot run your organisation without Microsoft products, Microsoft end up controlling you. In future, it won't matter how insecure or shabby Microsoft products get because you will be so locked into their licensing schemes, you will not be able to escape from them - they become the drug dealer, your corporation becomes the addict.
Think about this now and start to think at other software solutions. Invest some money in looking at alternative ways of doing things in your enterprise - spend some money on a few extra servers, load them with open source alternatives, train some of your IT people to administer them properly, decide for yourself whether open source software is right for your enterprise.
Open source will not give you all you need now - it will do some things better than your existing Microsoft solutions, others it will do worse. However, the open source developers will listen to you if you tell them why you don't like their software and they will try to do something about it if there is a genuine need to make improvements.
But please ACT NOW. Give yourself that lifeline, that "opt-out clause" you create for yourself just in case Microsoft really starts getting heavy on you - believe me, it will happen.
Remember, Microsoft is nothing more than one of your suppliers and should be treated as such - if a supplier lets you down, you start looking at alternative suppliers - the company that provides you with software solutions is no different.
So, spend some money now. Run a few open source servers in parallel to your Microsoft ones, use them, evaluate them, get your users to test them.
But make yourself smarter about the alternatives now before it really is too late for you...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
If infringing code is found in open source, it is already too late, you are liable at THAT point in time. Yes, open source has those problems and is probably at a greater risk than closed code because of it. If MS is being sued for IP infringement, what would stop the litigous party from going after Linux next, or any other code that uses TCP/IP. Nothing. Laugh all you want but your laughter will stop short when you are the next target for this stupid infringement stuff that is going on.
I boils down to freedom to speak or act freely. If I write down something that can be used by a processor, I am likely to have stepped on a patent somewhere. I can be sued and my ability to earn a living can be quashed permenantly. Sooner or later, a CPU will come along that can process the spoke english language and use it to do it's job. What will happen then? If you speak out loud will you have violated the patent on the spoken language processor's coding language? Will we have to invent another language so that we can speak freely then? We will have to work out this issue csooner or later. In the mean time, it helps to have people who can see the forest throught the trees.
Microsoft has a huge patent portfolio. Very few poeple have bigger portfolios like IBM. MS probably has some obscure patent that can be used against almost any OS if they wanted to. IBM does too. Patent warfare can and will get ugly if this is the avenue that MS, Novell, IBM, or Apple wish to take.
I agree, they are saying they are responsible, like they were no matter what. This is a I'm here to cover you to the extent of the law requires me to statement. They are just stating what they couldn't avoid doing anyways.
Stop signs are only Suggestions
Maybe not form MS, but you can get that. Companies, specifically those that make mainframes, will gaurentee esentially 0 downtime. Problem is you do it in their terms. You run only on the hardware they tell you, and you don't modify it. You want an upgrade? Fine, you pay one of their people to come do it. You also run only the software the allow. Each package must be tested and certified to work with the OS and all other packages. You then can't load anything else without their approval. Finally, you can only use it as approved by them. You can't have people hacking at it and sending it bad data, it needs to be protected and only used as intended.
The problem is people seem to want that big iron stability from comoddity stuff. Nope, sorry. When you run on cheap hardware from multiple vendors, with a whole slew of software in a hostile environment, nobody will gaurentee their shit against downtime because nobody can make the gaurentee.
Linux is not immune, if you tried to gaurentee a given distro was safe for 0 downtime due to code flaws, you'd get burned since they aren't. Exploits ARE found. Even in software that's very good (like Apache) they come up every now and again, and when one does, you are screwed.
You just have to make a choice between openess (meaning ability to choose your own) of hardware and software and rock solid relibility. You can't be allowed to roll your own solution and expect a gaurentee of relibility. Now this doesn't mean that comoddity solutions can't be made to be very reliable, some are, just means no company will gaurentee it.
There's also tradeoffs in hardware and software design. The IBM z architecture and zOS are, when you get down to it, pretty damn slow by today's standards. When you factor in what they cost, they are obscenely slow in everything except IO. Why is this the case? Well, because they trade speed for relibility in basically all cases. If there is a way to make something more reliable, at the cost of some speed, it's done. That's the idea, you can put a z series mainframe in place and it'll just never go down on you.
A real microkernel would be one things along those lines. Basically EVERYTHING, even video drivers, file systems, etc runs in user mode. They all then talk to a very simple kernel that passes messages back and forth. The advantage is since the kernel is so simple, it can be tested very thourgly, and it can control for any problems, it can make sure all messages passed are properly formatted. However, this is very slow. You have real trouble with high performance video under such a system.
The software world seems to think that, if I use Windows, and it turns out Microsoft stole code, I am personally liable.
Maybe I missed a (hairbrained?) ruling somewhere that changed the precedent, but wouldn't it seem that I'm safe from lawsuits anyway over Microsoft's code theft?
________________________________________________
suwain_2
If you purchased a mass-market product that infringes on a third-party's patents (like Kodak's instant camera a few years ago), the manufacturere that made the device (Kodak) is liable for infringement to the owner of the patent or patents (Polaroid) and technically so are you.
The patent owner can sue the manufacturer for infringement and they can sue any user of the item that incorporates an infringement of a patent. In theory they could sue you but as most end-users are simply innocent infringers (and have little or no assets) as well as it being bad public relations and too expensive to bother, they typically do not.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
And it is profitable too. Lawyers manufacture no goods, grow no food, and create no art.
There is not nearly enough love in the world, but there is far too much trust.
You remind me of Chris rock too:
Whenever there's any article on slashdot concerning microsoft, some ignant ass mother fucking basement troll needs to come out and make stupid comments.
As many have pointed out already, an indemnification agreement such as this one is a VERY common instrument among businesses. Virtually every retailer requires that the manufacturer of any product they sell indemnify/defend them from lawsuits arising from use/misuse of the product.
/.'s favorite enemies: MS and lawyers! In that sense, its no surprise that the story is so popular. I'm no MS booster, but theories that this announcement is part of any master plan to dominate patents/ip/users/etc. are probably a bit overblown. Take heart, though: MS will likely do something else to fuel conspiracy theories within the next 10 days or so--they usually do.
The agreements exist because a plaintiff's lawyer will name everyone he can think of when initiating a lawsuit. This is understandable; he doesn't yet know who is most responsible, or who is most likely to pay. Anyway, because of this, retailers are anxious to avoid being dragged through product liability lawsuits if there's no allegation that the store did anything wrong. The indemnification agreement protects them from everything but *their own* negligence.
Microsoft is really just extending the model to software and, apparently, end-users. While I agree that there's PR hay to be made MS comparing its product to the SCO mess, this isn't necessarily a *result* of that litigation.
Of course, that means that this story exists at the unholy intersection of two of
As M$ state on their site:
/ register /index.html
"Microsoft offers a strong intellectual property indemnification policy for end-user customers. The same cannot be said for Linux and open source software vendors."
Hmmm, untrue, Novell have been offering indemnification since 01/12/2004 see...
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity
Seems like a deliberate ploy to add a bullet point to the list of pro's for choosing a M$ based solution over an open source one
Could you?
It would rid the world of yet another group thinking Slashbot.
MS had to try to say something to make it look like what they have to offer is better than Linux in view of the clear and obvious language in Microsoft's EULAs that explicitly deny any liability or indemnification for any form of infringement for your use of their software.
If someone who has a patent infringed by Windows 95/98/NT/ME/2000/XP and wanted to be nasty they could pull an RIAA style bulk lawsuit strategy against every retail and business user of the version or versions of Windows that carried some infringing technology that they could find. Most people would be unable to defend against such suits and might have to settle. And Microsoft wouldn't owe them a dime in compensation or be responsible at all for indeminfication.
However, such a lawsuit would be a public relations disaster for Microsoft that they would probably make some sort of settlement to provide relief for end users in such a case or might intervene to defend against it. Maybe just buy the company that has the patent.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
[akbar]It's a trap![/akbar]
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.
Now, I'm ready to cry foul on MS as quickly as the next guy, but that's how Unisys operated. They wanted anyone who used their idea in a program to license their patent. The alternative is to ask Microsoft to become a sublicensee, keeping track of who used LZW. Ditto for the Timeline patent.
It's unreasonable to expect Microsoft to pay the patent litigation and infringement costs of developers who use MS compilers. That would be like Microsoft saying they'll indemnify you against libel if you make your libellous statements in a Word document.
sigs, as if you care.
I'm suing myself over infrigement against one of my "patents" with windows.
Microsoft will now have defend me from myself and be cause I have information on the inside they will quickly settle out the case.
It's a beautiful plan...
quick... someone slap me.
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
As others have pointed out to me, people have actually sued Microsoft customers for patent violations in MS products.
I guess it beats working.
sigs, as if you care.
This idemifaction 'issue' seems to be part of the larger FUD campaign against linux.
It's not just FUD but free FUD. They'd have to help defend anyway, because a successful suit against a customer of their products would put their entire customer base in jepoardy and result in an instant migration to another platform and a crash in their sales. (It might also be followed by a suit against their distributors, too.)
As for being FUD, wasn't one of the issues that got settled in the SCO debacle that a user, even of open source that he loaded as source, wasn't liable for damages from the owners of any IP that got improperly included? If so, by promising indemnification they can make people think the legal system will zing them even if it's already decided it won't.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Technically, being sued for file sharing using their OS might be an avenue to pursue. Have M$ "defend" me...
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
The only exception will be for embedded versions of Windows, since vendors are able to modify the source code.
WTF? There's no source code on my copy of the XP Embedded database/tools cds, so what are they on about...?
It should be noted that other database vendors such as Oracle, who licensed the same technology from Timeline Inc, did not choose the same license restriction, but choose a license that allowed all end users to use the API freely.
Oh.
sigs, as if you care.
... what they say and what they actually do are two different things. They have lied and cheated so many times that I wouldn't trust a single word out of their mouths. That is just one reason that my family, my company, and I will stay on Linux - Microsoft products aren't even allowed in my home.
Hey, did any one ever think MS just announces stuff then reads /. to come up with their next business strategy, there are so many good evil ideas on here.
Hi,
nice try, but we know the life is easier without MS on the Server for the client side I'm cant wait.
my 2 cent
This is odd. Somehow, if in a turn of events MS steals some code and puts it into Windows I'm somehow guilty. I would have thought MS would be in hot water not the buyer. Why would the rightful IP owners chase the numberous consumers when a fat MS is clearly at fault.
Thanks MS but no thanks. Shielding me from IP that aren't my problem is something I don't need you to do for me.
No, no, no -- you have it all wrong! What you should do is indemnify all the individual users and OEMs against your software: Seems the poor bastards are getting creamed in many numerous and expensive ways because of your crappy products. True justice would see a world-wide class action suit you (Microsoft) to cover all the loses individuals and businesses have suffered because of your slopware.
The EULA? Can a person on the street walk up to another and say, "I'm not responsible for my actions!" and do whatever they like to the other and suffer no consequences? No, and neither is your EULA a license to act irresponsibly by saying up front, "We're not responsible for our products."
Funny that the very marketing department which has made you, Microsoft, so successful is the noose around your collective necks: Microsoft marketing says, "Hey, buy our products, they are the best!" whilst the EULA says, "We're not responsible for our products!" whilst the customer says, "Hey, I'm getting screwed here because of this lousy product!"
What do you call sky-high promises before the money changes hands followed by complete avoidance of responsibility when the promises turn out to be misleading _after_ the money changes hands? I think the legal term is fraud.
*Waves to packs of hungry lawyers, points to Redmond* Sic 'em! There's gold in them thar shills!
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
Step 1: Microsoft indemnifies customers against lawsuits
Step 2: SCO sues Microsoft customers for infringing their IP
Step 3: Microsoft protects customers and settles with SCO
Step 4: SCO Profits (from more money funneled from MS)
Their customers were never at risk. What they want to do is create an illusion of risk so that they can say they protect against it better than if you went with free / open source software.
Sort of like a candidate saying he'll protect the US against terrorism, when in actuality terrorism in the US is still so rare that it's the least of our worries. It's an empty claim which serves a different purpose than stated.
The IP threat is just FUD. By feeding SCO money they have helped build the FUD that open source/Linux is an IP nightmare. Now they get to use that FUD to their advantage.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
of your mescaline.
They are the primary defendant in annoying lawsuits by companies who produce nothing but lawsuits having successfully filed a patent on a technology already present in the market place.
.. code base is belong to us.
I haven't read the MS declaration in detail, but the summary makes it sound like customers are protected against IP lawsuits. Well, being sued for the RIAA for pirating an MP3 sounds like a lawsuit based upon someone's intellectual property. Can you get MS to protect you against these lawsuits by using the Windows MP3 player to play these MP3s? A boy can hope.
The XYZ Software Patent Company has a portfolio of mostly worthless software patents that may or may not apply to Microsoft products. They send a letter (cost, about $1.00 per letter) to one million Medium Size Companies saying that XYZ will file suit unless Medium Size Company licenses the patented software for $1,000. If Medium Size Company doesn't buy a license, XYZ will sue them.
Its going to cost Medium Size Company a couple of hundred bucks just to have their lawyer send a "F__k Y_u" letter and a few thousand to respond if XYZ actually files suit. Filing suit will cost XYZ about $12.95 since they already have all the docs in the word processor and just need to change the names.
Medium sends them a check for $1,000 and gets on with business. XYZ moves on to the next opportunity.
With MSFT indemnifying their customers, XYZ knows that any letter they send to Medium Size Company is going to trigger a Howitzer response from the big guy in Redmond. Kinda kills the plan before the first letter goes out.
We used to use a third party TCP/IP stack by Trumpet back in the Windows 3.1 days.
That Microsoft rolled their own based on the BSD one is pretty much irrelevant, and to have rolled a non-compatible one would have been pretty much a waste of their effort becasue the Internet was becoming mainstream in Universities and early-adoptor businesses before Microsoft "got on board."
The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.
If Microsoft or any other company for that matter, would let their customers take the hit in a IP dispute they'd lose their customers for sure. The reality check here is that most companies would stick up for their customers in an IP dispute, they have to.
I'd like to think though that in the case where an open source product would get involved in an IP dispute, that they would be able to find more people that would be willing to help them dig up the needed pre-existing work than a company like let's say SCO.
-- This tag was never meant to be
I mean, who else would need help in a lawsuit about her use of Windows?
DON'T PANIC
Hi!
What is Microsoft doing?
Microsoft is shifting more and more of their revenue stream to server products. There are only so many features you can stuff into Word, and let's face it, OpenOffice is perfectly suitable for most office workers. Microsoft is also pushing hard to have third-party software (and hardware) vendors embed Microsoft components in their software. We're in the Microsoft ISV program--and I have spent time with the corporate legal staff discussing whether or not Microsoft will indemnify us against any claim for IP infringement. This announcement clears the issue up--they will.
What's the big deal?
I work for a company that makes lighting controls. We make the dimmer in your dining room--but we also make control systems for very large projects, such as Lincoln Financial Field (home of the Philadelphia Eagles). We provide Windows-based control software (among lots of other things)--it would be a serious issue if a vendor to Microsoft sued us for infringement based on Microsoft's code. That's exactly what SCO did to AutoZone. SCO didn't contend that AutoZone intentionally infringed--they alleged that AutoZone was using an app developed by IBM that infringed. Nonetheless, AutoZone lands in court in an IP infringement case. Microsoft's indemnification effectively means that if somebody sues us on the same kind of claim, we don't have to worry. Microsoft will defend the case, bankrupt the attorneys, crush the plaintiffs, reduce their homes to rubble, enslave their children, and--and ruin their self-esteem!. We won't have to be involved at all. 8-)
From our perspective, that's a good thing.
But doesn't this portend an onslaught of Microsoft attorneys arrayed against the forces of Open Source? Isn't the battle of Armageddon nigh?
No. This simply means that Microsoft is telling vendors that embed Microsoft products that they do not have to worry about getting caught up in an IP infringement case. That's all.
How about, "We will no longer fund BSA lawsuits against our own customers, such as public school systems, and are encouraging other member companies to cease and desist."
An offer of "protection" by M$, very funny.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
"See we will protect you, but if you dont sign on, we cant guarantee that the company bringing suit against you in the future will be us.. "
Expect lots of suits from these people down the road.. It HAS to start happening eventually as their market drops.. Just look at the RIAA.. its a standard business reaction to loosing their shirt...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
>Microsoft is an 800lb gorilla
Said gorilla has been losing rather a lot of blood recently. The only thing that they really have going for them is George W being in the White House, as far as the US is concerned, anywayz...in the EU they don't really have any advantages at all. They've also been having to make massive court settlements recently, while their revenue model continues to decline.
In short, Microsoft are finished. Oh, sure it'll take time, purely due to the company's size...the Microsoft ship started sinking in around September 1997, and it'll take a while yet. Bill also is not going to take his medicine willingly...The IP storm is going to come. But I think eventually (particularly in the EU, where the will of the people still actually counts for something, to a degree) the court of global public opinion is going to judge both Gates and his sick "vision" and find them sorely wanting.
it's rather like elections.. you're stuck with them, no matter what crazy shit they start doing..
Remember that next time your 'contract' is up for renewal...
...TL were suing developers for building products with MS SQL and TL's patented and copywritten code because MS hadn't paid Timeline to redistribute it as they were and neither had the developers. MS told the developers that they had paid for full redistribution rights.
Perhaps this is more of the same - MS is telling people that they're all paid up when IRL it may not be so ("the large print giveth, and the small print taketh away").
Either way, if you recompile stolen code and use it on your systems, you're liable. OTOH, you have a great defence in that you didn't know it was stolen, which kind of pushes the warranty back on the developers claiming ownership of the stolen code.
OTGH, for purposes of suing people into the ground and establishing precendents, a large suitor could attack (say) individual end-users of Gentoo for using the stolen code, deployers of Gentoo because they built it themselves using stolen parts, plus Gentoo as an orginisation for packaging the stolen parts in the first place, plus the authors who either did or endorsed the dirty deed of including stolen code in the original codebase. The immediate moral of the story is: don't steal.
TSG's lawsuit is like this, with one significant omission: there is no actual stolen code.
The problem is, as with TSG, the damage suffered and fear generated while the barratry is in progress. The authors responsible for the inclusion of stolen code are the only ones ultimately responsible. The people in between have no more duty-of-care than an MS developer or deployer or end user would would have.
The percieved value in what MS is offering is insulation from the pain of this barratry. The tinfoil hat brigade will, with some slight justification, go looking for evidence that MS teed TSG up for just this purpose, and in fact a number of FOSS luminaries claimed exactly that right at the start. Either way, it doesn't change the outcome.
The value MS is proposing is largely illusory, since even if the company is reimbursed after having to pay legal expenses and damages, it will still be massively inconvenienced, out of pocket for internal stuff, and have suffered damage to its reputation.
Nevertheless, MS will make as much publicity hay as they can while the legal sun shines. What we should be doing is exactly the same thing (not teeing up devious FUD plans, but asking the emperor where his clothes are and pointing out stuff like the relative impossibility of even finding most FOSS users compared with (say) subpoenaing a customer register or accounts from MS, McAfee or Adobe - a licensing yoke which doesn't appear on many TCO/ROI studies).
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...bending over far enough to do that. Do you think they'll keep my first-born if I use just a little dab of paraffin wax to ease the friction?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Um, did you read your own submission? If you have a short-term memory problem then I apologize for being intolerant.
To me to this day,
IP = Internet Protocol.
Now if Microsoft could indemnify their customers against all threats transported by the internet protocol, _that_ would be some news...