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? "
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.
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.
...This time in the form of Android and Chorme OS.
I'm just glad it's for Chorme OS and not Chrome OS...
that's teh shizzle bizzle
Neither do you.
entropy happens
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)".
Thus spake the master programmer:
"When the program is being tested, it is too late to make design changes." (Tao)
Easy!
"gee, that is an awful nice handset you have there. It would be a damn shame if something were to happen to it. Perhaps you would be interested in our protection services?"
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Here.
Terribly summary, by the way.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
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?
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?
All the manufacturers have to do is get the patents invalidated which is entirely possible.
you sign an agreement to distribute MS licenses and they dont like it when you break it
sounds simple to me ... dont sign the agreement!
easy 3 step plan
1) dont sign with MS
2) let distrubutors sign with MS to offer MS product on sale (buy windows 7 for 75$ instead of giving it away)
3) profit
manufactures benefit from not being tied in to a deal, consumers still get a choice (its functional out of the box, but if you want windows add x cost), meanwhile they have a usable machine on OS software, +1 open source once they see gmail and facebook run the same, prices drop
CPM vs DOS anyone? this is how its been done since day one with this platform, welcome to 1981
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.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
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.
"Microsoft Sues Motorola Over Android Patent Infringement" "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 this has nothing to do with Linux. Those are features of Android. And, from some other patent agreements, the "synchronizing mail" thing applies only to synchronizing with Microsoft Outlook and Exchange.
All ASUS has to do is remove Microsoft Outlook and Exchange compatibility from their version of Android. Encourage users to use Google's "cloud" apps instead. Or ordinary IMAP. Microsoft will love that.
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.
Quite frankly, I would've been surprised if they had not tried something like this; it is certainly in character (and in the interests of their shareholders). And if they happen to get some protection *ahem* I mean "royalty" payments as a side effect, that's just more money to the bottom line.
Clearly they've got good lawyers on staff. Too bad their development teams aren't quite up to the same standard.
I can't spell to save my life, I am a computer programmer.
So I am not even an amateur at law. But my former partner for 5 years was known as an attorney that could pull of the impossible. He broke Jean Claude Van Dam's unbreakable contract. Talk about Teflon coated.
He never ever went to court, it was all poker and maneuvering. His dad is one of the most powerful entertainment lawyer in Hollywood.
It was amazing to watch him work. When he was up against other lawyers it was like watching him pick the wings of a butterfly. They where playing law, he was playing a totally different game, they never stood a chance.
After many conversations with him, suddenly much of what I would see Microsoft and other large corporations do suddenly started to make a lot more sense. It wasn't about winning in court, but to win overall.
So many strategies all sort of within the letter law but dirty tricks. Things that as a logical computer programmer seems very unethical. But as it turns out is just business as usual for most of the big boys.
It's the reason the little guys almost always loose.
We had Microsoft sabotage our investment opportunities in 1996 by announcing a superior product with a completely faked demo, then not releasing anything for almost 5 years, and when they did it was nearly identical to what I was selling. There video streams even played in my 5 year old player without modification! They then disabled the ability for my product to work with the release of MSIE4.
I had CNN trademark "livecam" after they did a story on it. Then send us a siest and desist! Fortunately that didn't fly, I had the domain years before the trademark was filed. We were never able to get the trademark for ourselves after that.
More recently the first CCTV DVR board which I designed and built while in Korea 1997 was copied by a number of Korean companies. Many Chinese company started making clone boards of the Korean boards. One of the Korean companies then threatened to sue me for reselling the Chinese version of the board which was my original design! Didn't take much to call that bluff.
So many dumb greedy people.
The number of time's I'd been burned in business by this stuff is disturbing.
My last experience It was a $120K software contract with $20K upfront. Then $50K and $50K. It was in writing that it would be based on open source.
We got much of the functionally working and demo'ed it. He demanded source code, eventually I caved in to get the next payment. He canceled his $50K check.
He handed the code to a Russian company to complete and filed a suit to get his $20K back because it was all based on Open Source code!
Fortunately these days I am not so easily intimidated.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
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)"
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Seriously, it sounds like they've got it all, even down to the "sue your (ex-) customers" part. I suppose that means that someone should check that the monopoly privileges in question really do belong to them.
Microsoft can't come up with a better product, so they have to resort to using legal tactics to try and undermine the competition indirectly. Pretty sad. This tells me that they know that their own product stinks, so they have to resort to these tactics to try and force customers to use their products.
You can be sued at any time, by anyone, for any reason, no matter how stupid.
Further, you must defend yourself in court, or you will automatically lose.
It's expensive for the person suing you so it's not generally done unless they're really angry or really rich.
Does any of that description fit any person or corporation in the story you posted?
The suit will be thrown out but Microsoft hopes by the use of fear to control you without actually having to pay lawyers.
They have lawyers on staff who get paid anyway so there's no down side to this unless you call their bluff or stop buying their stuff because of their practices.
Up to you man.
-- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
Yes, but that's OK, because if you (meaning anyone, not you specifically) aren't a lazy fuck, then you've read the article yourself. It's not my job to fix someone else's awful summary post.
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.
Microsoft claims Linux infringes some 200+ patents. Many are obvious patents that should not have been granted to them in the fist place. They threatened to sue manufacturers for deploying devices that use Linux. here Ballmer whines about Linux users have an "undisclosed balance sheet" Meaning if you use linux you need to pay the Microsoft Tax. They are going around behind the scenes threatening comanies to pay them royalties and patent license fees to sell devices with Linux. The sued Buffalo, TomTom,HTC,Motorola,IO-Data and several Korean companies and many more companies. Many have caved some tried to fight but caved like TomTom. and now they are ruffling feathers in Taiwan. They are in the middle of a spear and scare campaing to scare the timid manufacturers and system builders away form using Open Source and Linux in particular.