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."
Microsoft is up to something really shady with all these "patent deals" they're doing.
I don't like it one bit. I bet they're afriad of Linux and want to crush it.
I hope the community stands up and absolutely smashes Microsoft
Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
Why do I keep seeing headlines about companies signing patent deals with a company who said that Linux infringes on exactly 225 of their patents, but doesn't know which ones? Why are companies signing patent deals with a company to protect them from patents without knowing what they are? This is sounding like SCO -vs- IBM 2.0, but even more bizarre. What the heck is going on?
apparently you like everyone else isn't reading the deals properly.
When all is said and done MSFT is PAYING Novell 140 million dollars.
That's right people MSFT is paying protection money to Linux vendors, while telling the press the exact opposite.
read the facts for yourself. not MSFT PR spin only.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Both companies are simply saying we could sue each other but we won't.
Before I get my qwerty in a knot over this, am I not correct in pointing out these covenants and agreements apply only to companies who deal with the U.S.A., while doing business in said state?
Last time I checked, I live elsewhere, my current distro is E.U. based, and my probable future distro is based in the Isle of Man, so why should I care about Americans shooting themselves in the foot?
In B.C., our fascism is green.
Microsoft is basically signing reciprocal agreements with all of these companies saying that MS won't sue them for patent violation and vice versa.
Is this basically giving Microsoft free access to everyone else's patent portfolio? It's not like they've specifically enumerated which patents are at issue here. So if these companies are signing something which says "I promise never to sue MS for patent infringement", and furthering the belief that open source must be in violation, aren't MS getting a tremendous advantage and leverage over the rest of the industry?
Man I wish the USDOJ hadn't dropped the ball on anti-trust proceedings.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
does that mean that MS is telling LG what patents they claim they own in linux?
Except this time they're doing it directly, rather than through their shill:
http://lwn.net/Articles/73592/
Yes, most likely Microsoft is violating the GPL and is trying to protect their own butts and spin things the other way...
--jeffk++
ipv6 is my vpn
MS is paying these companies money so that MS wont sue them for patent infringment? WTF?????? Either someone has lost it big time in Redmond or MS is actually scrambling so they dont get sued. Gee I wonder if Vista has some GPL'd code in it.
I think the Open Source community should consider Litigation against Microsoft and serving them with a cease and desist order. In most countries there are laws against slandering a person or another group of people. If Microsoft believes that there are patents being violated they should talk to the developers of that software and get them to change it. They are basically saying to the customers of the Open Source community that Linux is violating their patents but they haven't demonstrated proof to the community that this is the case. As a result they are extorting partners and businesses in that community to give them money. If there are no patent violation this could be slanderous activity and the community should be very concerned about this. This could damage the reputation of the Linux community if they (Microsoft) are allowed to continue. This as a result can be a sign of extortion where they are extorting money from hardware vendors for patents that don't exist. This could be a serious indication of a very criminal offense in some countries. It is definitely a something to look into. I hope the people at the Free Software Foundation and the Free Linux foundation are keeping an eye on this. It concerns me.
In Canada for instance someone making a claim about another person or group of people must ensure that the public claim is true. If the public claim is not true that is slander and the person being slandered can be sued for damages. So if Ballmer says that Linux is violating 238 of their patents they better make sure there are 238 patent violations or this will be slander. The courts will also take into consideration that the person in question gave the other person the opportunity to reverse the patent violation. So if they do have that number of patents they are doing themselves a disservice by not identifying them.
Perhaps all these deals are to give an aura of legitimacy to their patent claims, enabling them to spread FUD more effectively.
Perhaps they want to get enough people to continue Linux support under GPLv2.
Perhaps it's an attempt to tie Linux to some actual companies, which they can later undercut and drive out of business (which is how they've dealt with their traditional competitors until now, but which hasn't worked against open source.)
Honestly, I haven't been able to figure out what this is about.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
I would like to remind people that if Microsoft ever tries to enforce any patents Linux violates, they will have to deal with a huge, somewhat concerted effort to invalidate as many Microsoft patents as possible. Imagine what a couple hundred dedicated and knowledgeable geeks can dig in terms of prior art. While the geeks may not be a significant nuisance for Microsoft, anyone who has cross-licensing agreements will consider those patents they paid for that are now invalid as a reason to re-negotiate the deal with MS. In this scenario, while Microsoft may not bleed to death from the patent invalidation suits, they will find themselves in a much weaker position regarding their patent licensing partners than they find themselves now.
BTW, how much does it cost to fight a patent invalidation suit when you have some clear prior art? Is it possible to ask the USPTO (we are almost always talking US software-related patents) to re-examine a patent in light of some newly found prior art?
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com