Slashdot Mirror
IO Data Licenses Microsoft's "Linux Patents"
eldavojohn writes "The Japanese computer manuracturer IO Data is the latest in line to license Microsoft's so-called 'Linux patents,' following the likes of Novell, Samsung, and Amazon. Yes, even the press releases use the word 'Linux' to describe these patents. From the press release: 'Specifically, the patent covenants apply to I-O Data's network-attached storage devices and its routers, which run Linux. Although the details of the agreement have not been disclosed, the parties indicated that Microsoft is being compensated by I-O Data.'"
I love how none of these articles include any info on which patents were licensed. If Microsoft has patents which cover algorithms in Linux, then there should be a list of patents numbers they can point to to say which patents are being covered in these License Agreements.
You know, back when Microsoft sued Tom-Tom, it came out that the patents in question covered certain features of the VFAT filesystem. I don't think that patent would affect Network Attached Storage. After all, if you're using Samba NFS, FTP or HTTP to access the files, it doesn't matter what filesystem is used on the NAS device. One would presume such a device would be using Ext3, Ext4, or maybe XFS or something.
Which makes me wonder, is Microsoft asserting patents which cover Samba, perhaps? The Linux kernel itself, even if you don't compile VFAT support into the kernel (or use the patched version which supposedly avoids the MS VFAT patents by removing some functionality)?
Sure seems that this is all a marketing driven FUD campaign, since no one is talking about what patents are in play here. If they have patents, they should come out and tell the Linux developers and the world which patents supposedly are infringing. If they won't tell anyone, then the courts should just put a stop to this crap - it's my understanding that there is a principle of law in many countries, including the U.S., where if you know someone is infringing your patent or copyright, and you don't take action to prevent further damages, you can't get the court to award you those damages. That is, you aren't allowed to 'run up the bill' by continuing to allow infringement to happen, just so you can sue for more money later?
I agree. We haven't seen just what compensation was involved. If it was slight, buying off MSFT was surely less expensive than fighting off an army of their attorneys. MSFT's strategy here seems interesting. They realize getting other companies to license their Linux patents is likely to strengthen their claim to the patents. Knowing this they pushed in that direction. They were able to get some of the early licensees to do so by offering what seemed like mutually beneficial terms (like patent sharing). My guess is that as more the terms will be similar for a while - giving MSFT a large group of patent licensees. Getting a license will then become more costly. the first group that MSFT doesn't like that also refuses to license the patents will be taken to court. MSFT will then flaunt all of the other licensees before the jury stating "Amazon, and others all recognized our patent. What makes [variable] so special?"