Microsoft Claims Patent On Elements of Embedded Linux?

Preedit writes "An InformationWeek story points out a recent deal between Microsoft and Japanese printer maker Kyocera Mita. Under the agreement, Kyocera obtained from Microsoft a license to patents used in 'certain Linux-based embedded technologies.' The question the author asks is why Kyocera needs a patent license from Microsoft to develop its embedded Linux products."

Comments

Simple

[eclectro]

Agree to the deal or get a chair in your face.

Re:Simple

[Tackhead]

> Agree to the deal or get a chair in your face.

Close, but those aren't the right laws. Here are laws.

MONKEYDOME!

0) Who run Microtown? STEVIE BALLMER RUN MICROTOWN!
1) Two competitors enter, ONE MONOPOLIST LEAVES!
2) Agree to the deal, or YOUR IP WE'LL STEAL!
3) Laissez-faire? FACE THE CHAIR!

Re:Simple

[ozmanjusri]

...or get a chair in your face.

Worse than that.

"We believe that intellectual property licensing is an empowering way to bring innovation to the IT ecosystem," said David Kaefer, general manager of Intellectual Property and Licensing at Microsoft. "Empowering way to bring innovation to the IT ecosystem"??? I've been read Vogon poetry that was less nauseating than that line.

Useless Article...

[gillbates]

I used to be an embedded Linux developer.

However, I could more thoughtfully comment on this if the article revealed just what patents Microsoft believes Kyocera to be violating. It could have nothing to do with Linux; moreover, it could very well be a patent on some method of printing which is specific to the Kyocera hardware and just happens to be implemented as a Linux driver.

Looks more like FUD against Linux than anything else.

Re:Useless Article...

[Mrs. Grundy]

Absolutely,

From the article:

Is it adding proprietary Microsoft technology on top of embedded Linux?
Could be...

Hard to know what that means--it's deliberately vague.

Now that's some reporting. There is really nothing to see here.

Re:Useless Article...

[davidsyes]

(I keisseikki will mod me troll or flamebait, but...)

Based on the recent news of a major Korean company being under investigation for corruption/et cetera (this isn't localized to Korea, just mentioning it in proximity to this article), I will go on a limb and say microsoft is just wheeling and dealing and paying some exec to "go along with the script":

"We'll claim you're violating one or more of our patents; doesn't matter which ones, if they're pending or not; doesn't matter if later the USPTO tells us we're full of it; doesn't matter if prior art exists. WE rule this world, and if you play by our terms, Sonsaengnim, you'll make a buttload of money."

That's the business world for you.

A few questions for Kyocera

[compumike]

We know that Microsoft claims to hold patents that Linux users are infringing... but they won't tell us which ones. What's new?

So there are two possibilities: either they've got a specific one or two that they're really able to show Kyocera that are troublesome, or they've just got this massive library of "probable" ones that Kyocera decided to give in to. What would be more interesting to know is who approached who about the deal. What does it permit? What did that cost?

Anyway, this is at the stage where it isn't using patent law, but is just using corporate risk expectations. Very dangerous... which is why MSFT doesn't want to show their hand.

Software patent lifetimes should probably get quite a bit shorter, too...

--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation.

Japanese culture?

[Anonymous Coward]

My uncle works in IT for a Japanese company of some size. He often speaks of the Japanese management as if this were still the eighties and sometimes its almost racist,so I apologize for him if this is insulting to anyone so take this with a heaping dose of salt.

He thinks that it goes against the Japanese culture to use a technology without paying for it, that it shows disrespect to not pay for software licenses. He is not even allowed to consider using Linux or any other OSS for that matter.

Re:Japanese culture?

[DragonWriter]

He thinks that it goes against the Japanese culture to use a technology without paying for it, that it shows disrespect to not pay for software licenses. He is not even allowed to consider using Linux or any other OSS for that matter.

Many companies I've known won't use software if they aren't paying someone for support and a license (and, often, particular support guarantees and/or performance warranties.) I don't know anything about Japanese culture, but in business the need to have some else that's feet can be held to the fire if something goes wrong is a big deal.

Of course, you can get paid support (and sometimes licensing, when the software is under a dual OSS/commercial licensing model) for most OSS you might want to adopt in a business environment, so neither cultural nor business-based reluctance to use software without paying for it should be a major barrier to OSS adoption.

Re:Japanese culture?

[tbird20d]

I work for Sony, putting Linux into many different Sony products. I also lead the CE Linux Forum, which has a number of large of members from Japan. I can assure you that Linux is used in Japan in droves, and that the range of practices for obtaining Linux, from paying a vendor to downloading directly from kernel.org, is as broad there as anywhere else in the world.

Probably a case of CYA

[Arabani]

Kyocera Mita appears to be a "small" company - revenues for the parent corporation (Mita is their printer division, it appears) were a little shy of $3 billion in 2006, while Epson had revenues of $12.7 billion last year. Granted, I'm not sure how valid this comparison is, but if this disparity is typical, it could very well be that Kyocera decided it would be safer to play Microsoft's game than to potentially face a court battle they would have trouble fighting.

They Don't.

[TheRaven64]

The GPL states that they may only distribute the code if they accompany it with the rights for any derivatives to use any patents it infringes. If they discover that they infringe some patents in Linux then they must stop distributing Linux until they have obtained a license to the patents that is compatible with the GPL (which means that anyone who is in the transitive closure of recipients of the code from them also gains the license). In summary, if they have obtained a license from Microsoft then either they are in violation of the GPL or no one else needs to obtain such a license and Microsoft's FUD evaporates in a puff of logic.

Not just fud...

[tqft]

I think it is more than fud...

By binding potential developers (and we will may never see what is in the agreement in total) to MS it may make it a lot harder for them to deliver products that work with linux.

Now everytime they go to release a driver legal are going to have to have a good hard look at driver and the MS agreement.

How long before it gets to be too much hard work and they not bother?

"developers, developers, developers" is still true. Without delivery of new products any OS will die. Kyocera Mita make stuff people want to use in business settings - printer/fax machines and stuff like that.

Maybe were reading this deal the wrong way....

[NullProg]

What does Kyocera get? The right to use patented Microsoft technology in its printers, copiers and "certain Linux-based embedded devices."

Maybe Kyocera just licensed Fonts/ODBC or some other mundane MS technology to use in their products. Food for thought.

Enjoy,

Re:Standad MS business practice...

[LWATCDR]

"...started when Bill Gates ported BASIC."
He didn't port basic. He wrote a Basic interpreter for the 8080!
I am not a Microsoft fan. In fact I am a Linux user but give me a break.
If Bill Gates ported basic then the Samba team ported Microsoft networking and the Mysql team ported SQL!
Porting means you have the source code to a program and you get it to run on a new cpu. Gates, with some help wrote a Basic interpreter for a tiny cpu in assembly. He WROTE a version basic for the 8080. He didn't port it.

Re:Standad MS business practice...

[Oriumpor]

Just to make sure Samba gets credit where samba is due... They wrote the spec, not Microsoft. If it weren't for them CIFS wouldn't exist as it does today. MSFT embraced and extended as always.