Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Charging Royalties For Linux
andydread writes "It seems Microsoft's campaign to scare manufacturers away from open source and Linux in particular is proceeding at full force. The latest news is from Digitimes out of Taiwan. Apparently Microsoft is threatening Acer and Asustek with having to pay Microsoft a license fee for the privilege of deploying Linux on their devices. This time, it's in the form of Android and Chorme OS. So basically, this campaign is spreading to PC vendors now. What are the implications of this? Does this mean that if I build PCs with Linux (Ubuntu/ChromeOS/Fedora) and sell them I am at risk of getting sued by Microsoft? "
Apparently in completely unrelated news, Asus is deprecating Windows Phone 7. This even though Google totally cleaned Garmin's clock on the free navi thing.
As always, Garmin-Asus seeks the best for our consumers either on Android platform or on Windows platform. However, we see the potential of Android platform devices, so we are focusing on Android platform currently. - Steven Tu
Meanwhile Microsoft's VP, Corporate Communications Frank X. Shaw is over on Twitter right now trying to repair the damage done by today's CNN Money report. In case y'all want to wander over and lend him a hand.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
In regards to *which* patents are being contested we can probably look at the Motorola Lawsuit to see just what Asus is being expected to pay for:
Microsoft says Motorola is violating nine patents "that are essential to the smartphone user experience, including synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power."
So they aren't being sued for "linux" they're being sued for the software prebundled along with the kernel and cell phone related patents.
Would be interesting to watch this one develop, I think. A lot of software patents under litigation now are unbelievably vague. And as always, there's something interesting on the subject over at Groklaw.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
"Does this mean that if I build PCs with Linux (Ubuntu/ChromeOS/Fedora and sell them I am at risk of getting sued by Microsoft?."
Apparently it's not a problem unless you're installing them on a smartphone. These aren't really Linux patents they're claiming are being infringed.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Here.
Terribly summary, by the way.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
Yeah, I like bashing MS as much as the next guy (if not more so), but it's only fun when MS actually does something stupid. It's not like it's such a rare event that you have to flat out make stuff up.
...are we scared yet?
this site has lost the right to call MS on the FUD they do spread, because slashdot is guilty of as much, if not worse FUD of it's own.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Sorry to pull you back to the real world... any patent that has been issued and has not expired or invalidated, is valid. It's a simple as that.
Whether you think it's a legitimate patentable invention doesn't matter. As long as the patent office thinks it is, then the patent will be issued. If you think it's not valid for whatever reason, you will have to ask a judge to invalidate it. And until they agree with you and invalidate the patent, it is valid.
The whole story is bullshit too, as AsusTek has denied Microsoft asking for royalties.
Actually, the patent for the wheel was granted in Australia
Good analysis. Would be stronger if you use "their" for the possessive rather than "there" (which is the place) (in 5 and 7).
Oh, and "its" is the possessive while "it's" is the contraction for "it is"- that's one I always have trouble with (in 6).
I don't think settling actually creates any legal precedent - that requires at least a court ruling. I does start to create a psychological and social "precedent" however.
If Asus does not supply Exchange compatibility they will loose business. It is to many users an important feature.
They should sell the outlook compatibility as a separate app or license priced at roughly the cost of the license. That way they only have to pay for users that use the functionality as well as make clear that this is not them but MS which making you pay the 15 USD
---
Perhaps this info-graphic can help explain the current absurd state of mutual destruction in the mobile industry. It tries to show who is suing whom.
It's a couple of weeks old though so obviously massively out of date:
http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/whos_suing_whom.png
I'm sure yacht brochures are being mailed to all the lawyers as we speak.
Switching to a country that doesn't recognise the patents does nothing to help you when your products are impounded on entry to a country which does.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Considering this article is revolving around the Taiwanese, you just broke it...
[...]patent license fees everyone else has already agreed are valid.
Europe, India, China. I think most inhabitants of our planet still live in jurisdictions that would not recognize such a patent.
Also, per capita they get laid more than you do. GTFO
Seven Days with Ubuntu Unity
Settling a lawsuit does not create a legal precedent. When you settle a suit, what actually happens, legally, is that the plaintiff withdraws their complaint. As far as the court is concerned, the legitimacy of the claims was never examined and the case was never decided. So no precedent.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
FIDO was really good at synchronizing messages public and private. Calendars and contacts are simple to map logically to messages. (Either is just a message containing a contact or meeting details).
There's absolutely nothing novel about notifying a program of anything at all. It's been done by signals or select (for examples) from the beginning of operating systems as a concept.
MS has been invited on numerous occasions to articulate how they feel their patents are violated and has refused to do so. By that, they demonstrate that they aren't actually interested in having the violations cured, they are only interested in using the courts (and massive expenses) as a blunt instrument.