Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft/Samsung Ink Patent Deal
An anonymous reader wrote with an article at ZDNet, discussing further implications of their patent cross-licensing initiative. With options already in place with Fuji Xerox, the company is now signed up with Samsung as well. From Samsung's perspective, it is simple: these deals ensure it can sell products using Linux without facing a suit from the Redmond-based corporation. "The notion that customers and businesses need Microsoft's legal go-ahead to run Linux has been controversial for some time, with the issue rising to the surface last November after Microsoft reached an accord with Linux vendor Novell. Novell has since taken issue with Microsoft's assertion that the deal represents an acknowledgment that Linux infringes on Microsoft patents."
Where I tell people that if they give me money, I won't sue them. What a concept!
Software patents are the worst thing to ever come out of the patents office. Badly reviewed applications are the second worst.
It's like SCO all over again. Hopefully it ends as badly for M$ as it is for SCO.
-Patent the obvious.
-Push for MS-Favorable patent laws
-Cross-license patents as ONE revenu stream
-Sue into oblivion companies that create real products, as the other revenu stream.
FYI: MS bought out NTP to avoid a patent suit in 2010 and fired all their programers and support people in 2016.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
I call shenanigans, it was invented years ago. There is, quite literally, prior art!
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
Thank you Novel for pioneering the future where MS doesn't even have to use or code for Linux to profit off of it. Thank you for the future where we essentially need MS's permission to run software.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Almost like pie, but not quite.
This "patent indemnity" system is turning patent monopolies into patent cartels as protection rackets. They are all so clearly anticompetitive that they should not be allowed whatsoever.
I've been part of some negotiations to sell some new applications that include GPL software to some established service providers to be deployed in their networks. They're all freaked out about "patent indemnity": how will a little company offer patent indemnity along with the apps they deliver? When the little company tells them "we abide by the GPL, so we're safe from license problems, and we wrote the new code ourselves", that's not good enough. The big companies now love to say "what if something happens to you like how Verizon is shutting down Vonage on patents, how will we cope with losing your services?" Even though Vonage has deep pockets, and there's nothing GPL about their conflict with Verizon.
Not only are the patents monopolizing innovations, and way too broadly. The entire racket has big, risk-averse companies avoiding business with the source of most innovation and economic growth: little companies. We are heading for a total freezeup of real innovation and growth. And these bogus patents, used like a weapon, are killing it.
--
make install -not war
...for clinching the decision on whether I need to boycott Samsung. I've had one of their DVD players for a couple years now and it's a bunch of ass.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
The notion that customers and businesses need Microsoft's legal go-ahead to run Linux has been controversial for some time, with the issue rising to the surface last November after Microsoft reached an accord with Linux vendor Novell.
Regarding of whether the patent system is messed up, needs reform, etc, etc, there are still patents. Microsoft should be afforded the same right to protect their patents just like any other company. Now what exact patents that Linux might be infringing on remains to be seen. Nonetheless, these companies that ink deals with Microsoft are screwing themselves in the long run. Has Microsoft actually sued a company for patent infringment within Linux software? I think most of it has been thinly veiled threats that a few companies (and probably a more to come) are unfortunately falling for.
when I say, companies that are falling over themselves to sign these convenents are F***ing pussies!
To quote Jack Nicholson as the joker in the first Batman: 'You ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?'. This is what you get when you sell your soul for a few bucks. Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing, and I intend to never pay for another piece of MS garbage ever again. LONG LIVE OPEN SOURCE! LONG LIVE INNOVATION!
Any cross-licensing is a good thing for now. It enables business' to sell and support Linux with reduced risk. They are not going to get sued. For sure. If or when the issues of unlicensed patents comes to a head then go to court but, in the meantime Linux gains more of a foothold. All Linux has to do is reach a critical-mass. Once theres enough people using Linux then more support will exist. More support leads to more users and the cycle feedbacks onto itself.
:^)
I'm waiting for the day when in a last-ditch effort Microsoft Open Sources Windows to remain relevant
Shh.
With open source there's always the question of who to sue for patent infringement. M$, and others, have decided to threaten the customers. Nothing new here. It's always fun to threaten someones customers - it really saps their business.
That is where I think most open source licenses suffer. If the license gave everyone standing to sue on the open software's behalf, then it would pay to sue M$ and others for infringing on open source. Then M$ can try to shake someone down for protection money and the person can respond by shaking down M$ for protection money. Currently, M$ holds all the guns.
I am a lawyer, but not yours. Anything I tell you might be a total lie intended to benefit my clients at your expense.
OR...
Nobody should be able to appeal to government force to secure a monopoly.
So does anyone have any idea exactly what this intellectual property is that Samsung are paying for, and what Linux based systems actually infringe on? If Samsung haven't asked for specifics then they're yet another weak minded company who's been badgered by Microsoft into doing something stupid.
There is over 20 years of Microsoft's lawyers striking up 'deals' with 'partners' only to find out that what the 'partner' thought the contract/license/deal/scam ment was something entirely different from what Microsoft planned all along. In 1996 I was shocked that Sun Microsystems could even THINK that Microsoft would work with Java and play the good Java citizen but their lawyers thought they trust Microsoft even then and once again, we know what the result was. And that was 1996. Here we are over 10 years later and Novell lawyers and executives are surprised that what they thought they signed is different from what Microsoft knows it signed? Somebody is REALLY flunking law school or maybe their just too 'full' of themselves to realized Microsoft is not a trustworthy partner. Either way, these people have not learned a single thing from over two decades of Microsoft double-speak. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
After the new patent changes no longer requiring the patent application to disclose prior art, but just focus on who filed the patent for it first, Microsoft will be right there patenting both paper and ink.
Maybe RMS should teach them a lesson with his new katana
MS's Patent Deal Covers "Certain Linux-Based Products"
."[PJ:Emphasis added. So it isn't Linux itself, I gather, rather stuff that runs on it, perchance things like Mono, OpenOffice.org, etc.]
Microsoft and Samsung Electronics have agreed to a broad, cross-licensing patent agreement that apparently includes a controversial clause that protects against any legal claims Microsoft may have on technology used in Linux....
Within the joint press release announcing the deal, however, the companies said, "Samsung and its distributors and customers may utilize Microsoft's patents in Samsung's products with proprietary software, and Samsung will also obtain coverage from Microsoft for its customers' use of certain Linux-based products
Do you guys actually believe that Samsung's no-doubt massive legal team didn't comb over this agreement and consider it necessary and relevant?
Why does everyone assume that companies just *do* things that will ruin everyone, everything, and allow another company victory?
If it seems like Samsung is forfeiting profit, you're simply looking at it wrong. The kind of oversight people are making on this thread about the purpose of this deal would result in the company literally getting sued by their shareholders.
In short, Samsung did this because it was cheaper or convenient for them, and would not cost them any sales or necessary flexibility.
Stop acting like open source is so inflexible and fragile! This is Novell and Samsung's business, not the entire OSS community's.
How in world did Zonk 'imagine' that Samsung signed patent cross-licensing because of Linux? Remember that Samsung is a fairly large company, and I remember that most of the software code Samsung uses isn't based on open-source anyway.
Come on. They are simiply trying to minimize business risk, not trying to bash/crush/destroy Linux. Nothing else.
Yes, this is Slashdot, so anybody who does anything with Microsoft will be evil. Oh. I see. Never mind.
(btw, I believe that both parties would be interested in patents related to video/audio stuff, not something like operating systems.)
Novell is a weak company - they inked a deal with M$ because it suited both parties who feel threatened in this space.
+ Linux+agreement/2100-7344_3-6137444.html
But following links in TFA, and back beyond them:
1. The M$ Balmer FUD bullshit:
"...and because open-source Linux does not come from a company -- Linux comes from the community -- the fact that that product uses our patented intellectual property is a problem for our shareholders..."
i.e. we can't threaten to sue *everyone*, so we picked-off the weakest member of the flock...
"But to the degree that people are going to deploy Linux, we want Suse Linux to have the highest percent share of that, because only a customer who has Suse Linux actually has paid properly for the use of intellectual property from Microsoft."
i.e. we'll claim to push technical interoperability with Novell/Suse, (which will probably be more bullshit), since they will be more pliant to our desires...we'll also threaten to sue anyone who develops, distributes or uses other products.
2. Novell rebuttal
"We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents," Hovsepian [boss of Novell] said.
A Microsoft representative on Monday issued a response to the Novell letter, saying the two companies disagree on this point.
i.e. Who cares about public posturing - we both know that this is all about the two getting together to screw everyone else, including users.
3. The reaction from IBM & Red Hat
Scott Handy, IBM's vice president of Linux and open source, said that the patent protections included in the Novell-Microsoft deal are unnecessary. "We aren't sure what Microsoft's intentions here are, but IBM has long asserted that we don't see the need for this coverage," Handy said. "To our knowledge, there has never been a patent suit against Linux, and it is our view that legal claims, if they exist, should be settled without involving end-user customers...Microsoft is trying to create "fear, uncertainty and doubt" around Linux because it poses a competitive threat."
This from the company that INVENTED FUD - they should know... And RH?
"The day after the announcement of the Novell deal, Red Hat responded with a statement saying that it will not pay an "innovation tax."
So, a big 'fuck you' from the major players. Why? They know that if M$ could attrack them directly, they already would have.
Especially after the SCO debacle, M$ knows that if they take on IBM, in particular, the only winners will be the lawyers. Nobody has more patents than the boys in blue. But that won't stop them trying to chip away at the edges...
By the way, the original article was far more interesting:
http://news.com.com/Microsoft%2C+Novell+spar+over
We have to start filling out overwhly broad stupid patents just so we can finally make that matter public.
How about something along the lines of "using 1's and 0's in order to do automated tasks and/or store data via branching and/or decoding processes." Of course that's ANY digital device (CPU, GPU, software, hardware, etc). But inflate that simple sentence into the usual 500-pages patent application, keeping it as broad and inclusive as possible, then send the news everywhere that you've just been able to patent everything that makes up modern technology. Either you'll become the richest man in history or you'll finally be able to start the patent reform process along with the abolition of software patents.
So, isn't what MicroSCOft doing in essence sublicensing the Program? And it appears to me (not being a Lawyer or subspecies thereof) that they have just lost there rights under this license.
Have gnu, will travel.
of something like this before? Wasn't there some company threatening to sue companies who use linux if they didn't license their IP? And weren't there people who came forward to say that it was Microsoft's idea and money financing the whole thing? I must be mistaken.
In other words, if such things were admitted, MS could hire a shill company to do something stupid, and the stupidity becomes precedent which is binding on everybody who does business with MS. This effectively lets MS ( or any other rich plantiff ) write the law. No judge will allow that, so they stop it cold at the very beginning by refusing to even listen to such arguments.
If they can't sell them Microsoft products, they'll sell them "Legal Action Insurance" instead. Either way, Microtheft gets their money. This is ridiculous. I'm disappointed in all of the companies that are that's buying into their lies.
It is clear that what Microsoft is now trying to establish, is a Linux "patent pool" similar to the one in place for MPEG. If you're in the pool, you're fine; if not, you have to pay a per-unit royalty to the pool members in order to use it.
This, of course, is so infuriating that it makes most of us want to commit actual acts of homicide against the people pushing it.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
If the Novell-Microsoft pact has taught us anything, it's that these agreements aren't a "company pays Microsoft millions of dollars to run Linux" sort of trade. The Novell agreement was more of a "Microsoft pays company hundreds of millions of dollars to cast legal FUD on Linux" deal. Until I hear some dollar figures (including the direction of the payments), I think it's ridiculous to guess what "Samsung's perspective" really is.
When these companies sign such covenants, they believe that it's the ticket to the ground floor of the Next Big Thing. It's likely that Samsung sees that as a movement towards multi-function ultra-portable devices with embedded Linux. (currently their products are primarily WinCE... I still love the ironic resemblance of that name!)
Samsung isn't so much indemnifying themselves with MSFT, but rather making a compromise with an important business partner. They would rather sign a minor deal to avoid future problems than risk losing a revenue channel.
It's easy for us to interpret their actions as “bowing to MSFT” because we're all on the side of Linux being free. The truth of the matter hasn't changed; Linux is still free, and nothing MSFT can do will change that.
Also, let's try to see things from a pragmatic standpoint. MSFT isn't out to kill Linux, at least, not anymore. (buh-bye SCO, nice try)
The deal with Novell was simply MSFT going to the source of the “problem”. They struck the deal as a way to tie profitability into Linux; something that the GPL was designed to dis-allow. As we all know, that is what MSFT cares about the most.
From this standpoint, MSFT appears to be furthering their agenda with these latest deals. I suspect that this is not a genuine trend, but is only the start of how this drama will ultimately play-out.
In the end, it will be Consumers vs. The Microsoft Way. I like to think that we'll win in the end, but that depends on how much we—as consumers—are willing to learn along the way.
This post © Copyrite Duggeek, all rights reversed.
Its quite funny to see all these people crying like this. If it was the other way around, Novell threatening to sue Microsoft, you guys would be peeing your pants and throwing parties in your parents basement.
...I'd really started to like Samsung stuff. Well, there's plenty of other parts available.
Or the CEOs see this is a really quick way to make them look good and/or get them money, and in 3-4 years if something bad happens, they aren't there anymore.
These "oh, and you can run Linux, too" are Microsoft marketing gimmicks that are thrown into the deal. It's easy to tack these onto "oh, we give you $300M and we give you our patents, too" or "let's cross-license, and, oh, that means you can use Linux, too".
Microsoft is trying to create the false impression that there is a significant patent risk when there actually isn't: first of all, any patent infringement that Microsoft were to sue over would be removed immediately, and secondly, the damage from such a lawsuit for Microsoft would be enormous.
In any case, GPLv3 will hopefully stop this nonsense.
From Samsung's perspective, it is simple: these deals ensure it can sell products using Linux without facing a suit from the Redmond-based corporation.
Yeah, but what's the upside? First, there's no evidence that MS has any property in Linux, so this changes nothing for Samsung, they could have easily sold products using Linux before (so did others, such as the Cowon A2, or the Tivo DVR, and MS never complained... I bet they'd love to have a few bucks any time someone used a Tivo, especially since it competes with MCE). All this does is ensure that MS can sell stuff using patents from Samsung, Novell, and Fuji Xerox, and that the others will not have access to as many patents as MS does. All this does is increase MS's immunization from further patent litigation, while ensuring that Samsung, Novell, and Fuji all make products that cannot be integrated as easily with OSS. A win for MS.
Twinstiq, game news
There are now three Open Source companies with Microsoft software patent deals, Fuji, Novell, and Samsung. Appearantly these companies choose to give in to Microsoft's threats rather than go to the expense of fighting a software patent war with Microsoft. Having money makes the commercial Open Source members vunerable to Microsoft's threats. In Novell's case you could also argue that Novell was bribed by Microsoft to join in the attack on Open Source.
Rather than allowing Microsoft to pick off Open Source companies one by one the companies should negotiate in a united front. I think that the Linux Foundation and the OIN should negotiate a universal software patent agreement between Open Source and Microsoft.
The united effort led by IBM to create a defensive patent portfolio in the OIN and the Linux Foundation to use in a possible software patent war appears to have worked. Microsoft has shied away from a court fight and is now trying a more indirect path to attack Open Source with software patents. By negotiating with Microsoft in a united front the commercial Open Source companies could achieve much more favorable terms than by negotiating individually. I think that the terms of this universal agreement should include three main points:
1. Microsoft will not sue any Open Source developer, distributor, or user over software patents.
2.Open Source will not sue Microsoft or any Microsoft customer over software patents.
3. No money will change hands in either direction.
GPL3 is another effort to solve the Microsoft software patent threat. In the latest draft of GPL3 there is some language about certain agreements being grandfathered. Obviously the Microsoft-Novell agreement is not grandfathered but I don't know whether the Fuji and Samsung deals would be grandfathered. I think that some thought should be put into GPL3 whereby the agreements between Fuji and Samsung with Microsoft are broken and that these agreements are not protected by the grandfather clause. I also think that some thought should be put into GPL3 to not break a potential universal Microsoft software patent agreement negotiated by the Linux Foundation.
Microsoft would not willingly enter into a universal software patent agreement with Open Source, at least not with the terms that I described. The software patent game among commercial companies is a power struggle. If all of the Open Source companies united against Microsoft in the software patent negotiations then the unified body would be powerful enough to force Microsoft into terms which they would not otherwise accept.
We can use GPL3 to break the software patent deals already signed with Microsoft and to block future deals. But that does not eliminate the power struggle. The Open Source companies involved in the Microsoft software patent agreements will still face the problem of Microsoft software patent aggression. I think that their best strategy is to unite and force Microsoft into abandoning its software patent attack on Open Source.
--------------------
Steve Stites
...and ready for Samsung's most lucrative products by the time the deal expires. Ta-da, embedded Linux has shrinking market-share.
Don't worry, MS will make sure that Samsung has software for use in their products.
They didn't get this "protection" for free. Even if the balance of payments is neutral, Samsung has given MS access to at least part of its own patent portfolio.
That is the middle option.
Their best option is to ignore MS and, should MS choose to sue over something, win. The costs of doing this could be more than the middle option, but it would leave them in a good position for the future.
Their worst option is to ignore MS and, should MS choose to sue over something, lose. The costs of doing this are the same as winning, with the added cost of whatever penalties are incurred, as well as their loss of part of their business. This scenario is truly bad for Samsung indeed.
Only Samsung can know the strength of their holdings and the costs of upholding them, so only they are capable of deciding what the most cost-effective strategy is. It's also possible for them to be wrong, but we don't really have enough information do do more than speculate at this point. Certainly the middle option is the most stable option: the price is easy to determine, and they maintain their business plan without risk of being sued.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Knowing one organization that suffered through a software audit, we moved our company almost entirely to Linux several months ago (one exception - my dual boot laptop I'm using now, but it doesn't belong to the company).
Part of our motivation was the BSA. If for some reason they ever showed up at OUR door with their Government enforcers we'd easily waive our Linux systems in their face and be done with it.
Perhaps... not anymore.
The problem now is that the BSA could still, in theory, come to our business and say "Ah! You're using Linux. Well, we don't have anything on record about your having a Microsoft license to use all of our innovative patents lodged within Linux (never mind these idiots think Linux is an OS rather than a kernel).... pay up to license our Linux technology or suffer accordingly!"
We could also go to court and fight such a lawsuit (if it ever happened) - but we all know how well that process works out in the US (not fun and definitely not-fast).
...with trade lawsuits lately. They came after that spat where S. Korea took MS to court over monopoly abuses. Even the US State Dept. got involved as I recall, interfering in a Korean court case.
...and it will dry up the Linux 'eco-system' because no small-medium shops will be able to indemnify their customers.
Then when Samsung's contract runs out, MS will have a Windows Embedded fitted especially for Samsung's most lucrative products... and suddenly Linux marketshare starts plummeting even among large vendors.
As you are aware, Microsoft is selling a dubious protection racket to certain organizations -- notably, Novell and Samsung. Without actually claiming any infringement or offering even the barest shred of evidence of wrongdoing, Microsoft is selling patent indemnity to these companies. Microsoft "promises" not to sue them should patent violations in GPL software come to light.
This "service" is highly dubious, as there is little if any case law suggesting that, if unlicensed patented technology is discovered in a product, end-users of those products must either surrender them or pay licensing fees.
As the de facto arbiters of the GPL, you stand in control of of a large body of software controlled by copyright and a clear license. I suggest you turn this tactic on its head. I suggest you start approaching PC OEMs, ISVs, and anyone else using Windows and start selling GPL Indemnity.
The premise is exactly the same as Microsoft's patent indemnity: Without actually claiming any violation or offering any supporting evidence of such, make it clear that GPL software is of such ubiquity that GPL code may well have found its way into Microsoft's products without a corresponding source code release. As you know, distribution without source immediately terminates GPL licensing, meaning that all copies of Windows so distributed are prima facie unlicensed copies. The indemnity you would offer would be a promise not to sue for contributory infringement.
This threat is more credible than Microsoft's. The case law on redistribution of copyrighted material without a license is well-established: it's a slam-dunk infringement, and many of the remedies are statutory. I daresay you would be able to score a handful of high-profile licensees, earn some well-needed revenue, and clearly illustrate the folly of Microsoft's protection racket.
Respectfully submitted,
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I've been using it for decades, and my grandfather used it for decades before that. So I don't see how they can possibly get a valid ink patent.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
consumer electronics lately. Looks like I'm going to have to rethink this.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Lawyers do it. RIAA does it. Nothing new here. Move along.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
SCO's attempt to use phony IP claims was financially backed by MS via Bayster. . . one would think that everyone would have noticed.
I've heard that there are indeed legitmate Linux-related IP claims, and that they're based on IP MS has "borrowed". I think it's time to look into this.
Tech Public Policy stuff
... class action fraud suit against Microsoft?
Where are the open source legal forces? EFF??
The above post seems to be a 'reasonable man in the street' explanation. Now if this explanation is generally accepted, then racketeering , and abuse of trade provisions should be red-flagged for followup investigation. Paying for 'feel good - just in case' deals feels wrong - just swap 'team of lawyers' with 'boys armed with baseball bats' - much of a muchness.
In reality, many of these generalised agreements are buying nothing specific or tangible. Moreso that they were signed because of a broad, non-specific threat(s), implied or otherwise. When asked to list/enumerate individual patents, or identify actual lines of code, the bully boys throw a SCO tantrum, and fail/stall or go off on tangents, but most importantly fail to enumerate their beef with specificity.
The Monopoly and trade restraint people should carefully consider all swap agreements, and factor in if this is anti-social behaviour or not - and monitor the situation generally.
Fortunately, that's not how it works. Only prior court decisions form a precedent, and then only if the prior cases have significant overlap of facts with the case in question. The fact that two (or two hundred) other companies have previously signed a contract that implies something about the legal status of Linux isn't going to have any effect on a judge's decision in some future case.
On the other hand, the fact of these previous deals will have an impact on the decision-making process of executives at other companies that are presented with a similar proposal. So, in the sense that "precedent" is used in everyday speech, this does set a bad precedent. But in the restricted legal sense of the word, it doesn't.
As for whether Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents, I'd be willing to bet that it does. It probably also infringes on patents owned by Sun, Intel, HP, Apple, and any number of other companies. One of the truly ridiculous things about the growth in software patents is that it's now nearly impossible to write any useful software that doesn't infringe on somebody's patent.
Each time I walk into an electronics store I'm goiing to wipe a nose nugget on at least one Samsung device on display.
Microsoft tax now shifted to Linux? Any which way you put it, you'll pay MS.
Sigh...
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
Where I tell people that if they give me money, I won't sue them. What a concept!
There is something familiar with these "cross-licensing" contracts MS has been aggressively pursuing recently. To me, it signals a move by MS towards a business model conceived in Sicily and perfected some years later in Chicago.
Hmmm...what was the code name for the project at MS to develop Win95 again? I sense that such a move has been in the cards at MS for quite some time now...
"Novell has taken issue..." HA, yeah, for PR purposes. The fact that you shouldn't have to pay MS to use Linux is obvious, the patent deal means nothing less and Novell knows that, they just don't like suffering for it and want to improve their image.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
- a constant revenue in the near future,
- a precedent (many will certainly follow, each time the precedent is larger: Novell
- tainting of the OSS community (see Novell contributions)
- a FUD avalanche, but this time even stronger with contracts and signatures
The plan is very, very intelligent. M$ approaches with a Sale-of-Indulgences offer: "We both hate paying lawyers for patent wars, BUT we are bigger and we will prevail. Sign this and you will be forgiven... Oh, yes, I will be forgiven too (ha ha ha)."
The thing is: what can a single (no matter how large) industry do? IMHO it is narrow-minded to consider Samsung weak and stupid for believing that. I am not (and don't wanna be) a Samsung executive with a threat from M$ in my hands. One must think:
- Nobody wants to be the reason his company goes into patent wars with M$
- Nobody gives a damn about the spirit of F/OSS and the GPL, they just use the things because they are better...
- There is no actual support for doing the right thing (actual = money + legal); /. does not pay lawyers...
When they come, you obey... Does anybody have a real counter-proposition? Forming a defensive consortium is not a bad idea, but it's too late now... I can't think of anything, they are too strong (and smarter than their counterparts) in this. Right now this does not actually affect much. Let's just hope that OSS has the proper defense when M$ takes it to the next level. The course of action should be planned yesterday.
- "I say the whole world must learn of our peaceful ways...by force!!" Bender B. Rodriguez