Slashdot Mirror
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."
Unless you're a patent holder or an attorney, chances are you're getting pretty sick of all the IP lawsuits lately. Given this, it's easy to applaud Microsoft for throwing their considerable weight behind device makers that run Windows, but we have to remember that Microsoft is a company, and companies simply do not engage in altruism for its own sake. Microsoft has a motive for this decision, and the following passage from TFA sums it up beautifully:So we'll get some relief from the patent nazis, but we'll pay for that relief with Linux being a reduced presence in the embedded OS market. It's a trade-off I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
I doubt this will influence many developers away from Linux, to be honest. With luck, it will deter far more frivolous IP suits than it does Linux apps.
They're doing a good thing and protecting their interests at the same time. Just be happy that corporate interests can overlap with the greater good...then we all win.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Indeed, but don't forget what this really means.
MS is being pushed hard enough to push back; and being pushed hard enough that it must push back by delivering some actual value to the customer for doing business with them.
So they're selling a service rather than the software.
Sound like a familiar model?
KFG
Their indemnification is a worthless gesture until I see a company sued for using Microsoft software, and Microsoft indemnifies themm, as opposed to Microsoft being the plaintiff.
/. urban legand.
Thats like saying life insurance is worthless until your dead. While true (and why I don't have much), many people still find plenty of value in the comfort that they are protected "just in case".
Seperatly about your reference "opposed to Microsoft being the plaintiff", I always hear stuff like that here but only ever hear about MS being the one getting sued. Does anyone know of cases where MS was the plainfiff in a patent case? Just wondering if its a common and true thing or just another
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
I'm having a hard time seeing the unethical side of this.
Loosely translated, Microsoft is saying "If we screwed up and you get sued because of that, we'll help to cover the costs."
I don't quite see the shadiness in there.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
There is another angle. Microsoft is gaming the system to give
legitimacy to "software patents". They will setup a situation
later where all parties involved in the lawsuit are really under
control of Microsoft, and one party will 'lose', and MS will
bail them out. MS does not care how much money they lose on
such a bogus lawsuit, as long as they can set a legal precedent.
Remember, "software patents" is the only weapon that MS has that
they can use to attack GNU/Linux.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Since becoming dead is a certainty and not a possibility, and since death is actually quite common, and since premature death has been recorded to have occurred many times... I don't think that's a good analogy at all.
Just how much life insurance do you suppose would be sold if nobody had died in the past 20 years? Life insurance as protection against financial loss due to death is only valuable if people die. Indemnification against lawsuits from 3rd parties is only valuable if these lawsuits have occured or are likely to occur.
Of course, now that MS has upped the limit the motivation to sue 3rd party MS developers has increased by a lot. It's probably not too far fetched to say that MS's actions have increased the likelyhood of MS developers being sued now that there are deeper pockets behind them.
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.
Erm, does anyone realise that David defeated Goliath, rather than the other way around?
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Absolutely. Do a search trhough uspto software patents. Programmers with graduate degrees and 10 years of experience will realize swiftly that most of the granted patents are for code that they could have written, representing not ingenuity but "a necessity for a particular task".
The patent library is filling up with code that is a "necessary" for various highly particular tasks.
It's very rare these days to see a truly creative work enter the patent office.
Microsoft gives legitimacy and money to the patent system itself with its announcement.