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

[Anonymous Coward]

You and your damn facts. Can't we just get some nice Microsoft bashing going on?

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

[weachiod]

The whole story is bullshit too, as AsusTek has denied Microsoft asking for royalties.

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

[the_womble]

Actually, the patent for the wheel was granted in Australia

Blowback

[symbolset]

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.

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)".