Microsoft Helps Makers Defend Against IP Suits

TinBromide writes "Microsoft will pick up IP lawsuit defense costs for companies that make windows devices. In light of all the IP suits flying around, it would appear as though Microsoft is picking sides and it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David." From the article: "Microsoft lifted caps on the amount of legal fees it would reimburse to makers of embedded devices that are sued for intellectual property infringement as a result of licensing Microsoft code. The amount had previously been capped based on Microsoft's volume of business with a device maker that licensed its embedded operating systems. Microsoft also said it would indemnify device makers against trade-secrets lawsuits, in addition to patent, copyright, and trademark suits."

Comments

Re:So what exactly does this cover?

[JesseMcDonald]

From the article: "Microsoft lifted caps on the amount of legal fees it would reimburse to makers of embedded devices that are sued for intellectual property infringement as a result of licensing Microsoft code. . . ."

Does that answer your question?

Re:Scam in waiting...

[kunzy]

Microsoft is only defending you if someone sues you over using Windows CE. Only patent problems in the Microsoft software that you license are covered, not some patent the device manufacturer infringes. Think Linus paying everyone SCO is sueing.

Read it again

[mcc]

sued for intellectual property infringement as a result of licensing Microsoft code

In your scenario, the company is not being sued for intellectual property infringement as a result of licensing Microsoft code; they're being sued for intellectual property infringement as a result of their own code.

As I understand it, Microsoft's protections for licensees only extend to intellectual property infringements in Windows. The idea is that if Microsoft accidentally violates some patent when building Windows, and you license Windows, and the people who own the patent come and sue you, Microsoft will cover some costs. If however Windows is patent-clean and the patent infringement was a result of your own actions and not Microsoft's fault, you get nothing. You lose. Good day sir.

Then, of course, there's timeline.

[Stephen Samuel]

Then, of course there's Microsoft's dealings with Timeline, where they (for a substantial discount), signed a license with the company for a data warehousing technology that was almost guaranteed Not to cover customers and developers, because it didn't cover the case where the customer included any code of their own.

When Microsoft's lawsuit (which pretty much echoed SCO's charge against Novell for the rights to UNIX of "We must have gotten those rights -- why would we pay so much for a contract that gives us so little"?) failed, their response to Timeline was. 'If you don't like it, then sue our customers.'

Their software indemnity policy specifically does not seem to cover the kind of situation that they created with Timeline (where there is any sort of custom programming involved -- whether by the customer or Microsoft).
(IANAL)

Hmm... And almost immediately after a judge told Microsoft that they had this indemnity exposure for their customers, SCOg gets this 'idea' to create a big (fake) kerfluffel about how Linux has an indemnity exposure ... along with a $BIG 'license purchase' from Microsoft.