Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Stoking the IP Fire
gokulpod writes to tell us the Financial Express is reporting that Microsoft is heating up the IP battle once again with warnings about IP indemnifications issues. From the article: "Analysts believe that the core issue at stake is whether open source software increases litigation risks. Open source advocates are quick to point out the IP litigation faced by Microsoft itself. Ubuntu founder and leader Mark Shuttleworth says, 'Linux is growing fast and whenever there is a new way of doing things, people will raise all kind of issues.'"
Those who can, compete.
Those who can't, sue.
May the Maths Be with you!
Balmers chopping up chairs as firewood :D
liqbase
The big difference here is that MS say they will stand up for any user that has a MS license and fight to the death over IP issues, whereas with another vendor (whatever flavour it is) you will be on your own
Surely this just opens up a new market for a "insurance" style product. You pay a premium from a company
that has a list of open source software etc that it will protect.
If you ever have a problem, then come in spinner.....
-- Cheer, Cheer, The Red and the White.
When you license software normally, i.e. not Open Source, you don't run the risk of infringement because you are only the user of the software and have no rights to distribute it. On the other hand, if you somehow become a distributor of some software through the GPL or other Open Source license, then wouldn't you be liable? Though you aren't the creator of the work, you are essentially distributing it to others as your own work (in fact, it is your derivative work which you are distributing).
What if it were Microsoft incorporating Linux code into Windows? Wouldn't you want them to be held accountable? Aside from the obvious double standard, why would you think that OSS projects and distributors not be held liable as well?
It's a little disingenuous for Microsoft to claim that as a benefit, though. It's only because they don't grant you any rights that you have that protection.
At least I can safely say I own 127.0.0.1! Oh wait...
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
Microsoft provide protection only for code they write. If the code in patented is part of what you provide or from a third party, even down to the enterprise glue code, Microsoft is not liable, even if it is based on calling Microsoft's API ( see the Timeline case ). You have to agree to let Microsoft take over your legal defence and if Microsoft prejudge that you are at all at fault then you have to agree to pay ALL damages and costs.
From the article:
Microsoft claims to provide "uncapped protection for legal costs associated with a patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret claim alleging infringement by their product". Open source majors like Red Hat also provide assurance programmes to protect their customers.
What has the world of patents and copyrights come to? We have product manufacturers offering to protect their customers from being sued for using their products!!! This is a feature?
Imagine Honda offering "uncapped protection" for their car users against being sued for driving them? Or Adidas offering the same for their shoes(they were recently sued by Nike for violating some "Air" patents)
I think I miss the vapourware days. Even if the features were imaginary, they at least sounded useful.
For example - if you use functioanlity covered by the excel patent case microsoft lost recently, then your business will suffer.
Gartner recommends the following: So... MS loses a patent case, you're liable to clean up the mess.
Furthermore, if the functionality is essential to you, and you avoid installing the service pack, you could be sued
MS is no different to Open Source.
First the vendor is sued, if the litigation is successful, they remove or work around the patent-protected functionality, then if the user continues using the disputed code, the user is liable.
My pics.
Ok, and how is this a Microsoft vs Linux Issue?
I'm sure the article meant this in more of an illustrative measure, but this is a very bad way to present the issue.
Sure companies are going to protect users from legal issues, this is a part of business. It is also a measure of success with a lot of companies, as some do include protections for their customers and are willing to front any legal blows.
Now if Joe Blow compiles Linux and straps on some tools and you use it in your business and you get sued over stuff it contains, what else would expect to happen?
But this is true of any piece of software or OS, why make this a MS vs Linux specific issue? Buzz, get Slashdot attention, make Microsoft out to be something they are not (good or bad)?
If RedHat is offering or trying to offer a level of abstract between their users and lawsuits as Microsoft is, how could this be Linux vs Microsoft? The last I looked Redhat pretty much only shipped Linux.
This is a common business concept and sure there are reasons when you have a lot at stake to go with the better protection. You could also buy insurance to protect your company as well.
Is this not news to just me?
2) Any patent lawsuit costs the suing party at least several hundred thousand dollars.
3) Any patent put before the courts is at very great risk of being destroyed by prior art.
4) Any payout awarded from a single end user has to be in proportion to value of the patented technology. The value of a single instance will could only be measured in hundreds of dollars, not coming close to covering the costs of suing
5) Patent lawsuits take six years to over a decade to work it's way though appeals.
6) Developers will release new software using a method that circumvents the patent in question within two months. This will be quickly adopted and by the time the first patent case is resolved there will be no further customers for the patent holder to sue.
7) The outrage generated in taking out a case against any open source will result in Groklaw and other groups putting the suing party and their lawyers under the closest scrutiny. You will not believe the level of bad publicity, let alone the the amount of prior art, dirty business practices, and legal suspect practices and even violation of statutes that will be uncovered.
Lastly to quote Pulp Fiction, and then "we are going to get medieval on your ass."
Any IP case against users of open source pute the attacker at a far greater risk.Timeline Inc has won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft for the right to sue Microsoft's customers, and subsequently sued Cognos. On February 13, 2004, Cognos settled at cost to Cognos totaling $1.75 million
If Microsoft was serious about it, they should give some compensation for the cost of the upgrade. Imagine large corporations, tens of thousands of desktops. Imagine how much does it cost to upgrade everyone because Microsoft messed up with some IP. I sincerely don't believe in something like assuming half responsibilities. If you're responsible for something, you should be responsible for the whole. Microsoft is currently only "kind of" responsible for IP issues with the software, which may give some customers the (wrong) impression that they are protected, when they aren't *fully* protected. The open source world is different for several reasons. Open code makes much easier to spot and correct IP violations earlier, which avoids a lot of issues. Being more modular and dinamic, open source applications tend to be much easier to automatically manage in the long run (apt-get comes to mind), which also makes the cost for such kind of migration, if ever needed, smaller than with comparable Microsoft products. As for the legal protection, there's nothing stopping open source vendors (such as RedHat) from providing equivalent legal umbrellas, for a price. But the funniest thing about the whole argument is that the reverse of Microsoft argument is true: by being solely responsible for the IP protection, companies like Microsoft become an easy target. Starting a legal case is also very expensive, and IP hoarders need someone big, someone who they can point a finger at and have a reasonable expectation of making some money of it in the end. It does not make sense to go user after user, it does not scale well. We already have an example with the Unisys GIF case. Unisys tried to actively enforce it, going user after user; they ended up scaling things up, and making more noise than damage. The process sparked the community to create PNG, which lessened the importance of Unisys patents. It's clear that the situation, and the risks involved, are not as clear cut as Microsoft would like us to believe.
"Ubuntu (open source software being used by Google) founder and leader Mark Shuttleworth"
well there's a little mistatement, or at least exageration about google + ubuntu...
anyhow, not a judgement call on it, but does it seem M Shuttleworth seems to be becoming the talking head for Linux stuff nowadays, simalar to ESR before (as in the go to guy for the press, not in the raving, neo-con who's "not conservative", gun nut, wacko type sense...)
How long needed RedHat to act upon SCO accusations? There is a difference.
M$ whether likes it or not cannot risk aggravating vast user base. It will be one way or another on the case with its customer(s).
And RedHat waited almost year to launch its case against SCO. It was obvious from the beginning that SCO is fliring with legal system, yet RH waited, leaving many user open to anxiety. (*)
If you personally would ever have even a single customer, you would easily feel the heat coming from them on such issues.
It's not that I'm protecting M$. It's just you have to try once imaging size of M$' user base. And kind of measures they have to take against litigious subjects of US. And all that legalize you normally find in liceses and contracts has to clarified with lawyer anyway - there are always many local laws (e.g. consumer protection) which might override what license/contract in fact says and how situation if any would be resolved.
(*) Even German Linux community and SUSE reacted faster: SCO was ordered to shut up its PR campaign in Germany.
P.S. IANAL. even on /.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Microsoft is full of it when they claim they'll provide indemnification. They roll over and pass along the expenses to end customers like a lot of other companies.
Indemnification is advertising speak for "we're as screwed by the patent system as anyone, but our PR people figured out how to put a positive spin on it."
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
see Chris Dibona's comment Developing a Linux Desktop would distract us.
You have to love the hypocrisy of it all. It reminds me of a story I heard on the radio awhile back, where a drug user called the cops because she paid $100 to a dealer, only the drugs were fake. She could not honestly see the irony of her complaint. I am sure Microsoft doesn't see the irony in theirs.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060221
"
IBM Subpoenas Microsoft! Sun! Baystar and HP!
Tuesday, February 21 2006 @ 10:02 PM EST
Hold on to your hats! IBM has subpoenaed Microsoft! And Sun! "
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
MS will no doubt be up for fighting a SCO-like kamizaze attack. But I can't be the only person who spotted the way that MS will only do it if it doesn't cost much ?
According to Techweb (and many other sites), 25% of Office users will suffer the pain of having to alter apps because Microsoft didn't own some of the technology it shipped.
http://www.techweb.com/wire/software/179100683 Users are currently infringing patents now. But come the next update apparently MS will disable these features.
Thus your applications will go bang. I see that as bad.
Recall how MS issued the WMF vulnerability patch by remotely rebooting people's machines, including servers ?
If you buy an MP3 or DVD player which breaks someone's patent, it's hard to care if the manufacturer gets sued. But if you look at the Blackberry debacle, we see that a patent holder can reach into a user's equipment and disable it.
RIM is not a trivial firm, albeit smaller than MS, it has fought hard, but is losing.
MS lost it's case, and recall all the fights over tech in IE ?
Perhaps this is the real reason the MS is pandering to the copyright holders in the MPAA and RIAA for Vista ?
Thus we have both a legal and technical framework by which you can be shafted. MS can't protect you.
Like with viruses, it's very size makes it more vulnerable, and a more attractive target.
If you were a SCOlike entity would you rather extort $1 from every copy of Windows or Gentoo Linux ?
There are (I guess) >50,000 patentable things in Microsoft's product line. Most of which are of course prior art, or a few licenced or owned. But MS cannot afford even to buy off all the patent holders who might come after it.
Thus MS protection is very limited.
Part of my education was during the Cold War about the role of the British nuclear deterrent, which was a distant 3rd after Russia & the US. It couldn't destroy Russia, but could make an awful mess.
To me it points to what the open source movement should be moving towards with future versions of GPL etc.
By patenting a slew of s/w features, MS, Oracle et al now have something to fear.
The gangs of lawyers on contingency unleashed if MS tries to screw the O/S user base have the same deterrence as as the UK nukes. Not the end of the world, but the end of your world, which is good enough.
Since the lawyers are being used weapons, not as revenue generators, you can cut a deal where they get to keep all the money.
This means they will be more effective than the SCO gang, because their goal is to make a profit, not mutually assured destruction.
DCFC the Pimp. http://pauldominic.com/
Dominic Connor,Quant Headhunter
I'm not sure exactly what the legal definition of indemnity is, but in general speak I understand it to be that "if you get sued for IP infringement, Microsoft will handle the court case on your behalf as a representative of the allegedly infringing product". They're pushing this as a feature (which is a bit crazy, as noted above) in order to try to get a foothold in Asia.
But in today's patent-happy legal minefield, do they really expect that no-one would stand up for Linux users? It's a matter of precedent - no matter whether the case is brought against a particular user or not, what's really on trial is the allegedly infringing software. If the user is found guilty, then the software is found guilty and cannot be used by anyone else. The makers of the software, and more likely organisations such as distros and Linux advocacy groups will all have an interest and no doubt a role in protecting the product (and the user).
Anyway, does anyone else think it's sad that you can be sued for using IP-infringing software, rather than the software makers? That implies the onus is on the user to pore through the source code and the list of software patents, looking for any potential infringements, which is quite patently (pun intended) ridiculous.
My, that was a yummy potato!
Ats a nice kernal youse got dere, it'd be a shaame if it got all busted, know what I mean?
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
The above post really spells out what this is all about. It is exceptionally unlikely that there is signifiant risk to a "normal" business from being sued over software patent infringmet. What Microsoft are trying to do is stem the tide of OSS adoption by creating Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Unthinking company directors will read the headline, become concerned and stick with MS, however small the real risk.
Most organisations I have worked for have, at some point, permitted the priacy of software, or encouraged it, or even used it as a normal way of running the business. They may express concern about such practices publically but do little about preventing it in reality. This must open the business up to substantially greater risk than that of being sued over patents issues, but often see turning a blind eye to piracy as cost effective.
Art is the mathematics of emotion
I was talking to a sales rep yesterday about an 'exciting new product' that involves hardware plus software tools. I asked if the software tools were going to be made available for Linux. The response I got was blistering. Not only were they never going anywhere near anything open source but they were removing all their cross-platform functionality. No more Java either. The guy was absolutely rabid. He was also totally ignorant about open source.
So, will Microsoft's IP (patent in this case) FUD work? Absolutely. There are lots of people out there who need only the slightest excuse to stick with Microsoft because they are deathly afraid of open source.
Analysts believe that the core issue at stake is whether open source software increases litigation risks.
;-)
We need to get IBM to issue a statement in response to this. Their attempt at stockpiling patents/IP regarding Linux has been documented in the past, as well as their commitment to refrain from legal action against anyone who wants to use it.
IBM are a very fortunate ally for the Linux community to have where the likes of Microsoft are concerned...especially considering that IBM probably have justifiable motivation for a certain amount of competitive revenge themselves. As the old saying goes...an elephant never forgets.
While I can't comment on whether that is or isn't technically illegal, it does show bad faith, contempt for the laws of the country (and by extension for the country itself), and a lack of ethics. But we knew those last parts already.
MS relies heavily on delay tactics anyway, so this method for destruction of evidence supplments them.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Between Microsoft and all the Linux distros combined, only one company or group has been found guilty in a court of law of IP violations. That's right, Microsoft...repeatedly.
/says/ you are using legally dubious software, and yet neither Red Hat, nor Novell, nor Canonical, nor Mandriva, nor any major Linux distributor has been proved to violate any IP-rights in any court anywhere. The closest they came to such a thing was the SCO issue, which has been universally panned as a bogus suit that will come to no good end for SCO.
/should/ be providing you with legal indemnity? The answer is easy.
This is a red herring. Microsoft wants us to beleive that they are "going the extra mile" to protect us from something that is really unlikely, but in truth, if you are using Microsoft products, you are already using work that has taken IP-protected material from other sources without permission or right. And several courts have already said so. But Microsoft doesn't want you to hear that.
If you are using Linux, Microsoft
So, between Microsoft and Linux, who
-Tom
Good to see that this still holds true, for the (at least) 10th year in a row. The sky's the limit!
You're confusing the issue. There is no difference, if the patent-challenger wins. But the difference is that with Microsoft or other vendors with software assurance, they'll at least eat the cost of fighting that battle, and if they win, you're in the clear at no cost to you. With open source, you have to pay for the suit yourself, and even if you win, you've had to spend a fortune on the case (the practical result being that most users would settle rather than litigate). Clear?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Should we be sending someone over to India to point out that Europe doesn't have software patents, all that software patents so is allow US companies to boss you around so why should you adopt software patents?
Droping software patents seems to be the best solution to this ?problem?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
RedHat obviously wanted to let IBM spend the cash on lawyers. And IBM had no interest in shutting SCO down, preferring instead to play Rope-a-Dope until SCO was out of money. In any case the SCO FUD was largely impotant and had very little impact on IBM/RedHat customers.
So who controls all litigation?
1984 mis quote
And if all others accepted the ip which the Company imposed--
if all records told the same lie--
then the ip passed into history and became profit.
In west, capitalist throws chair at invisible competitor.
In communist East Germany state chair factory sue you.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1) How many of us would have wished for big G to be the gravitational force around which tech revolved over M$ four years ago?
2) I bet Ubuntu would not be too dissapointed in this, for the same reason that Duracell touts they they are the 'only battery trusted by some reandom adventurers'.
3) This is a financial website. Let's not forget that your typical /.'er isn't a typical computer user, let alone even close to being a normal human being. They do awknoledge Linux as a viable alternative to Microsoft, and states Ubuntu is the flavor Google is using. I would give that a big thumbs up for a financial paper.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
"You're confusing the issue. There is no difference, if the patent-challenger wins. But the difference is that with Microsoft or other vendors with software assurance, they'll at least eat the cost of fighting that battle, and if they win, you're in the clear at no cost to you. With open source, you have to pay for the suit yourself, and even if you win, you've had to spend a fortune on the case (the practical result being that most users would settle rather than litigate)."
Nope, no difference. In the OSS case, the big ones (IBM, Red Hat etc.) get usually sued first too and "eat the cost" since there is much more loot for the patent troll to gain from them. Of course, the patent troll can always sue users first but they can do that with proprietary software, too. USING a patented piece of software is enough to be infringing and no one safe the patent holder himself can save you from litigation.
I'm not a US citizen and I don't live in America. Some days I think "thank God". It is dismaying to see America's can-do spirit and open-minded, generous approach to life being wrecked by a never-ending avalanche of lawsuits, patent rows, legal opinionating and fuddish litigation threats, all egged on by "analysts" (the kind of fellows who were advising us all to buy stock the day before the dotcom bubble burst). There is nothing sane about setting fire to your own house.
I much prefer the approach taken by the government of Brazil. They decided to put in some support for open source, and when Microsoft objected they told Microsoft to go sling their hook. There was no chair-throwing or calling down of world war three, at least in public. Microsoft swallowed hard and started to behave themselves. Good to see that standing up to bullies can work.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
That implies the onus is on the user to pore through the source code and the list of software patents, looking for any potential infringements
Yes, give me the source code of MS Windows/office/whatever so I can check if it infinges !
Microsoft smoking pie fire.
Which makes absolutely no sense, but did cause me to think, 'Well, the fanbois will be all over that one.'
I'm beginning to suspect that my wife may have secretly replaced my normal coffee beans with decaffinated coffee beans. I keep turning around to see if there's a grey haired old man with a microphone waiting to ask me what I think.
--
Sig arrêt
The difference though is that Microsoft has multiple cash cows, which makes all the difference in the world.
Just as freedom of the press was once said to be for people who could own one, justice is now the exclusive privilege of those who can spend the most on lawyers. You don't cut off your legal competition's air supply, you let the cost of litigating drain their lifeblood.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
IP is a broad term which I think covers both copyright and software method patents and I think Microsoft is trying to say it covers function as well.
If Microsoft imatated a function from Open Source, I would consider it an act of flattery. If they copied the code, the labor of coders who chose the GPL license, then Microsoft would be sued accordingly.
Open source doesn't "Copy" code from Microsoft. We imitate function in different ways.
Microsoft is certianly not offering the Patent protection that they said they were going to. The recent case against them resulted in a changed version of Microsoft Office. Now certian features which used to work will not work any more. You cannot install office and register it and use those functions any more. If your business depended on those functions you now have to find a way to do things differently. They call this protection from IP infringements. I think Microsoft is charging this discussion precicely because they have shown that they are no better able to protect users from IP claims than anybody else.
The law needs to be changed to only protect copyright protection to software source code. The law should not protect file formats, should not shield users from accessing the data they created/licensed/purchased (DMCA).
You're confusing the issue. There is no difference, if the patent-challenger wins. But the difference is that with Microsoft or other vendors with software assurance, they'll at least eat the cost of fighting that battle, and if they win, you're in the clear at no cost to you. With open source, you have to pay for the suit yourself, and even if you win, you've had to spend a fortune on the case (the practical result being that most users would settle rather than litigate). Clear? [emphasis mine]
Sorry - but that's not very clear at all.
You seem to have trouble differentiating between Open Source, Vendor Supported & Proprietary software.
1) Open Source Vendors can (and do) have software assurance.
2) There is nothing special about proprietary software that means you cannot be sued by an IP holder for using it.
My pics.
M Shuttleworth seems to be becoming the talking head for Linux stuff nowadays
Hold it! Check those initials. Are we sure that this is not Micro$oft trying to slip in through the back door and do an end run on Linux efforts? Sounds like classic guerilla warfare!
TechNewsWorld has an interesting article by an IP lawyer explaining why lititgation risks with Open Source aren't as great as they're often made out to be.
This must be the follow on to the MS article about playing well with Open Source.
well done.
I realize this, but this is the minority because it costs money. How many users outside of large enterprises really buy software assurance from open-source vendors? So I think it's a fair point - the majority of the installed userbase of OSS is not indemnified.
There is nothing special about proprietary software that means you cannot be sued by an IP holder for using it.
True, though I never claimed otherwise. What is special (at least with Microsoft's proprietary software) is that being sued for using it doesn't cost you anything!
Two people get sued by IP holders. One is using Windows (the alleged infringer) and one is using free (as in beer) OSS (the alleged infringer being, say, glibc.) Both people must defend themselves in court (or settle). Both need attorneys. But the first person, using Windows, doesn't have to pay anything; Microsoft handles the case for them. The second person is out of luck.
The most common outcome is that the second person settles, which is not an ideal outcome for the rest of users that are also using the allegedly infringing software. The other users would prefer a victory in court. Thus, there is economic basis for other parties to donate resources for defense, but this is not guaranteed, especially if person two is perceived to be wealthy enough to pay for it himself.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Doesn't the wording of the EULA (apparently) release them from any obligation whatsoever?
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
This is coming from a company which over the years have settled hundreds of millions dollars (or billions?) for violating intellectual property rights?
Whatever.
For a company that warns off others against using Open Source because of litigation concerns they do seem to spend an inordinant amount of time in court defending itself against accusations of violating/stealing other peoples IP.
"As an industry leader, we are committed to spreading awareness on the issue among the Indian CIOs so they can make the best software decision that will best meet their business needs while at the same time balancing the risks involved,''
As a convicted monopolist, we are committed to spreading as much fud amoung CIOs so as we can scare them off buying anything other thing MS as well as forcing up the cost of Open Source through the use of bogus IP litigation concerns.(end translation)
Most people have little to fear as you're not big enough to go after. Unlike Apple, Amazon or Blackberry for instance. Good times ahead for the lawyers I guess. The root cause of the current IP racket is the US Patent Office and its predilection to grant nonsensical patents. We need less IP law not more. Lets see where doing business with a 'legimite' software company gets you:
A List of Microsoft Litigation
Microsoft Litigation
davecb5620@gmail.com
It is really silly to worry about lawsuits anymore - You WILL be sued, no-matter what. Anyone with anything to lose is a target. The only thing you can do is make sure you have good lawyers.
The unfortunatly thing is that all these lawsuits make it prohibitivly expensive for the little guys (who can't afford an army of lawyers), and give big corporations the advantage - and at the same time that this is handing the world over to big corporations, we have to listen to people tell us that if it wasn't for this lawsuits "we would be taken advantage of by big corporations". *sigh*
I realize this, but this is the minority because it costs money. How many users outside of large enterprises really buy software assurance from open-source vendors? So I think it's a fair point - the majority of the installed userbase of OSS is not indemnified.
1) Who outside of the enterprise cares about IP litigation?
2) The majority of the installed userbase of proprietary software is not indemnified either - as they've pirated the software (additionally, many with legitimate software will also not have proof of their valid license)
True, though I never claimed otherwise. What is special (at least with Microsoft's proprietary software) is that being sued for using it doesn't cost you anything!
Being sued doesn't cost me anything? Where can I sign up!
Seriously - of course using (and having indemnifiaction on) MS software costs money.
Two people get sued by IP holders. One is using Windows (the alleged infringer) and one is using free (as in beer) OSS (the alleged infringer being, say, glibc.) Both people must defend themselves in court (or settle). Both need attorneys. But the first person, using Windows, doesn't have to pay anything; Microsoft handles the case for them. The second person is out of luck.
The most common outcome is that the second person settles, which is not an ideal outcome for the rest of users that are also using the allegedly infringing software. The other users would prefer a victory in court. Thus, there is economic basis for other parties to donate resources for defense, but this is not guaranteed, especially if person two is perceived to be wealthy enough to pay for it himself.
No - the most likely outcome is for everyone with a stake in selling glibc (say IBM, redhat, novell, hell just about everyone) will step in to defend. Otherwise they're going to lose business.
However - if you're so sure that the scenario you describe is the "most common outcome" then please link to some past cases.
No matter how you spin it bill-boy, MS's indemnification program is bunk. Sheer FUD designed to scare people away from Free/Open Software.
My pics.
Microsoft sees 'legal issues tied to software' as a place where it needs to guide consumer thought. Why? Because FOSS kicks proprietary software's ass when it comes to legal encumbrances.
Seriously, take a look at the ridiculous and downright insulting terms of sale that have been associated with proprietary software over the past few years: We've seen EULA terms that boil down to, "we own your computer, we're just letting you use it," spyware, rootkits, data tagging, terms of sale that demand holes in network security so the software can call home to snitch on you, and the occasional ABA software license compliance audit.
Frankly, in objective terms, buying proprietary software puts the user in a lousy legal position.
FOSS, on the other hand, lacks the power to impose any of that nonsense on consumers. You get a nonexclusive right to use the software, and the freedom to bypass or remove any pieces you dislike. You don't have to agree to bend over and lube up just to install the stuff.
This whole 'indemnity' issue is misdirection. Micorosoft wants to keep people so busy worring about the (overall very good) legal status of FOSS that they ignore the (overall rotten) legal status of Microsoft's own products.
This is a big-ass hint, gang.. Microsoft is telling us what it fears. It fears a world where corporate lawyers shoot down potential deals with Microsoft because the legal encumbrances on the software are unacceptable.
We need to counter this FUD by making lots of noise about how good the FOSS legal package is. We need to see Microsoft's:
"if you use FOSS, you MIGHT get sued"
and raise it with:
"if you use proprietary software, you WILL get EULA terms roughly equivalent to a full body-cavity search, you'll PROBABLY get spyware, you COULD get a rootkit, and you MIGHT get a software audit from the ABA. (and by the way: the number of ABA audits every year is larger than the number of lawsuits against FOSS)"
Loudly. And frequently.
The last version of windows that I paid for was ME. Since then, I have been running Linux.
I will not pay for an OS that includes DRM. Nor do I want to do business with a company that engages in anticompetitive/monopolistic practices such as Microsoft.
The patent issues are important, of course, which is all the more reason to be on the side of freedom.
Somebody's got to make some sacrifice.
Where does your money go? Who's side are you on?
But as others pointed out with the issues with Microsft Excel and IE, and of course there is the Blackberry, if there are IP issues, indemnification is worthless - the company is going to suffer, regardless of buying from Microsoft or whomever. Buyer beware.