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:Scam in waiting...

[TripMaster Monkey]

Interesting concept, but I was under the impression that Microsoft wouldn't be giving up these patent disputes without a fight...and the 800-lb gorilla that is Microsoft can manage to tie the case up in court for years, and effectively starve out a lot of litigants.

It Company A & B have enough clout to actually fight Microsoft, let alone seriously entertain notions of prevailing in said conflict, they'd probably do better to just cut out the intermediate steps and buy their island now.

IP retards innovation

[argoff]

I think the reality is that Microsoft can't do this without also acknowledging that copyrights and patents retard innovation.

This could actually blow up in their face..

[Indian]

This might actually work the other way than expected. With Microsoft standing behind, the "product-less" IP companies would love to sue for millions/billions of $$.

I won't be surprised if this actually ends up increasing the number of lawsuits.

This is not that big of a deal for MS

[Edmund Blackadder]

If you read the article it says that Microsoft will reimburse legal costs for any infringement that results from use of microsoft software. So essentially they will reimburse when their software infringes.

The key is this -- a patent holder will always sue the party with the deep pockets. And when MS software infringes MS is liable as well as the embedded device maker that licenced the code. And lets face it, Microsoft has deeper pockets than any embedded device maker out there. Thus, it is 99% certain that whoever sues an embedded device maker for patent infringement of their software code will also sue microsoft. Now since Microsoft will have to pay to defend themselves anyway, they would not incur much additional costs in taking over the defense of their client as well.

Now, even if the patent holder sues only the embedded device maker and not Microsoft, MS would still have a big stake in the case, because if the patent holder wins that will make it easier for them to win against Microsoft in the future. Thus, MS would probably prefer to join the defense of that case as well.

Thus, this policy does not really cost microsot much in addition to what they would have to incur for patent defense even if the policy was not there.

But it still does provide embedded device makers with some help. Note also that if the embedded device maker loses the case, MS does not agree to reimburse the judgements, or the costs of injunctions and that is what may kill RIM, not the legal fees.

Re:This is not that big of a deal for MS

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, what typically happens is that a company goes after some relatively small targets and says either:

1. We think you are infringing on our code, so pay us, or...

2. We'll sue you and tie you up in court until either we win and establish a precedent so that we can go after others or we lose in which case, no harm no foul.

Small companies often choose option (1) because they can't afford option (2). What Microsoft is saying is that they should always choose option (2) becuase MS has deep enough pockets and enough IP lawyers to take on even the largest case.

A good example of this strategy is the MPEG4 patent row, AT&T went after smaller users like NERO who could be bullied into settling and validating (to a degree) the patent claim before they approached Apple. Another example from a few years back was the Intergraph/Intel patent fight where Intergraph didn't immediately go after Intel, they went after the consumers of Intel chips like HP & DELL.

Re:Siding with Goliath?

[XMilkProject]

If your a religious asshat, then you have a valid point.

Those of us who make decisions logically know that in the real world, Goliath wins 99.9% of the time. Especially against the crap lawsuits that David is wielding.

I suppose you could always pray for protection from litigation.