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

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$

[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.

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$!"

Let's all sue each other now!

[bigtallmofo]

Everyone buddy up and sue each other now! Microsoft will have to defend us against ourselves.

This isn't the first time

[leroybrown]

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.

Re:Will help with all the existing lawsuits...

[sqlrob]

What about TimeLine suing MSSQL users?

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...

re: will help with all the existing lawsuits...

[ed.han]

this is about something much bigger:

"the company plans to make indemnity a new plank in its "get the facts" campaign, which touts the advantages of windows over linux."

IOW, it's benefitting from SCO's FUD. of course, at some point, SCO will run out of gas, these IP cases go away, but for those M$-thralls whose contracts renew, that resolution will probably come too late.

FUD, and /. bought it?

[RealProgrammer]

This is just FUD, I think.

Intellectual property falls into the following general areas. Infringement is completely different for each area:

1. Patents

   Anyone using patented technology (even in a "device" they didn't make) can infringe. However, the idea that some patent holder would sue Microsoft customers for patent violation strains the imagination. I suppose as a business tactic someone might do it to hurt MS, but the negative feedback they would get would dwarf any harm done to MS. Maybe after they sue Microsoft first, but I can't imagine Microsoft a) letting it get that far and b) leaving the patented technology in place.

2. Copyrights

   FUD. Unless you make copies and distribute them to others and harm the owner of the copyright in doing so, you don't infringe. I see no way a Microsoft customer can be liable for copyright infringement without also infringing against Microsoft.

3. Trademarks

   FUD. If you just use Microsoft products, and don't display the products to others, I don't see how you can violate some hypothetical third party's trademark.

4. Trade secrets

   FUD. The only person who violates a trade secret is the one who reveals it. The person who learns the secret is not liable for trade secret violation. They may be guilty of doing illegal things to get the secret, such as breaking and entering, but they aren't on the hook for trade secret violations.

5. Contracts and licenses

   FUD. If you don't sign a contract or click through someone else's EULA to run a MS product, these don't affect you.

6. (What The SCO Group Has)

   It's not known what this is, since it occupies a different reality from our own. OT: the Novell Board of Directors understood in 1995 that they retained the copyrights to UNIX after the sale of the UNIX business to the Santa Cruz Operation.