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? "

Comments

Nicely twisted summary

[weachiod]

How wonderfully twisted summary. Even the article doesn't say Microsoft is demanding license for installing linux. It says Acer and Asustek should patent license fees just like everyone else:

As Android is an open platform, vendors of Android handsets have to pay royalty fees of at least US$10-15 per handset for licensed use of the patents concerned, the sources explained.

There are only several Taiwan-based handset vendors and only HTC has signed for licensed use of Microsoft patents, leaving Acer and Asustek being the targets for the royalty charge, the sources indicated.

What a surprise, HTC pays license fees so they aren't asked to do so!

I don't like software patents either, but development does take its time and money and you currently still have to play by the rules like everyone else. Just because you're not selling as many devices as HTC doesn't mean you don't have to pay the same royalties. Even Google, like every other company, is asking for patent royalties, so why suddenly Microsoft shouldn't? Sure, hate the software patents, but twisting this as something like Microsoft demanding manufacturers to pay if they want to install Linux is just... wrong.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[robbak]

They are being sued for 'computer', in other words.

To the original poster: You live on planet earth. You therefore are liable to being sued by Microsoft.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[ArcherB]

I don't like software patents either, but development does take its time and money and you currently still have to play by the rules like everyone else. Just because you're not selling as many devices as HTC doesn't mean you don't have to pay the same royalties. Even Google, like every other company, is asking for patent royalties, so why suddenly Microsoft shouldn't? Sure, hate the software patents, but twisting this as something like Microsoft demanding manufacturers to pay if they want to install Linux is just... wrong.

From HERE:

The patents in question relate to synchronizing e-mail, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power, Microsoft said in a statement

Really? synchronizing email, calendars and contacts? Doesn't the iphone do that? Why is MS not suing Apple? Wait, didn't my Palm Treo do that? Hell, my wife's old Palm Pilot did that. Before all that, Eudora did it. So, in other words, this is nothing new, as far as the software goes. The only difference is the hardware. So why is MS not suing Apple, Palm or any of the other software applications that do this stuff... you know, like any OS anywhere that runs on a battery powered device or does email? Oh, that's right, because the whole point is to scare Acer, Asus and other smaller manufacturers from supporting Android.

This is not about development costs. How much software development cost went into patenting an idea that's been around since before Windows for Workgroups. This is legal blackmail, nothing more. HTC is paying MS off because it was probably cheaper than a lawsuit (and probably gets the money back in WinMo7 licensing deals). This is about companies installing software that isn't written by MS. This is about not paying licensing fees, BECAUSE OPEN SOURCE HAS NO LICENSING FEES!!!

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[sjames]

They are using Linux. MS is demanding royalties each time they use Linux. Thus they are charging for Linux.

As far as we know, they're not demanding such fees for Symbian or MacOS.

Of course, nobody ever knowingly demands royalties for invalid patents depending on the high cost of court and the near random nature of court decisions to make their victims pay up...

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another "I'm right and you're wrong because these are the rules and rules shouldn't be broken because they're the rules" post. Circular reasoning sucks balls in any context.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[sjames]

The wheel was patented a few years ago. I think it's safe enough to say it would never survive even a cursory review of prior art.

It would (unfortunately) still have to go to court eventually, but that doesn't make it valid, it just makes the legal system insane.

Sorry to pull you back into sanity.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[jrumney]

It seems their strategy is to target Windows customers that are starting to make the switch to a Linux based OS. Probably in an attempt to scare them back onto the Windows path, but I hope suing their customers backfires on them.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

If a patent is issued in error or in contravention of the law, it's not valid. It's as simple as that.

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.

No, upon the judge finding it invalid the government will start treating it as invalid. It was invalid all along.

It's like unconstitutional laws: segregation and the "separate but equal" doctrine didn't suddenly become unconstitutional when the courts woke up in the 1950s and 60s. They were unconstitutional since Amendment XIV was ratified. Court rulings don't change basic facts, they change what facts the government will admit to as being true.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[Shihar]

like software patents either, but development does take its time and money and you currently still have to play by the rules like everyone else. Just because you're not selling as many devices as HTC doesn't mean you don't have to pay the same royalties. Even Google, like every other company, is asking for patent royalties, so why suddenly Microsoft shouldn't? Sure, hate the software patents, but twisting this as something like Microsoft demanding manufacturers to pay if they want to install Linux is just... wrong.

Shit like this is why the cell phone industry is in as sorry of a shape as it is. Mobile devices are hotter than hell right now. EVERYONE makes them in fucking China. The only thing you need as a producer is to design some hardware from some off the shelf components, add your spin on it, and flip on a switch in China. What is happening? Not this.

What is happening is that only people armed to the teeth with both piles of money and patents dares step a foot into this market. Every single pissant start up Silicon Valley should be building a phone, but instead it is limited to only people armed to the teeth for a legal fight. This is fucked up, and for a consumer, it is hitting you in the pocketbook. Further, absolutely none of these patents are novel. It isn't like a company hits on a great idea no one will ever think of and patents it to protect themselves. What is happening is that everyone is patenting the obvious next step, and than suing when everyone goes to take that obvious next step.

What people forget is that patents are not some sort of moral fucking right. They are a completely artificial creation made by governments. It is a government granted monopoly, and it isn't granted for some fucked up sense of morality. It is granted for the singular reason of "promoting the useful arts". It is written into the fucking US constitution. When it fails at this, we are doing it wrong. If patents are stepping in the way of competition and innovation, they are failing in their singular purpose. Clearly, they are failing.

Patent law is so horribly fucked up these days there are no words for it. Consumers, small and medium sized businesses, and the economy are getting screwed. Microsoft is leading the charge. They can't compete in an open market, so they swing a government enforced sledgehammer at the competition.

I almost considered looking into getting a WiMo7 phone, but after this sort of anti-consumer crap, fuck those guys.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[Dahamma]

Looking up the details, the patents are for "synchronizing email, calendars and contacts, scheduling meetings, and notifying applications of changes in signal strength and battery power". Last I checked, none of those are included in the Linux kernel - they are part of the Android middleware/OS, and/or apps the vendors added.

In fact, a bit more research shows that yes, Symbian, Palm, Nokia, and some other Linux embedded vendors are in fact already licensing the patents (and have been for *years* - the first article I found was from 2005). And Apple has patent cross licensing agreements with Microsoft (and likely all of those other companies) as well. This is about Taiwanese companies trying to make cheap phones by avoiding the patent license fees everyone else has already agreed are valid. And those companies probably also violate Apple patents (in Apple's opinion, at least) - to that matter, Apple has already sued HTC (a Taiwanese company paying MS fees now as well) for this.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[Noitatsidem]

Who the fuck modded you as flamebait? It's a valid point. Microsoft has tons of extremely broad patents that describe really basic functionality of an operating system- Nothing innovative on their part. I'd love to see them start threatening Apple... Or they could do something even more insane, like sue their own customers: I really like MS's self-destructive tendencies, it really puts a smile on my face knowing that their own customers can't trust Microsoft not to sue them- I wonder what this will do for the Windows market share? Hey, if a major vendor ever did decide to stop shipping windows all together (or hell, even downplay Windows) I can definitely see Apple-like ad's going "LOLVIRUS" while at the same time going "By the way, it can surf the web, you can make .docx files with openoffice/libreoffice, the OS supports 3D acceleration, etc. while still being cheaper than a certain other proprietary operating system. Let's face it: IF these vendors do ever move away from Windows, they may not kill it, but they could certainly put a fairly big dent in its market- Imagine the world with two Linux based vendors with the same market share as OSX, or even one for that matter. That's a pretty big dent. Also, I'm getting ready to be modded down for thinking, as it seems to be a recent trend on /.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[im_thatoneguy]

Really? synchronizing email, calendars and contacts? Doesn't the iphone do that? Why is MS not suing Apple?

Because Apple has a cross licensing deal with MS and recognizes the patents.

Also you can patent specific implementations and methodologies. It's entirely possible and likely that other email synchronization systems can be employed that don't run afoul of Microsoft's patents.

As to Palm I'm sure they had their own treasure trove of patents which they both defended and cross licensed with Microsoft.

Just because Open Source has no licensing fees doesn't mean it doesn't have to respect the law that closed source software abides by.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[Hognoxious]

Also you can patent specific implementations and methodologies. It's entirely possible and likely that other email synchronization systems can be employed that don't run afoul of Microsoft's patents.

In theory, yes. But in practice you can patent the "what" and not just the "how"

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

What a sad, sad state of affairs. Any moron given enough time fiddling with several devices will come up with the idea that maybe it would be cool to sync email, calendars, and contacts. Maybe even schedule a meeting or two. Software patents are not necessarily bad, but I would call it near criminal to allow corporations to patent the obvious just because their legal departments are a step ahead of everyone else. A bad patent is a bad patent, and all the major companies agreeing to play along because it costs less to litigate than it does to pay (and protects them from needing to litigate occasionally) does not make it any worse than it is. I raise my glass to any company in any market with the guts to ignore those patents even if it is just to undercut the competition.

And here's to the poster. Even though he's "overstating" the situation, the ensuing discussion brought the patent thing up. I had no idea it was that bad.

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[Even on Slashdot FOE]

Also you can patent specific implementations and methodologies. It's entirely possible and likely that other email synchronization systems can be employed that don't run afoul of Microsoft's patents.

In theory, yes. But in practice you can patent the "what" and not just the "how"

In theory, the "what" is patented, but in court, it is the "vaguely looks like/competes with my product" that prompts the suit.

Microsoft has software patents, wants licenses.

[PhilipTheHermit]

If I understand the article correctly, Microsoft has software patents on a number of technologies related to smartphones, and is seeking royalties from some portable electronics companies for their use of technology covered by the patents.

Generally a "ho hum" situation, BUT, Microsoft seems to be using the situation to pressure the companies to stop using Android and Chrome on the devices. Seems to be.

If anything, rather than proving that Microsoft is some sort of terrible evil, this proves that SOFTWARE PATENTS are a terrible evil.

We should never allow ANYONE to patent something that is not a physical item or process. The idea that a company can write up a vague description of how some software product MIGHT work SOMEDAY, if SOMEONE decides to develop it, and get the patent office to grant them the right to act as a gatekeeper for that idea, should be abhorrent to all people with scientific and technical backgrounds.

I think that about sums up the situation.

Now, perhaps I'm wishing for the moon here, but if anyone from the patent office, Congress, or the Obama administration is a Slashdot reader, this would be an excellent situation to use to show the average representative in Congress why, exactly, software patents should be abolished. "Here are two companies that are not using Microsoft products, and not stealing secrets from Microsoft, and in fact not using any Microsoft property at ALL, whose businesses are being interfered with because Microsoft was granted some software patents and they're using them as bargaining chips. This situation is ridiculous and should be addressed. (Etc, etc)".

Slashdot spreads the FUD

[guanxi]

I doubt it's intentional, but if Microsoft wanted to use their patent portfolio to scare businesses away from Linux (and I don't know that it's true), they probably would fantasize about reading this on the front page of Slashdot:

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?