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

Microsoft the white knight? Not so fast...

[TripMaster Monkey]

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:

Microsoft's expanded indemnity for device makers also positions Windows more favorably in the market against Linux and other embedded operating systems, Kaefer [Microsoft's director of business development for IP and licensing] says.

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.

Re:Microsoft the white knight? Not so fast...

[kfg]

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

Re:duh

[mooingyak]

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.