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.
Everyone buddy up and sue each other now! Microsoft will have to defend us against ourselves.
I'm a big tall mofo.
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.
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
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.
I think they admit that the FTP program and sockets libraries are from BSD. When it makes better software, I'm all for Microsoft taking standard code. Imagine the nightmare that would have happened if they reinvented TCP/IP because they couldn't grab the BSD sockets code!
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
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.).
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
> 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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 %]
I don't understand your logic here unless you are yourself falling hook, line and sinker for Microsoft FUD.
If you use a piece of Open Source software - actually, let's be more specific, GPL software - you get the right to use and modify that code as you wish, as long as your modifications fall under the GPL also.
If those modifications include code that comes under someone else's IP then, yes, you'd probably get sued for it.
However, how can you be sued for just using software that you believe to be under the GPL? If you did not modify that software such that it infringed someone else's IP rights, how can you be liable for it?
I don't understand what indemnification you, the end user, need for using a product you were told does not conflict with someone else's IP?
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
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); }
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?
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.
..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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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!
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.