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!
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
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
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.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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!