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

Re:Nicely twisted summary

[weicco]

Nope. I think don't you understand patents.

If this IS a Microsoft scheme to enforce usage of their OS, surely it'd backfire, considering the manufacturers don't want to pay royalties as it is?

If manufacturers don't want to pay royalties then they have to switch to a country that doesn't recognize patents. Otherwise they can be taken to court and ordered to pay hefty fines + pay hefty royalties or pay hefty fines + stop manufacturing.

I think it would encourage makers to use Open Source even further.

This is a question about patents, not copyrights. Open Source doesn't cover you from patent suits. And unless you didn't notice, TFA is about vendors using Open Source.

Patents have upsides and downsides. I'm not sure how they balance. It seems that at least in the software world there's more downsides than upsides to put it nicely.

It's misleading, if you don't understand the law

[John Sokol]

Rule 1. Anybody can sue anyone for anything.
Rule 2. If they fail to respondent in general the one who filed the suit wins.
Rule 3. If there is no ground for the suit it's easy to get it tossed out.
Rule 4. The golden rule. He who has the gold makes the rules, in other words the one with the most expensive lawyer wins.
Rule 5. 90% of civil cases are settle out of court. This is mostly a poker game, with bluffs gambits deceptions , misdirection, Sleight of hand, deceit, corruption and hocus pocus.
          A company like Microsoft is counting on the other party not doing there homework, not being as well connected, or not having as much leverage with politicians and judges.
Rule 6. Carrying a bluff all the way to court, and getting called on it would be devastating for a company like Microsoft. The best thing that could ever happen is Microsoft actually following through with it's threat.
Rule 7. Judges are held responsible for there judgments. I have noticed that they will do anything to defer to a previous similar judgment by another court on a related case rather then actually commit to a decision that they make themselves.
      So in court what mostly happens is both parties are presenting similar cases in which the courts decided in there favor and the judge then decides who make the more relevant argument.

I have seem a similar strategy used to shake down companies for patent infringement on bogus patents.
The corporation being sued will look at this from a strictly profit and loss perspective, it's cheaper and more profitable to remain on good terms with Microsoft.
  So they start by shaking down a small plays because they know they will kowtow, and Microsoft will even kick them back a discount or some other bullshit so it really doesn't cost them.
But this sets up a legal precedent establishing the legitimacy of Microsoft's claims.
They then can go after larger or more resistant players.
After a certain critical mass, it will be much more difficult to argue that the claims are fraudulent in court.
The EFF & GNU could be in for one heck of a battle if they don't intervene sooner rather then later.

Re:Installing Linux...

[pedantic bore]

Yup.

Whoever wrote the summary should have read the article...

Here's my summary:

Microsoft: "Hey, smartphone makers, you're using some of our patented technology."

Smartphone makers: "Can't disagree with you."

Microsoft: "So, you should give me some money."

Smartphone makers: "Yeah, I guess."

Microsoft: "If you were already paying for them by buying a windows license, then we'd already square. But since you're not, then just give me a few bucks per unit. Cool?"

Smartphone makers: "Cool. Just don't tell the folks at slashdot, because they'll twist this around to make it sound like you're trying to intimidate us into not using Android, rather than us trying to license technology from you that we want to use in our phone."

Microsoft: "Yeah, and then somehow tie this in to their precious desktop linux."

Smartphone makers: "(snort)"