Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft and LG Electronics Sign Linux Covenant
rs232 wrote with a PC World link discussing another alliance between Microsoft and a vendor via Linux. The vendor this time around is electronics maker LG, and marks the fifth company to license unspecified patents relating to Linux or Linux devices from the OS giant. "'This agreement is focused only on exchange of patent rights,' said David Kaefer, general manager of IP licensing at Microsoft. 'The open-source elements of the deal do utilize a covenant model similar to the Xandros and Novell deals, but this deal is most similar to recent agreements with Samsung and Fuji Xerox.' Those deals were signed this year in April and March, respectively. Both covered general access to intellectual property contained in patent portfolios and included protection for customers using Linux-based software."
When Microsoft came for Novel,
I remained silent;
I did not use OpenSUSE.
When they locked Xandros into a deal,
I remained silent;
I did not use their software either.
When they came for LG Electronics,
I did not speak out;
As I did not think it meant anything.
And finally when the suits came for Ubuntu,
there was no one left to speak out.
Embrace, Extend, Destroy.
To be fair, Novell PAID MS a lot of money. However, MS PAID Novell a LOT more :)
go read the deals themselves. Ignore the headlines and read the friggin deals.
Novel pays MSFT $100 odd million. MSFT pays novel $240 million.
Novell nets $140 million dollars, and MSFT literally spews FUD, when MSFT did the paying.
Xandros and LG are just cashing in on the deal. Not for Linux's sake but for free money from MSFT.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Isn't the effect/aim of this to *prevent* LG from using Linux in any device
once GPL3 is out?
Question: Can Samsung/LG/etc legally use Linux in their product once
1) They have signed one of these satanic "patent deals"
2) GPL3 is out
If not, have Microsoft have effectively cornered the entire embedded systems
market? Maybe they finally figured out that the future of computing is not
necessarily on the desktop...
I stall can't figure out what's in it for LG.
As technology accumulates, the hatred between people tends to decrease. - Steven Pinker
Microsoft is basically buying rights to all of the patents owned by the companies they sign these deals with, so MS can go ahead and infringe on them at will. Pretty sweet deal when you're Microsoft. If anyone else violates the patent, those groups will have to fight against Microsoft's competition.
They also create the perception that anyone who hasn't signed such an agreement is likely to be in violation and therefore in a sketchy legal position. They haven't proven it or anything, merely asserted it and gotten some credibility by having people sign up and appear to agree.
Microsoft is NOT paying protection money to Linux vendors. They're making it look like those companies got something in return for giving up a whole lot more in the end. They're buying the perception that it's in the interest of everyone else to do the same, as well as access to a load of patents in others portfolios. If Microsoft is offering you cash, they're not doing it for altruistic reasons.
Sure, the vendor got the candy bar
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Oops. Here, let me fix that for you:
There. That's better.
My blog
That's right people MSFT is paying protection money to Linux vendors...
Your statement is very clever, but untrue.
Yes, microsoft is paying linux vendors. But history has shown that Microsoft has an end-game in mind that will harm everyone.
Got Trader Joe's? friendwich.com RSS feeds work now!
If Microsoft is violating the GPL and it comes to light, can't the individual contributors who are the actual copyright holders then sue Microsoft for copyright infringement? of course they can. Patent deals are NOT going protect Microsoft from GPL violations. This is all about Microsoft's wanting to raid others' patent portfolios without prejudice, and they are using FUD to encourage Novell, LG, and other companies with attractive patent portfolios to give them access to, er, "borrow" patented inventions at will.
This is because Microsoft knows that they have peaked in the software industry, and they are desperately seeking a way to continue their unprecedented growth. We all know it's not going to happen; most of Microsoft's hardware products (aside from keyboards, joysticks, and mice) have been duds in the marketplace. They are looking for other proven markets where they might be able to get a running start. They tried WebTV - it was a good idea, but a poor implementation (okay, my 94-year-old grandma uses webtv, but it's amazing she even knows what the Internet is, let alone uses it). They tried search engines and failed miserably, even though the MSIE default page was MSN. They tried to get into media, but between the MSNBC channel never gaining on CNN and Fox, their DRM schemes breaking compatibility steering people even MORE to iTunes (Plays for Sure, a semi-established standard not working with their own Zune media player), and the Xbox floundering in the marketplace, they don't know what to go to next for growth.
What's next? Cellphones? Televisions? Razor-thin margins are not Microsoft's style, and certainly are not going to maintain the long-term growth they are looking for. Automobiles? Aside from GPS devices on WinCE, there isn't much opportunity there. Oh sure, you could have a WinCE-based ECM managing your engine and accessories, but does anyone really want to drive an automobile so dependent upon Windows with its history of defects? I'd rather have the ECM be very, very good at running the engine, where it focuses on nothing but keeping the engine running. What else is there? PVRs? Tivo and the dish and cable companies have that maarket locked up. Medical devices? Not on your life; Windows is not known for security and stability, do you really want a neurosurgeon using robotics based on WinCE operating on your brain if you get into an accident? I didn't think so.
I think the Novell deal is something different though. I think that they want to focus more on services and become a solutions provider like IBM did, so that way no matter WHAT the techology choice is, Microsoft still get at least a slice of the pie, and then other forces at Microsoft who are desperate to maintain their positions and power at Microsoft are using this development to spread anti-Linux FUD.
In any event, the future will reveal what is going on. Everything above may be totally off base, but really, I do think that these moves are out of desperation because they see the strength of their stock eroding very quickly. The smart money for long-term growth would be to invest in open source solution providers, sponsors of Linux distributions, and alternative choices such as Apple Computer, where they don't try to dominate the market, but to maintain gradual long term growth and foster customer retention by delivering a quality product that just works.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It's comments like these that make me wish I had mod points. So rarely is the humour on Slashdot so well executed and yet so subtle.
Bravo.
----
Get yourself a real Linux laptop: http://www.linuxnotebooks.co.uk/
XePhi Computers sell really cheap Linux CDs! http://www.xephi.co.uk
If you have paid for the right to use a patent then you cannot possibly infringe by definition.
Microsoft is buying rights to other people's patents because it makes a huge amount of stuff and there is a significant probability that they would otherwise infringe.
Other people want access to Microsoft because there is a significant chance that the stuff they build on top of Linux might infringe even if Linux does not.
Microsoft has a metric crapload of patents. The chance that Linux does not infringe at all is rather small. The real issue there is not infringement but what attempts they will or can make to enforce.
I don't think that the regulatory regime is going to be such that Microsoft can safely engage in SCO style tactics even if they wanted to.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I've been saying this over and over. What Microsoft is after is more than one thing, but primarily they are after IP. They can't legally take the IP so they are leveraging this, in a criminal monopolistic way, to actually steal the IP. Microsoft can't create the IP fast enough themselves and in enough areas that they need to cross-license. In the end they are trying to indemnify themselves against lawsuits while still holding onto every vestige of IP they can get.
They are essentially extorting the IP from these guys while making Linux the bad guys. This is wrong and people should be pushing back at these companies for entering into such baseless agreements. They are going after some of the little guys (Xandros) in order to try to put more weight behind their current situation.
If anyone knows much about Xandros they know these guys are nothing in the Linux industry yet it made headlines. It is simply due to the Linux vs Microsoft names.
We need to know those IPs so we can push back. People should be putting a concerted effort into suing Microsoft for abandonment of the IP since they won't bring forward any evidence. They should be sued for slander (making false accusations that they know to be false in an attempt to have others believe those accusations to be true and to intentionally do harm.) They then need to be sued for libel for getting that material printed and not making an effort to correct it.
I don't think there should be no closed proprietary software. I just think that Microsoft is just wrong in pushing the industry by misleading vendors and others.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
No, they're not trying to crush Linux.
What they're trying to do is pry the whole of FOSS development out of the community and into the commercial arena by creating a mesh of patent agreements with other commercial organisations.
They've used the SCO lawsuits to move the focus of software IP from copyright to patents, and now they're establishing a financial base to a massive collection of patents as transactions between them and their partners. What that does is create a value for the lost revenue which they can claim as a result of any infringement. Once this is in place, Microsoft themselves don't need to sue anyone directly. They can use a sock-puppet partner, or just wait for the inevitable, given the US's litigious patent history. In either case, it will provide a massive chilling effect to independent and FOSS software.
By indemnifying those who've established those transactions, they can do this in a way which won't invite reprisals from their existing competitors. However, any developer not affiliated with one of MS's patent partners will be treading a minefield, and a minefield in which the cost of a false step is clearly established and very large.It's a very clever move, and I think it will succeed in marginalising FOSS developers who aren't protected by large organisations.
Microsoft know it can deal with businesses, they're terrified by the amorphous mass of developers fostered by licenses like the GPL. By isolating small developers and hobbyists, they can make community software development irrelevant. This also explains why there's been so much astroturf trying to demonize GPL3 lately, both here and in the wider computer community. I suspect however, that GPL3 will be too little, too late, given the scope of Microsoft's patent strategy.
It will be interesting times ahead, but I think Microsoft's picked a winner here.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."