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: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.

IP retards innovation

[argoff]

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

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

Goliath had rocks in his head

[revery]

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"

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.

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.

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.