Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IO Data Licenses Microsoft's "Linux Patents"

Posted by kdawson on from the bigger-than-we-are dept.

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.'"

51 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. North Korea by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    I bet Kim Jung Il didn't license those "Linux patents" from Microsoft when he rolled out Red Star. Is that grounds for attacking North Korea?

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:North Korea by Ltap · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe it's a job for the Microsoft ninjas.

      --
      Yet Another Tech Blog
      (but so much more, including game and movie reviews)
      http://yanteb.peasantoid.org
    2. Re:North Korea by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Informative

      From looking at their website, you would be led to believe that all they do is sell hard drives to consumers and set top boxes to cable companies. So, if you refuse to buy external hard drives with the model numbers:

      HDC-UXW250, HDC-UXW320, HDC-UXW400, HDC-UXW500, HDL-GXW250, HDL-GXW320, HDL-GXW400, HDL-GXW500

      That should allow you to reward them appropriately.

      Is there anything else they sell? From reading their presidents statement, they seem to go in and out of the business of making X over and over again and partner up with a series of corporate boyfriends because they don't have the talent to make things in house. Not someone whose institution I'd want to fund...

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    3. Re:North Korea by Richy_T · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nothing wrong with a fair exchange which increases value for all parties concerned.

  2. Free money. by Spewns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish I could run a scam as good as Microsoft's.

    1. Re:Free money. by pieterh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most likely Microsoft is paying friendly companies, as it paid Novell. The goal is to establish credibility for its "Linux patents" so that it can then attack its real enemies and convince a judge that since many other firms licensed these patents, they are valid. It's a fairly standard way of working.

      The targets of these patents are most likely (a) Google, (b) Red Hat, and (c) large firms who are migrating their data centers to Linux. "Nice data center you have here, guv. Shame if something nasty, like errr... patents... were to 'appen to it. Can I interest you in this 'ere patent license? Only a thousand quid a day, guv!"

      --
      My blog
  3. Soprano style by Neil+Watson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I might be holding a club behind my back. Should I choose to begin swinging this club, which I may or may not have, I can guarantee that I will not strike you with it, for a small fee.

    --
    UNIX/Linux Consulting
    1. Re:Soprano style by freedumb2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that is called "racketeering".

    2. Re:Soprano style by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is the year 2010. Now its called "licensing".

    3. Re:Soprano style by pooh666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds cute, but straight to jail for extortion. The threat with a weapon, that you may or may not have wouldn't change that it is still a physical threat, not legal in Canada at least. However, we are just people, not super entities like corporations that now even get their own say legally in the US. It seems they can do the above with no issues.

    4. Re:Soprano style by Whalou · · Score: 2, Informative

      He said he had a club not a racket.

      --
      English is not this .sig mother tongue...
    5. Re:Soprano style by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Informative

      Microsoft may or may not be entitled to the money. If they hold the patents, and are NOT enforcing the patents nor disclosing the infringing products, even though it has all the evidence it needs (source code to all things OSS), then it is "Extorting" because it is NOT entitled to the money.

      It would be, if it disclosed what products were in fact infringing, and took remedial action. Because it hasn't it is only making veiled threats.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    6. Re:Soprano style by david_thornley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft, however, owns the patents

      Which patents? By using the definite article, you were asserting that there are specific patents involved. So far, nobody including Microsoft has come up with any patent numbers.

      Without knowing what patents are allegedly being infringed, it's all FUD, and the whole thing looks uncomfortably like extortion.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    7. Re:Soprano style by sjames · · Score: 2, Informative

      Microsoft, however, owns the patents and is entitled to the money, so when it says "pay me or I'll tell the courts you're using my patents", it's perfectly legal, provided the amount they demand is reasonably fair.

      Maybe. That's the part that makes it extortion. They haven't disclosed which patents or how they believe Linux might infringe. If they lay the patents on the table and say it infringes here, here, and here and they are correct then they are making a licensing deal (whatever we may think about patents it is legal). By keeping things secret, they are actively preventing a cure to the infringement. Arguably they should be estopped from any enforcement action as a result.

      When someone infringes your property, you're not allowed to keep quiet about it until they reach a point where it's more expensive to cure the problem than to pay you.

    8. Re:Soprano style by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How the hell do you know Microsoft hasn't disclosed the patents to the hardware manufacturers? Depending on what the patents cover, that's perfectly reasonable. They don't need to disclose them to YOU, YOU don't manufacture hardware and use software that potentially infringes on their patents. Since they are hammering out licensing terms, it seems infinitely more likely that they have disclosed the patents to IO Data, else why would IO Data bother? "Prove it or get out of my face" works extremely well in patent cases, MS could have the best lawyers in the world but even I (not a lawyer) could adequately defend myself if they don't even bother to disclose the patents.

      The assumption that MS did not disclose the patent does not seem logical, and there is no proof to back it up. The natural assumption should be that if IO Data and MS are working on a licensing agreement, the IO Data knows exactly which patents they are licensing.

      It also implies that IO Data believes Microsoft's patents are valid, and they are a hell of a lot closer to the situation than any armchair patent "experts" here on /. are.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    9. Re:Soprano style by hduff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Microsoft may or may not be entitled to the money. If they hold the patents, and are NOT enforcing the patents nor disclosing the infringing products, even though it has all the evidence it needs (source code to all things OSS), then it is "Extorting" because it is NOT entitled to the money.

      Why would this not be fraud?

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
  4. Microsoft is... by alexborges · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A mean bunch of bastards for claiming patents and not disclosing any kind of infringement. But the ones that buy into the scam, man, those are PLAIN IDIOTS.

    --
    NO SIG
    1. Re:Microsoft is... by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But the ones that buy into the scam, man, those are PLAIN IDIOTS.

      They probably figured that it would cost more time and money fighting these patent claims by MS than it would licensing bogus patents. If that's true, then it is clear that our patent system ought to be done away with entirely.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Microsoft is... by ravenscar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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?"

    3. Re:Microsoft is... by shadowen1977 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why don't two or more companies join together in class action to fight Microsoft against this FUD??? Second, of the companies that did sign up with Microsoft before class action and before the suing companies WIN in class action, what happens to these companies that paid Microsoft for these patents? I don't think that patent system should be scrapped, but I do think that patents should be under the administrative control of the government entity, not Microsoft saying you are..... I'm sure if I had patents and I enforced the patents that I could find LOTS of patent infringements in the WILD. What is the standard that tells me this is infringement or not. Microsoft business model.... Litigation = profit !

    4. Re:Microsoft is... by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, then amazon would have risked their bogus one-click patent.

    5. Re:Microsoft is... by chowdahhead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Microsoft approached Red Hat not long after the deal with Novell and was told to go screw. I think Shuttleworth also made some statements about making no deals with Microsoft. Amazon's settlement doesn't necessarily lend credibility to their claims, and if there really is some substance to these patent threats, why has Microsoft sued TomTom but not Red Hat. Why can Red Hat give the finger to Microsoft and walk away untouched. Is Red Hat's patent portfolio a threat? I wish we knew in detail about what is said in these meetings.

  5. Why is the Linux community so quiet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't understand why the Linux developers are so quiet about this. Microsoft is building up a huge amount of momentum around the idea that Linux violates some arbitrary patents, and not a single Linux developer or company appears willing to call them out on it. Bizarre.

    1. Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet? by dwiget001 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, the momentum is in anticipation of a ruling from the Supremes (SCOTUS) "In re Bilski" related to software patents. If the ruling goes the way I think it will, business method and software patents will be decimated, the USPTO will have to revisit and probably many many such patents they have so stupidly granted.

    2. Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet? by c++0xFF · · Score: 2

      Is there any specific reason you think that the ruling will go that way? I'm not familiar with the supreme court (it seems to me it leans slightly to the right of center, most of the time, but what do I know) and its past rulings, but I haven't seen anything that would make me think it would rule one way or the other.

    3. Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet? by alexborges · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its an appeal for decition already taken in the bilsky case and nobody in the legal "community" (can lawyers actually be construed as members of any community?) has come up with good arguments for it except the ones appealing.... but, it may be just that I get my news from all the wrong places.

      --
      NO SIG
    4. Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet? by alexborges · · Score: 2

      The lawyers had little to do with Bush pardoning Microsoft, giving them a slap in the wrist, instead of what Clinton's DOJ had done so well.

      --
      NO SIG
    5. Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet? by andydread · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Honestly? I don't think the developers really care. As long as they can bury their heads in the guts of the kernel and write code then they will probably never care. I am not even sure if they care if anyone else runs Linux. Just as long as they can write code and run it on their own PCs then that good enough. They couldn't give a crap less about the marketplace and the extortion racket that Microsoft is running. Just as long as Microsoft is not suing them then we probably won't hear a thing from them.

    6. Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet? by chowdahhead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure that developers are challenging Microsoft's claims, as much as they are appealing for the patents to be fully disclosed, so any legitimate violations can be coded around.

  6. It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Informative

    I-O Data released one of the industry's first Windows 7 API-based sensors, which automatically detects when a person enters or leaves an office or room.

    So basically, they are licensing Windows stuff. Nothing to see here. Also, while Novell did a patent deal wit Microsoft, it did NOT do a deal wrt linux, as there's no Microsoft code in linux (and most of us are smart enough to remove the potentially-encumbered mono-base from opensuse).

    1. Re:It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative

      Only Microsoft claimed that the deal covered Microsoft-patented junk in linux. It was a cross-licensing deal that Microsoft paid Novell almost half a billion dollars - in other words, it was pretty much Microsoft who needed patent coverage of certain Novell technologies.

  7. FFS! What patents !!!! by yossarianuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Again they still do not actually say what specific patents !

    This should be criminal, the Linux foundations should sue for libel damage.

    Fuck it, maybe we all contact companies and ask for money for breaking our imaginary patents.

    Also this company is out the USA, do they have crazy software patent laws too.

    Thank god for the EU (I never thought i'd say those words)

    1. Re:FFS! What patents !!!! by DaHat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always find the 'imaginary patents' or similar lines hilarious as it assumes that Microsoft walks in and says "In this sealed envelope that you may not open or see, we have a list of patents that you are infringing on... you should license them."

      Each and every company who gets involved in such a licensing deal knows full well what they are getting into and exactly what they are licensing... and if not, they probably should fire their entire legal staff who said they should go ahead with the licensing deal without knowing just what they are getting out of the deal.

      --
      Help Brendan pay off his student loans
    2. Re:FFS! What patents !!!! by Sheik+Yerbouti · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or they are actually taking money from Microsoft on the back end in a underhanded bid by an underhanded convicted monopolist to establish a right to licensing fees as a way to stifle competition. See for an example the Novel SUSE license certificates MS bought as a result of the Novel deal. Basically since we can't see the terms of the deals that could be happening in each and every case. Microsoft or some investment firm they have a stake in makes and investment (payoff) in these companies. They basically did that through Bay Capital as a way to fund SCO indirectly.

      Make no mistake this is typical MS dirty deeds and the whole point is to stifle legitimate REAL competition which as is usually the case they can't abide. And so MS will use every dirty underhanded trick they can to destroy or marginalize OSS. They are bastards and never EVER to be trusted to be sure.

    3. Re:FFS! What patents !!!! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Informative

      Each and every company who gets involved in such a licensing deal knows full well what they are getting into and exactly what they are licensing...

      Of course they know exactly what the agreement is. But you're assuming that the agreement is a license for specific patents that Microsoft alleges Linux infringes. Despite being called a "license agreement", the actual contract the two parties are signing need not exclusively involve such patents.

      The agreement probably includes some patent licensing, but the part about Linux is most likely in the form of an agreement by Microsoft not to sue IO Data over patent infringement in Linux. They can make such an agreement without specifying which patents might hypothetically be involved; it would be a blanket agreement.

      If you have a list of patents you hold and know that a competitor is violating, you sue that competitor. Not threaten random customers of that competitor. When Intel has a patent issue with AMD, they go after AMD, not HP and Dell and all of AMD's customers.

      Which do you think is more effective at harming a competitor:
      1) The hypothetical threat of liability for customers of the competitor, who can clearly see you taking no action against the allegedly infringing competitor itself?
      2) The hypothetical threat of liability for customers of the competitor, who can see that you are taking legal action against the infringing competitor?
      3) Getting court-ordered injunction against the competitor shipping their product to ANY of their customer, THEN going to the customers and striking a deal about their hypothetical liability?

      Hmmmmmm.

      So how do I know that Microsoft's list of patents is in fact imaginary, and that the contract agreement with IO Data does not specify which patents Linux violates?

      Because none of the Linux distros have been sued. If this list was real, and thus the possibility of a patent violation suit was real, it would be a devastatingly effective weapon against Linux. Yeah, yeah, the kernel developers et al could work around the patents. In the intervening months Red Hat, Canonical, kernel.org et. al. would be legally barred from distributing their product. You think Linux customers might jump ship?

      Why rely on FUD when you can have the certainty of patent infringement dangers?

      Oh the other reason I know their list is imaginary is that their statements about Linux infringement come from mis-quoting a study done by someone else about patent infringements in Linux and other software. The study said Linux potentially violates 200-some patents, and MS used this to say that Linux violated 200-some Microsoft patents. Which was a lie.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    4. Re:FFS! What patents !!!! by Conzar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you not realized that by not publically disclosing the list... Microsoft actually saves the FOSS community a lot of heart-ache and pain?

      Rubbish. M$ isn't saving any one. If M$ puts out the list of infringing patents, then the patents on the list become a huge target for the FOSS community to dissect and prove prior work. M$ retains its strength by keeping those patents it thinks GNU/Linux infringes on secret until it litigates individual companies.

  8. Any word on what patents? by JSBiff · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Any word on what patents? by butalearner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why Microsoft is smarter than Apple. You see, Microsoft is getting easy paydays from all these companies. Sure it's not as much as they'd try to get if they sued, but they're still raking in the cash for running what is essentially a protection racket. Apple on the other hand, sues HTC for patents covering BS like moving an icon across the screen at variable speed. Apple might be going for a bigger payday, but is very much at risk of losing the lawsuit and losing the patents.

  9. When the Supreme Court invalidates software patent by kawabago · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When the Supreme Court invalidates software patents all these companies can go back to Microsoft and demand their money back. That should be fun to watch!

  10. Ninjas? Plural? by spun · · Score: 5, Funny

    You actually recommend using more than one ninja? Do you not understand the Inverse Ninja Law? It's pretty simple. Watch any martial arts film. A single ninja, by himself, will kick the ass of anyone less than Chuck Norris. However, a group of ninjas will always be defeated. There is a conservation of Ninjutsu at work, the more ninjas, the less power each of them have. If you want the job done right, send only one ninja.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Ninjas? Plural? by Duhavid · · Score: 4, Funny

      What if I send half a ninja? Will that half be even more powerful than one ninja?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    2. Re:Ninjas? Plural? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, children ninjas always escape unharmed and finishing their goal after a long, yet comic battle with the minions of evil.

    3. Re:Ninjas? Plural? by Grapes4Buddha · · Score: 2, Funny

      Exactly. Personally, I think that this makes complete sense. Ninjas have a reputation for being invisible when they attack. It stands to reason that you would be guaranteed success by sending a vanishingly small portion of a ninja. Of course, you couldn't send no ninja. But maybe a homeopathic quantity of ninja-essence?

    4. Re:Ninjas? Plural? by Dorkmaster+Flek · · Score: 4, Funny

      You could try to send no ninja, but you'd get a divide by zero error when calculating the Inverse Ninja Law.

      --
      I like to think of online DRM as something akin to a college -- you pay for lessons until you learn something.
  11. I hope this wasn't because of the VFAT issue by apexwm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As Linux has been fixed to not offend Microsoft's FAT32/VFAT patent. If these companies think that they are voilating this patent, they should do their own research or fix it so that they don't have to pay royalties to Microsoft.

  12. IO Data has gotten into trouble before by Kagato · · Score: 4, Informative

    IO Data is a big name in Japan. They sell a lot of Computer and AV devices. In the US they aren't that big anymore. IO data was a pioneer in the Network Equipped Up-Converting DVD player. Not only could it play UPnP file sources, it could output them up to 1080i.

    That's when they ran into trouble. Their HD player had nice Analog Component outputs to upconvert DVDs. That got them in trouble with license holders for DVD. Which wouldn't have happened except they started expanding in US, and then the guys at the MPAA started taking interest. I think they are a bit gun shy after that. So I can understand folding to Microsoft.

  13. MS's plans to overtake Linux by HalAtWork · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, MS doesn't actually plan to overtake Linux, it just plans to make money off of other peoples' work. How long before they turn around and sue the developers of Linux?

    --
    Twinstiq, game news
    1. Re:MS's plans to overtake Linux by maugle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmm? How did you miss that whole SCO thing that was going on a few years back?

  14. I have in my possession . . . . by Hasai · · Score: 2, Funny

    ". . . . the names of 57 patent violations that are in the Linux kernel at present."

            ~The Manchurian Candidate, the remake, starring Steve Ballmer.

    --

    Regards;

    Hasai

  15. Re:Bzzzt...incomplete meme by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is Chuck Norris we're talking about. He just tosses the nuke at the mosquito, he doesn't need to be in orbit. About all a nuke would do is give Chuck a nice tan.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  16. Why dont microsoft come up with their IP ? by unity100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i can think of only one reason, if they came up with what they claim to be their own 'ip', and it was proven, the code would outright get removed from linux, leaving microsoft with nothing to harrass with. they would also lack the weapon to coerce and subdue the i.t. world at the time when linux becomes established for good worldwide.

    in any case, the community should look into this, and discover them, and remove them.

    chances are high that they have claimed rights to some basic logic routine or procedure, thanks to the beyond shitty patent system in u.s., and are now waiting for acta to make their claim in u.s. globally valid. you know, since the places like europe werent so stupid enough to let such stupidity like being able to 'own' logical routines and constructs for anyone.

    with all undue respect, american system has gone beyond failure, if it has (and it really has) come to the point of letting private people and organizations own logic and thought.

    --
    Read radical news here