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."

9 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Got Permission? by netrarc · · Score: 4, Insightful

    these deals ensure it can sell products using Linux
    So nice of Microsoft to give organizations permission to use Linux. Do I need to check with them before I use my electric toothbrush, as well?
  2. Novel, pioneering the fututre by pembo13 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:Novel, pioneering the fututre by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, do the right thing and don't buy any Novell or Samsung products and this will all blow over and go away eventually. Not buying Novell products will be easy :) but Samsung is harder as a lot of their memory and many of their hard drives go into various OEM computers. Of course, you have to avoid Microsoft products too, but if you care about this, you are already doing that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Patent Monopoly/Cartels by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  4. Cross-licensing good enough for now. by headkase · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.
  5. fight fire with fire by PatentMagus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  6. Re:Oh no, Watch out, Samsung! by Synchis · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here's the catch, because you obviously don't know much about law, particularly when it comes to patent, trademark and copyright law.

    Much of the law is based on precedent, which means that prior decisions in similar court cases influence or completely decide the outcome of current cases. The biggest problem with this kind of corporate behavior is that it sets a precedent. Microsoft can now demonstrate based on these two *HUGE* deals, that these companies acknowledge that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents. Whether it *actually* does or not is not the issue. The precedent is now set. Novell and Samsung, with their assumed vast and knowledgeable legal team has gone over these agreements, and SIGNED them, affirming that without these agreements, they would be subject to expensive and lengthy legal battles.

    From the corporate perspective, I can see why they've done it. Nobody wants another IBM vs. SCO battle, which is what this would be if they were to refuse these agreements. Except that this kind of case you wouldn't be dealing with a relatively small corporation like SCO, you would be facing off against a MULTI-BILLION dollar corporation with one of the best legal teams in the world that money can buy. From that perspective, the obvious answer is "Sign the agreement and be done with it".

    I don't condone this behavior, I'm a firm believer that if your producing an honest product, you should be safe from big corporations threatening legal action against you. I think Microsoft should have some kind of basis for making the claims that they make. If Linux infringes their patents, come now, out with it. Show us your evidence, patent numbers, specific code. These corporations have obviously been given a quiet ultimatum... sign... or fight us.

    Thats my 2 cents worth anyways.

    --
    Thomas A. Knight
    Author of The Time Weaver
  7. Re:I'm going to start a business by lumber_13 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Dont you know how Mafia works ??


    BOSS : Pay me the money, I will give you protection (from myself)

    Shop owner : Here 100 $ per month


    Next month ....

    BOSS : Pay me the money ......

  8. Re:You're not going to start a business that way by dosquatch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    *Ahem*SCO*cough*Novell

    --
    "Hey, the third matrix movie would have been good except for the plot,story, and acting." --AC