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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
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.
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
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