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
Those people better be prepared to start paying out their rears now.
Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/
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.
Does this cover any IP lawsuits against anybody who HAPPENS to make MS embedded devices?
Does it only cover IP lawsuits related to the making of those devices?
Does it only cover IP lawsuits related to MS technology in those devices?
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.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
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.
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.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I think the reality is that Microsoft can't do this without also acknowledging that copyrights and patents retard innovation.
While it would take some time to work out the fine points of the operation, one could dream something up where the patent in question was fairly specific, or perhaps place more than a few patents into the equation. Then one could dangle the lure of getting a piece of Microsoft's bank account in front of a few talented, greedy patent lawyers; or perhaps go to one of Microsoft's competitors for assistance, such as Google.
:)
Just some creative articulation.
Ex nihilo nihil fit.
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.
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
Might not be the best term. Anyone that actually knows the story would realize the folly in siding with Goliath.
Find coupons in Greeley
But no matter how you look at it or how the lawsuits go, only one thing is certain: it's only the lawyers who end up on the island. One side is much poorer after the suit, and the other is only a tiny bit richer. The difference ends up in mai-tais all around for the law firms involved.
John
i feel that modern day business (in capitalism atleast...) is less about being ethical, and more about not-getting-caught-being-un-ethical.
similar to college-like thought: it's not illegal unless you get caught...
i don't care
IBM maybe? I like your synopsis on this. And I agree.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David.
Maybe I'm forgetting something about the Bible story (involving, I'm sure, the poor aerodynamic quality of patent attorneys and their unwillingness to sit still in the sling), but shouldn't this sentence read: "it might be better to side with Goliath when facing anyone but David"
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.
I think the bigger reason is that if the small company loses, Microsoft is next in line to get sued. Think of it this way, if you sue MS for using your IP, you'll most likely lose. BUT if you sue a small company, you might win. Now, if MS uses software from that small company, now you can sue them with a much better chance of winning, since you have already set precident
1. Say you'll indemnify people being sued because of your code.
2. Secretly fund people to sue people using competitors code ( open source or not).
3. throw chair
4. PROFIT!!!
5. There is no step 5
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.
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.
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.
Would be a shame if someone sued you over it.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
FTA: "Microsoft chairman Bill Gates is scheduled to speak at a computer security conference in San Jose, Calif., next week."
Computer security and M$ is truly an oxymoron. I don't think that this will hurt Linux as much as Kaefer would like to think. M$ may be able to BS the average home user, but the embedded world may turn out to be a different story. Security and dependability are critical to embedded systems and M$ doesn't come to most peoples' minds when they think of security, not to mention dependability.
Do what is right and let the consequence follow
It may reduce it for a time... but after a bit you can just cite legal precidence. All the hard work will be done for you :)
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
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. . . ."
IANAL, but wouldn't this mean that if an IP lawsuit would actually be filed against a device maker, the lawsuit would be invalid? For it is Microsoft infriging the patent, and not the device maker? Since the devicemaker just bought a product for which he should be able to assume there are no patent infrigements in it?
If the protection was actually usefull, lawsuits could be filed against users for running a Microsoft product which infrige patents.
I get the strong impression this news is just a MS PR stunt to give the impression MS actually defends the device makers for some existing danger.
So if MS covers windows developers... and IBM (Or was it Novell?) Covers Linux developers... does this mean Apple has to be next? Where is all this silliness heading?
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
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.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Since patent litigation tends to have positive externalities it is underproduced. Sounds weird I know, stay with me.
Positive Externalities: Clarity (at least more so) for other patent holders, if the patent is declared invalid (46% of them are) it benefits anyone wanting to use it not just the litigator, 95+% of patents have no commercial applications so they aren't litigated, litigation is expensive only 6% of litigation goes to trial (the rest settle).
So actually we ought to encourage litigation. Its a pain in the butt, but if the courts could find some consistency we'd all be a lot better off. Or if the government could get off its butt and produce a viable patent system (rather than this broken IP system we have now) we'd abe a lot better off.
In response to your first paragraph, "Thank you, Captain Obvious."
In reply to your second paragraph, I don't see any relief from abusive patents just because Microsoft says they will indemnify the device manufacturer for costs if the code they licensed from Microsoft is accused of be infringing.
On the one hand, they strenghten their monopoly, and on the other hand they squeeze out Linux.
Why did the US DOJ decide to stop pursuing the monopoly suit again?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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
Yes. That's all well said and true. But know that, this move would lift a HUGE Barrier to entry cost. For example, lets say I wanted to develop "gadget-X". Given the current market of litigation, patent infringment put the fear of God into potential investors. As such, only companies with deep pockets will take the risk. So now we have two factors.
1. Microsoft has the largest user installed base in the market.
2. Microsoft is willing to foot the bill for legal IP issues that might otherwise put you off on developing "gadget-X"
Now, from a pure entrepreneur aspect Microsoft is your friend. If you want to play like the devil, you must learn to dance with him.
Life is not for the lazy.
This isn't really news. This is just an extension of what Microsoft said when the SCO V Linux suit was sparking up & they said the same thing about users running thier OS.
"it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David"
Has the bible taught us Nothing?
what's that you say? No?
Well Microsoft would have to wouldn't they. I mean how many times now have they been sued over the past 10 years? The "suers" must be running out of claims directly against Billy and now will soon turn their attention to the 2nd/3rd party code writers. Cause after all those folks have been using the same code Microsoft has gotten sued for. Frankly I think indemnification is a bunch of bullocks but when you deal with a company that has been sued left and right.... I guess it's a needed thing.
My karma is not a Chameleon.
Now the can go a more expensive route to support you, but they have no requirement to, unless it jives with their business plan.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Who's going pay the Spacing Guild to go all the way to Arrakis to sue a sandworm over IP violations?
Aside from the RIAA?
The Russian Mafia will mod you down just to see if the Moderate button works.
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".
Strictly speaking, it's life assurance, not life insurance. Insurance is for something that might happen, assurance is for something that will happen.
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.
How do you know? Did you look at the code?
Some of it, yes.
most of it? no.
In the case of NT3.51 and previous even video ran in user space, makes for besser security, useability suffers at some points though.
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
"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."
This most likely has a lot more to do with Blackberry than Linux. They want to sell their software, and they don't want the PDA market killed by frivolous lawsuits.
Vote for Pedro
it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David."
The way I remember the story of David v Goliath is that a little stone flung between the eyes of giant Goliath caused immediate death. What happened next? David used Goliath's own sword to cut off the giant's head then went and killed his brothers.
Me thinks it might be better to side with David, but that's just me. Or, the author picked the wrong analogy.
Thanks,
Leabre
If by "service" you mean a Mafia-like protection racket.
On the one hand, they strenghten their monopoly, and on the other hand they squeeze out Linux.
This won't really strengthen the MS monopoly, unless most vendors want free and limitless legal protection. (Then again...)
Why did the US DOJ decide to stop pursuing the monopoly suit again?
I don't even recall why. But last Fall the Bush admin just smacked (foreign) Samsung with the second-largest penalty ever for "monopoly" behavior (price-fixing). The AG pronounced it as "proof" that the Bush admin is serious about protecting America from "monopoly abuses".
If by "service" you mean a Mafia-like protection racket.
Well, they are the Evil Empire, they can't help it if they bundle a hefty helping of FUD into their service. To do otherwise would be unnatural for them.
One OS to rule them all
One OS to find them
One OS to bring them all
And unto Windows bind them
In the land of Redmond where the marketing lies
Beware the Ballmer!
KFG
I read this article as Microsoft demanding that hundreds of thousands of customers install software upgrades and patches, rather than paying less than $9M for the right to keep delivering Office as-is.
So while they keep advertising about their IP "guarantee", when push comes to shove it seems they'd rather offload the expense to end-users and customers rather than deal with it properly.
And no, I don't care about the details or "validity" of the above patent. Point is that MS promises to protect the user, then rolls over when it looks like it might cost some money to do instead of talk.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I'm surprised they hadn't agreed to pick up the tab earlier. People have frequently cited indemnification as a reason to pick up Windows rather than Linux or BSD. However, the occasional case has shown that such indemnification is illusory, and if you get caught with, say, an IP-violating Win2K printer driver, you're SOL.
On the other hand, notice that it isn't full indemnification they're offering, merely legal costs. If it is ruled that the windows device does violate IP law, it is on the client to pay the piper. And it is only device makers. If you're running or selling a windos system, you are on your own.
Maybe this announcement will raise awareness of that.
The ______ Agenda