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?
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
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.
Got Google? It is not public domain. It is BSD licensed. And selling BSD licensed software without supplying the source code is allowed by the license.
Ne mæg werig mod wyrde wiðstondan, ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
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.).
> 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.
MS FUCKING DOS
If memory serves Microsoft bought QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) from the Seattle Computer Company fair and square. Because they offered to license it to IBM and IBM accepted making MS buckets of money doesn't make it illegal or underhanded.
Trolling is a art,
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
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.
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!
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.
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 %]
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); }
..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!
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.
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
Actually, spin it the other way -
IIS makes for a wonderful "distribution and piracy tool", and Microsoft not only makes it... they've historically and systematically installed it onto users' machines without the user even knowing about it.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am