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?"

Comments

Will help with all the existing lawsuits...

[cdrguru]

... except there aren't any.

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.

This is a big statement by M$

[EmagGeek]

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...

Re:This is a big statement by M$

[John Seminal]

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

All companies are like this, to some extent. They quickly decide what costs more, to go to court or pay out a claim. Think about cars. Back when Ford had those bad tires and cars rolled over. Rather than change the tires on ALL fords, they decided the one death per 100,000* would cost less to settle in court. *number made up to illustrate point.

But I think this is a good move on Microsofts part. They are standing behind their product. I like that. Now if they will stand behind it a little more and offer a product the customers want rather than one which seems to be more and more filled with drm.

Re:This is a big statement by M$

[SatanicPuppy]

A big statement would be:

"We will indemnify customers against time lost due to exploits found in our own code."

Until they have that clause, I'm not holding my breath.

Re:This is a big statement by M$

[EmagGeek]

Well, this is a little different than the Ford/Firestone case. In the latter, the customers were perfectly free to drive within the speed limit, keep their tires inflated to proper spec, and to not kill themselves. This issue was between the Customer and the manufacturer.

The microsoft issue is between the Customer's Vendor, and the customer's vendor's competitor. The customer really should have nothing to do with IP claims over software they buy to use. SCO has no business suing Linux end users over IP claims. SCO's beef is with the Linux authors, but customers are easier to go after because they have money.

It's all a bunch of legal horse shit if you ask me. There's no way a customer should ever be held responsible for the content of stuff they buy from their vendors because they have little or no control over what goes into that stuff.

Re:This is a big statement by M$

[Naikrovek]

(fight club reference)

Multiply number of vehicles in the field (A)
by probable rate of failure (B),
by average out of court settlement (C).

A * B * C = X.

If X is less than the cost of a recall, no recall is made.

It is a common practice to this day.

Here we go

[PigeonGB]

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$!"

Question

[gowen]

Is Microsoft opening itself to defending thousands of lawsuits against their customers?

No. It's opening the way for the next attack on the supposed IP irregularities of Linux. Microsoft is an 800lb gorilla, with an enormous patent stockpile to use againts agressors. Just making this promise means they're unlikely to have to go to court.

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...

Aimed Squarely at Linux

[antiMStroll]

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.).

No Risk

[John Hasler]

> 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.

Harder for the little guys

[Quantum Jim]

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!

Not just FUD but free FUD.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.