Microsoft, Amazon Ink Kindle and Linux Patent Deal

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft, Amazon Ink Kindle and Linux Patent Deal

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday February 23, 2010 @01:50AM from the not-a-random-headline-generator dept.

theodp writes "Microsoft says it has reached a wide-ranging IP agreement with Amazon in which each company has granted the other a license to its patent portfolio. Microsoft says the agreement covers technologies in products such as Amazon's Kindle — including open-source and proprietary technologies used in the e-reader — in addition to the use of Linux-based servers. Microsoft issued a news release celebrating the accord, while Amazon declined to comment. 'We are pleased to have entered into this patent license agreement with Amazon.com,' said Microsoft's deputy general counsel. 'Microsoft's patent portfolio is the largest and strongest in the software industry, and this agreement demonstrates our mutual respect for intellectual property as well as our ability to reach pragmatic solutions to IP issues regardless of whether proprietary or open source software is involved.' A Microsoft representative declined to say which of its products are covered by the deal."

28 of 161 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Anti-trust anyone? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 01:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

If all copyright holders on software patents start to create bilateral agreements, it will eventually become clear that software patents are only an artificial entry barrier.
1. Re:Anti-trust anyone? by Pojut · 2010-02-23 02:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ...it will eventually become clear that software patents are only an artificial entry barrier.
  Like they already aren't?
  
  --
  Living With a Nerd
2. Re:Anti-trust anyone? by HungryHobo · 2010-02-23 02:23 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To be fair they really are.
  Without patents:
  1: I write some nice software and sell it.
  2a: I make a little money, not enough to quit my day job.
  2b: I don't make money, all I've lost is time.
  With patents:
  1: I try to research previous patents, they're almost unreadable..... I have no money to hire a patent lawyer(barrier to entry one)... so I can't be certain if my idea has already been patented.
  2a: I stop for fear of infringing on someones patent and being sued into the ground.(barrier to entry 2)
  2b: I keep going and write my app... it might be infringing but I don't think it is....
  3a: I make a little money.
  3b: I make no money.
  4: Someone sues me.
  5a: It is infringing- well they pull out records that yes I did view their patent in the course of my research in step 1 and obviously stole their idea. They get tripple damages I lose my house. (barrier to entry 3)
  5b: It is not infringing - so what. I don't have the money for a good lawyer, they win I lose my house.(barrier to entry 4)
  5c: It is not infringing - by some miracle I win.... I'm still left with a pile of legal bills and I lose my house.(barrier to entry 5)
  In theory the patent system could help me by letting me be just like the guys who sue in the above but I don't have the thousands of dollars it takes to get a patent through nor the time.
3. Re:Anti-trust anyone? by nschubach · 2010-02-23 02:38 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Ooh, another barrier for entry... having to pay to become a LLC or Corporation to have something to dissolve when you lose your patent fight to high priced lawyers.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
4. Re:Anti-trust anyone? by Inconexo · 2010-02-23 02:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I heart that at an RMS conference years ago. Software patents mean nothing to big companies, who have enough patents to do patent-crossing (I think that was name). Little developers, on the other side, can't take advantage of them, since they have no patents to trade.
5. Re:Anti-trust anyone? by chaim79 · 2010-02-23 02:53 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Eh, it's not that bad. in Wisconsin (or at least my part of it) it costs $150 to register a company as a LLC. That's a fairly low barrier.
  
  --
  DEMETRIUS: Villain, what hast thou done?
  AARON: Villain, I have done thy mother.
  Shakespeare invents 'your mom'
6. Re:Anti-trust anyone? by wwfarch · 2010-02-23 03:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Exactly. If you can't cross that barrier to entry you really shouldn't be starting a business in the first place.
7. Re:Anti-trust anyone? by HungryHobo · 2010-02-23 03:24 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You mean if you don't have money and a group of like minded people to organise with?
  we've gone from something you can do in an almost offhand manner(create a product) where ther only skill and knowledge required is technical in nature to having to find people to incorperate with,incoperate,hire lawyers or know enough to avoid getting screwed by the poeple you're incorperating with, hire lawyers to defend you in patent cases...etc etc etc do you really not think these are real barriers to entry?
8. Re:Anti-trust anyone? by c-reus · 2010-02-23 04:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  2d. A patent troll discovers you. You get sued. You lose all your money. The end.
9. Re:Anti-trust anyone? by HungryHobo · 2010-02-23 04:19 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  And I say that the mere fact that you have to start a buisness at all just to make something useful is a barrier.
  If I make an distribute something I think will be useful to people and I don't try to make any money at all I can still be sued for infringing on someones patent.
  Barriers to entry don't have to be insurmountable to be barriers.
  They only have to be awkward,incomprehensible,unknown or even just time consuming enough to make people not bother.
Sounds one-sided to me by Akido37 · 2010-02-23 02:07 · Score: 5, Insightful

Microsoft issued a news release celebrating the accord, while Amazon declined to comment.

Microsoft says the agreement covers technologies in products such as Amazon's Kindle

A Microsoft representative declined to say which of its products are covered by the deal.
It sounds like Amazon got caught violating one or more of Microsoft's patents, and this deal was arranged to avoid a lawsuit.
1. Re:Sounds one-sided to me by walterbyrd · 2010-02-23 02:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It sounds like Amazon got caught violating one or more of Microsoft's patents, and this deal was arranged to avoid a lawsuit.
  Exactly what patent was that? Why is it a secret?
  Is it possible that msft's "patent" was just another one of msft's bogus patents, but it was cheaper for amazon to sign an agreement, rather than spend the next ten years in court?
2. Re:Sounds one-sided to me by Locutus · 2010-02-23 04:45 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  my first guess would be that this has something to do with the Microsoft extensions to FAT and Amazon's use of those to access VFAT based files on SD cards. I think they dropped the SD support on the latest model but they might already have been caught in Microsoft's patent web with the earlier release of Kindle supporting VFAT. There might be others but this seems like the obvious threat since Tom Tom was hit with it too. So, do the Mono clowns still think that there is nothing to be concerned with running around using Microsoft's .Net software in unlicensed products( aka Linux desktops )? LoB
  
  --
  "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Embrace, Extend, yada yada by FartKnockerz · 2010-02-23 02:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft's traditional play of "Extend, Embrace, Extinguish"..
This most likely has something to do with a Microsoft play towards Windows 7 Mobile and a slate device as an answer to Apple's iPad . Pundits are spewing about Windows 7 Mobile and the fact that it sucked less in comparison to Windows Mobile 6 (in the vein that Windows 7 sucks less than Vista). Said device would be hooked into Amazon's range of eBooks for the Kindle.
INK by killmenow · 2010-02-23 02:09 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's a verb and a noun. Like this...

VERB: Microsoft and Amazon ink a deal.
NOUN: Microsoft fscks Amazon before the ink is dry.
Lie down with the dog, wake up with the fleas by Richy_T · 2010-02-23 02:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

So long Amazon, it was nice knowing you.
This speaks volumes by HangingChad · 2010-02-23 02:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Microsoft issued a news release celebrating the accord, while Amazon declined to comment.
Sometimes which dog is barking tells you a lot about what's going on out in the pasture.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Re:Boycott Amazon... by stoolpigeon · 2010-02-23 02:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's a great idea. Boycotts are such an incredibly effective tool for small groups holding a minority position. Remember when the southern baptists effectively shut down Disney with their boycott? I think Disney still hasn't recovered. If every single person that is passionate about software patents boycotts Amazon I think we'll see the same level of amazing success in bringing about real change.

--
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Microsoft protection racket by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 02:33 · Score: 1, Insightful

"It sounds like Amazon got caught violating one or more of Microsoft's patents, and this deal was arranged to avoid a lawsuit"

It sounds an awfull lot like a protection racket. Some people we don't know say you violation some patents we don't want to talk about. Best give us a cut of the house takings, just to be safe mind, else something bad might happen.
Re:You Know What Else This Means ... by autophile · 2010-02-23 02:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Will we see the death of Microsoft's .lit format [microsoft.com] in favor of Kindle's .azw?
Oh, I hope not. Both formats suck compared to epub, and azw (i.e. mobipocket) is an extremely stripped-down version of html. Lit at least has more html functionality. But I hope both formats die.
My own take is that Microsoft wants to put out an ebook reader which will probably use Amazon's patents, so Microsoft probably told Amazon "Nice patent portfolio you got here. Be a shame if it burned down. You should have insurance!"

--
Towards the Singularity.
Why bother by voss · 2010-02-23 02:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

Microsoft doesnt have to sue linux companies, they just reach settlements with companies that use linux, the either
a) Encourage companies to use microsoft products through FUD
or
b) Get IP revenue from settlements.
If they tried to directly take on linux companies other than SUSE then they would have to disclose the patents.
Im sure if Microsoft tried to take on Red Hat then they would probably wind up clashing with IBM.
Re:Microsoft patent racketeering by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 02:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

I suppose using the US legal system for patent extortion is especially cost effective since msft uses offshore labor for the legal work
More to the point, the US legal system is designed to make exploiting the law for profit easy -- for the elite who have the priveledge and resources to do it.
The more complex and ambiguous the law, the more lucrative and exploitable the law is for those who design the law. Not only does complexifying the law justify insane amounts of power and revenue just to manage it all, but it ensures that there is always a winning move for the legal elite.
In case anyone hasn't noticed, the US legal system is the most complex and ambiguous legal system in the entire world. That's no accident, and it's obviously not "by the people, for the people".
Re:You Know What Else This Means ... by poetmatt · 2010-02-23 02:48 · Score: 3, Insightful

oh, so you mean the ones never substantiated?
Re:Crap, what next by Bill_the_Engineer · 2010-02-23 02:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

Walmart inks a deal to take over every state's welfare department?
Walmart wouldn't take over what it considers a free employee benefit.

--
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
Re:More Descriptive Terminology by Shotgun · 2010-02-23 04:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Are companies at point now that lawyers outnumber engineers and software developers?
I think you fail to realize the relative productivity of an engineer and a lawyer. Think about how many man years it takes to develop a non-trivial, market ready software product vs filing a legal brief?

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
-1 Troll. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-02-23 04:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

You must be real fun with police. Or in court. Or in a doctor's office. Or any of the other places they're also smart enough not to talk in certainties, like a 4 year old, until they actually are certain.
Barrier? Please. by Petersko · 2010-02-23 04:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

"And I say that the mere fact that you have to start a buisness at all just to make something useful is a barrier... Barriers to entry don't have to be insurmountable to be barriers..."

If you consider that a barrier... well... it's about as much a barrier as is the need for you to put on pants in the morning. Since nothing stops you from completing that task, and it's neither expensive nor time-consuming, I have to conclude that you're talking out your ass on this one.
That secret, submarine patent by badger.foo · 2010-02-23 05:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
It struck me that Microsoft over the last few years has made a series of deals with other corporations over patents, but in each case
- whatever is published is too unspecific to interpret
- Microsoft's announcement mentions Linux in vague language, with the intention of making it sound less than legit
What then, if that secret, submarine patent is about something else entirely, or for that matter, does not even exist? For that matter, there could be several threats in play, patent based or otherwise, but anyway the main point of any such deal is to make sure the non-Microsoft party stays quiet, leaving Microsoft free to create the impression that Linux is somehow not quite legit, with no factual basis whatsoever.
We have no way of actually knowing, but it does appear that the US legal system somehow allows the kind of of behavior I suspect here as long as the actual underlying facts are not available to the public.
It doesn't even have to be a patent or a real issue at all, given the likely size of Microsoft's legal budget the threat of prolonged litigation backed up by the famous PR machine would be quite sufficient to intimidate smaller players to silence. Most of us are, after all, smaller players than Microsoft.
All idle speculation of course, but as long as they keep us in the dark about the facts of these deals, speculation will flourish.
--
-- That grumpy BSD guy - http://bsdly.blogspot.com/