Casio Paying Microsoft To Use Linux

theodp writes "Will Tux be a rainmaker for Microsoft? GeekWire reports that Microsoft has struck a deal with Casio to provide Casio's customers with coverage for their use of Linux in Casio devices. The agreement, which calls for Microsoft to receive payments of an undisclosed amount, is an implicit acknowledgment of Microsoft's longstanding claims that Linux violates its patents, an assertion that members of the open-source community have long disputed."

Comments

Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

microsoft is copying the old ibm way of getting money for nothing

Re:Microsoft

[arth1]

as long as they don't get chicks for free.

It'll be hard for them to prove so long after the fact - yes, there may be parts of device drivers that have been illegally reverse engineered, but Linux itself has stood the test of time, I think. If it really WAS infringing, the lawsuits should have been flying left and right a decade or more ago.

Re:Microsoft

[Quartus486]

No. Even if they are infringing, there's no point in revealing them, because the second they do that it's possible to work something out to go around them. It's better not to go with a lawsuit and milk some money year after year...

Re:Microsoft

[Osgeld]

there is a big difference, IBM makes quality products people respect

Re:Microsoft

[Gadget_Guy]

If it really WAS infringing, the lawsuits should have been flying left and right a decade or more ago.

They seem to turn a blind eye to desktop use of Linux and go after commercial implementations embedded in devices. They also do not have a policy of using the courts first, but rather they attempt to negotiate deals like this Casio one.

My guess is that Casio wants to use long file names using FAT32.

Re:Microsoft

[PNutts]

Yes, we need to be brothers in arms against this or we'll end up in dire straits.

Re:Microsoft

[priceslasher]

Your last 10 not-even-particularly-inflammatory comments (perhaps more) all have a 0 score. What causes that?

Re:Microsoft

[Osgeld]

simple, here is what happened

I had a excellent karma then I vowed to slay an apple fanboi while still logged in but all post were made as AC, it still killed my karma (It was bad, it might be satin by now)

SO! lesson learned if your going to start a hissy with someone while posting as AC, be sure to log out first

Re:Microsoft

[moortak]

This isn't even really new for them. It strikes me as an awful lot like their Suse deal from a few years back.

Re:Microsoft

[dakohli]

But, the man is too strong.....

Re:Microsoft

[cashman73]

Will we have to start paying Microsoft a license fee for the chair we're sitting in? Because I'm sure Steve Ballmer filed a patent for that, didn't he?

Re:Microsoft

[priceslasher]

Moderation is overrated. Anything over a 3 is just bad jokes and hyperbole.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Will we have to start paying Microsoft a license fee for the chair we're sitting in? Because I'm sure Steve Ballmer filed a patent for that, didn't he?

Is this an attempt to make some kind of joke referencing the chair-throwing incident?

Re:Microsoft

[kdemetter]

Isn't that in violation of the GPL ? Linux should sue Microsoft.

Re:Microsoft

[dokc]

...yes, there may be parts of device drivers that have been illegally reverse engineered...

Even if complete device drivers are stolen and used in Linux, what that has to do with Microsoft?! That would be a problem of device manufacturers.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

well the bad side of things its 100x easier to go from default good to excelent, just rate a bunch of shit underated and you will be there in a day, sitting at a default zero you are lucky if anyone even see's your posts as per default it does not show them ... so you could have a world breaking epiphany and no one would ever notice, so other than a +1 once in a while you are doomed to purgatory...

not that I really care but they limit you to 10 post's per 24 hours, which in reality seems to be tween my local hours of 3pm and 6pm and around 4 post's during that time (course I can post like 20 things before that time the next day ... it makes no sense)

hence why I am logged out

Re:Microsoft

[CharlyFoxtrot]

SO! lesson learned if your going to start a hissy with someone while posting as AC, be sure to log out first

You learned the wrong lesson.

Re:Microsoft

[garatheus]

Have you even used IBM Products? Quality? I'm busy working with IBM's WebSphere, and well, lets see:

- Random JNDI session bean lookup error (solution: restart computer)
- Random OutOfMemory Exception (same day, suddenly started after restart from random JNDI lookup error. Solution: restart computer)
- Random WebSphere doesn't respond at all, and the console purely says . (Solution: restart computer)
- fourth time restarting of computer: no problems at all, JNDI errors are gone, exceptions are gone, program runs. Solution was: restart computer (four times, one day, many hours wasted in productivity).

Basically, without changing anything (but just restarting the computer), you manage to fix WebSphere. And have you even tried to read some of the exceptions that it throws? "An exception was thrown, read next exception for details" - to which there is no next exception... Or an exception that reads: other exception. No real stack trace, no real information in the log file, nothing. Managing security? Well you're better of manually editing the security.xml file than trying to use the admin console - because the admin console allows you to pretty much break the entire platform (resulting in you having to reconfigure the security.xml manually).

Really, not a great product.

And don't even get me started at Rational Software Architect (or Rational Application Developer). It has so many NullPointerExceptions, and so many integration issues with WebSphere that I really can't fathom my any enterprise would want to install the products in their business. I wonder if IBM has heard of differential updates? I mean, when migrating from one version to another of an IDE, surely you just need to update just the things that have changed, rather than having to download another 7GB file of updates? Surely there can't be that many changes to the IDE in a single update? Its just a waste - they could do it so much better (is the point I'm trying to make).

DB2? You *HAVE* to give it a Windows account with Admin rights on your computer? WTF. ClearCase / ClearQuest - you have very similar requirements, and the setup takes forever. We even had IBM come in and try and configure it for us - long story - end of the day, it's still not working (after numerous 'visits', we still can't access ClearCase / ClearQuest).

So no, I really disagree with your statement of "quality products people respect", because honestly, they're frikking useless...

Re:Microsoft

[king neckbeard]

Just thinking about it gives me a shiver in the dark

Re:Microsoft

[TheRaven64]

The agreement is not public, but there are three possible cases:

If could be pure FUD and there are no patents involved at all. Given the amount was not disclosed, it could be that Microsoft paid Casio to spread FUD.

It could be that the license that Casio have bought is automatically granted to anyone that they distribute the code to. In this case, there are no problems.

It could be that Casio has paid for non-transferable patent licenses. In this case, clause 7 of the GPL kicks in and, upon becoming aware that they can not distribute the GPL'd code (e.g. the Linux kernel) in a way that grants the downstream users all of the rights that they have, then they lose the right to distribute the GPL'd software. This opens them up to lawsuits from anyone whose code they distribute. Given that Linux doesn't require copyright assignment, potentially every contributor could individually sue Casio for wilful copyright infringement, with a maximum statutory penalty of $150,000.

Re:Microsoft

[hairyfeet]

I'm sure I'll get hate for pointing this out, but here goes: Yes Linux is infringing. So is frankly any other OS including OSX if you wanted to get technical. How do I know this? Have you SEEN their OS patent portfolio? We are talking about tens of thousands of patents! With THAT many patents it is pretty damned impossible NOT to infringe!

And someone pointed out that if MSFT were to name the patents could then be worked around and I would argue that is theoretically true but at what cost? If it takes your OS 45 steps to count 2+2 that is gonna cause your OS to take a pretty damned big hit performance wise. Using esoteric workarounds may be fine for bash scripting but we are talking about the guts of the OS here and a hell of a lot of those patents cover pretty much any straight forward way to get from point A to B. so if your OS has to go from A0 through FF and back around again just to get from A to B how badly is it gonna kill your performance?

This is why I have been arguing for years that free as in beer needs to die, to be replaced solely by free as in freedom. Even RMS says charging is just fine as long as you provide the source but free as in beer cripples the ability for Linux as a whole to fight back by building a huge patent warchest like the other big players have. The patents you are allowed access to, like IBM's, are all by companies that refuse to accept GPL V3, only GPL V2. What if they start TiVo'ing any code they use? As we have seen with Google you can't be assured because they release version A that they will release version B and I wouldn't be surprised if RMS is right and Android just ends up another iPhone, with a FOSS kernel that is worthless to FOSS because none of the stuff that will actually let you run the thing on your device is ever released.

So free as in beer really needs to go, even if it is only giving the distro $5 a release just to give them a steady income to buy patents. There is a reason why old rivals like Intel and AMD have cross licensing agreements in place, that is because they both know they infringing like mad on each other's work. But all free as in beer does is hurt those that are trying most to help! Look at Red Hat, who gives back more than any other company. did you know that nearly half the webservers out ther are running their code but they don't see a red cent? That is because a leech of a company that USED to pay Red hat for the OS they put on their devices decided they would just keep the code without giving RH back a penny, and thus CentOS was born. don't believe me, look it up. Think about how much better RH would be off, how many more coders, bug fixers, and for the purpose of this discussion how many more patents they could own if they even got 1/4th of the money for all those installs?

Like it or not money makes the world go around and he who has the gold makes the rules. To really fight something like this Linux needs a patent portfolio so damned large and scary that no company would DARE do anything other than a cross licensing agreement for fear of being crushed. How many FOSS companies like Sun or Novell will go out of business and have their patents snatched up by those that don't support FOSS? Without money you simply have no way to fight back, and free as in beer ends up a tragedy of the commons where you end up with more free riders than you do paying customers and thus ALL suffer, simply by having less resources all around. As the economy continues to sour I foresee things only getting worse on the FOSS front as companies like MSFT have guaranteed income while too many good distros and projects are dependent on the "tin cup" model which with a dead economy is gonna get less and less change in the cup. Its just human nature, if folks don't have to pay for something and money is tight then they won't.

Of course most would agree that the death of software patents should be the ultimate goal, but after Citizens United? Fat chance friend. Hell they don't have to be subtle in their bribe taking anymore!

Re:Microsoft

[dkleinsc]

Short version of your argument seems to be: If the bad guys has some BS patent guns, we need to have some too. There are 3 major problems with that:

1. If you use the tactics of the force you oppose, you become identical to the force you oppose. If everybody starts charging for Linux, instead of a free software ecosystem where everyone is freely giving stuff away, you have a system which, just like the proprietary world, is pay-to-play. Plus there will be endless infighting about who actually gets to own the patents, who gets the money, who ends up suing who, which consumers give money to which player, whether Debian can continue to give its stuff away even if Mandriva is charging $10 for it, etc. In other words, the Unix Wars all over again.

2. We're never going to win by opposing Microsoft or other proprietary software vendors using the same methods and tactics as they do. They have billions of dollars, thousands of patents, and lots of lawyers, and they will move quickly to prevent any effort like this from getting off the ground. Let's say you create your Linux Patent Consortium, which is a completely unified body organized on the principles you describe. They get a few patents, Microsoft realizes what they're up to and sues them out of existence, forcing them to sell of their patents to pay the damages. When opposing a force that's much more powerful than you, you have to use guerrilla tactics, which means appearing as amorphous and disorganized as possible.

3. If you have a unified consortium, with enough patents to be dangerous, but it's any kind of open election process, you will see Microsoft use its allies like Intel and it's sagans of dollars to get on the ballot and crush the organization from within, and then create proprietary alternatives that appear to be the same but are really quite different. How do we know? OLPC, that's how.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this guy up.

Re:Microsoft

[arth1]

3. If you have a unified consortium, with enough patents to be dangerous, but it's any kind of open election process, you will see Microsoft use its allies like Intel and it's sagans of dollars to get on the ballot and crush the organization from within, and then create proprietary alternatives that appear to be the same but are really quite different. How do we know? OLPC, that's how.

The biggest danger as I see it is that there's no guarantee that the patent holder is going to stay true to its values, even if it starts out with the best intentions. Companies go belly up (especially if sued a lot, even if they win), and promises cease to be valid as ownerships change. What used to be a patent portfolio intended to protect the open source community might become a portfolio used for attacking it.

The way to fight patents isn't by patents, but by anti-patents. I.e. public disclosures that are as well written and broad as possible, pre-empting patentability.

And a revolution, but I won't bother to advocate that, because it will come when the time is ripe anyhow.

Re:Microsoft

[justforgetme]

... no guarantee that the patent holder is going to stay true to its values, ... Companies go belly up

Which is exactly why products of intellect (of which patents are a sub group) should immutably be attached to the mind that created them. Whether that is one single or two thousand minds.

the above only applies if there, actually, exist patents.

Re:Microsoft

[jbolden]

Linux is not a corporation and social movements can't own property, in particular patent portfolios. What social movements can do however is make using patent portfolios very politically costly. What the open source community has proven quite effective at is making lawsuits a matter of public interest, rather than a private disagreement. The companies with large patent portfolios in general are not interested in being on the wrong side of public interest questions, they need government support in too many different areas (for example Microsoft needs extensive international copyright enforcement support).

The concern for Linux is not another major OS player but someone like Microsoft selling to a patent troll. Here though the patent is going to be subjected to a fully public examination. Just as in the SCO case, where people with direct knowledge came forward and self deposed to disprove SCO's claim; you may very well see people for all over come out of the woodwork and prove prior art or falsify claims in the patent filling.

Once you have credible people who will swear under oath that things in the original patent filling are false, patent trolling gets much more complex.

Re:Microsoft

[jbolden]

Linux is a social movement. Legal entities have to sue. As far as Microsoft, Microsoft doesn't distribute GPLv3 code and it is questionable if they even distribute GPLv2 code for stuff that they claim is infringing. If they have that would be a defense for Casio.

Re:Microsoft

[BenSchuarmer]

Only if the chair is moving

Re:Microsoft

[dkleinsc]

Which is exactly why products of intellect (of which patents are a sub group) should immutably be attached to the mind that created them. ... the above only applies if there, actually, exist patents.

If it's in the public domain, anybody can use it for anything they want. To take it out of the realm of software for a moment, consider the design of the humble wire paper clip.

If you open a box of generic paper clips, you will most likely find a design known as the "Gem" clip with long sides, rounded ends, and an extra rounded end inside. That design was created in 1894, and never patented by anybody (instead, a particular machine to make them was patented). That meant that it was and remains perfectly legal for anybody to bend a wire in that particular configuration to make paper clips. And when the

By contrast, some of its competitors were patented, which meant that if somebody just happened to bend a wire in that particular configuration in order to keep their papers together, they could be sued. It's no surprise then, that only the original company ever made those styles of paper clips, and while you can find some of those designs still in use, they're far less common.

What that means for a do-it-yourself creator of paper clips is that he's far safer in a world without patents, where he can bend wire in any way he likes without being sued. Since Free Software is all about combining the efforts by a huge number of do-it-yourself efforts, it too is much better off in a world without patents.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

1. If you use the tactics of the force you oppose, you become identical to the force you oppose.

You just described exactly how the GPL works.

Re:Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

10's of thousands of patents? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. As of 2008 Microsoft currently has more than 8,500 issued U.S. patents, with more than 15,000 more pending. That's hardly what I would call 10's of thousands. When you begin with an ignorant claim the rest of your argument tends to also suffer from this ignorance.

Re:Microsoft

[oh_my_080980980]

Obviously you are not a lawyer. If Linux or any OS was infringing then Microsoft can point this out in a court of law. The offending parties would have remove the offending code, pay a fine to Microsoft and everyone move on their merry way. This is standard operating procedure.

However, Microsoft does not want to do this because they will no longer be able to bully anyone. The infringing code would be removed and there would be no more need to pay protection money.

Re:Microsoft

[LinuxIsGarbage]

3. If you have a unified consortium, with enough patents to be dangerous, but it's any kind of open election process, you will see Microsoft use its allies like Intel and it's sagans of dollars to get on the ballot and crush the organization from within, and then create proprietary alternatives that appear to be the same but are really quite different. How do we know? OLPC, that's how.

There's a lot of mis-information about Microsoft and OLPC. OLPC themselves never did any development work for Windows. Rumours are the SD slot was added to allow sufficient storage for Windows. However this is beneficial for G1G1 recipients who wanted to run a standard Linux distro instead of childish Sugar. It is also one of the only "open" implementations of an SD host.

Work was also done on the firmware to make it more compatible with booting other operating systems. Again, not just Windows, it helped for alternate operating systems. No assistance was given to Microsoft for drivers, etc.

OLPC themselves never distributed PCs with Windows on them. And most of the OLPC computers deployed run Linux.

OLPC fails due to other problems. Lack of real leadership, lack of educational content (all sorts of half-baked learn to program apps, but little traditionally academic), and a buggy, sluggish interface based on an interpreted language running on an anemic processor. Run Sugar in a VM, and check out the resource consumption of the apps. Mind boggling!

How much money does Casio have?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can pay Microsoft to use Linux, that must be a few trillion dollars, considering Microsoft makes Windows.

Re:How much money does Casio have?

[kanto]

Wouldn't be surprised if this was a sweetheart deal somehow reimbursed, all to make headlines of how Casio fears Microsoft patents when using Linux.

A good sign

[drolli]

i translates to:

we dont use linux because its free of cost but because we believe it does a better job in the areas not protected by microsoft patents than microsoft os and believe a little overpaying in these areas is good for our customers.

Re:A good sign

[Daniel Phillips]

Ha ha, good point.

Does not change the fact that Microsoft is running an arguably illegal protection racket.

Re:A good sign

[Jonner]

i translates to:

we dont use linux because its free of cost but because we believe it does a better job in the areas not protected by microsoft patents than microsoft os and believe a little overpaying in these areas is good for our customers.

But it's bad because every deal like this strengthens the perceived validity of Microsoft's patent trolling efforts, which may hurt anyone not willing to pay a Microsoft tax.

Re:A good sign

[Daniel Phillips]

Oh, and I do not doubt that Linux does a better job in all areas, including areas "protected" by Microsoft patents[1].
---
[1] According to Microsoft.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

What is illegal about it?
It sucks and is is unethical and immoral, but it seems to be legal. They are not giving you protection for patents, but from their patent lawyers. Who will sue if you infringe or not, just avoiding the cost of the lawsuit is what this protection buys you.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

"Undisclosed amount". $1 ? That would be all they would need. Some horse-trading: agree this and we'll give you a discount on some other deal we are doing, and then we can publicize it. Then it looks to everyone else that our patent claims are valid. Stories like this serve to frighten people, making them afraid of Microsoft's lawyers - if you use linux not windows, we will come after you.

Re:A good sign

[rhook]

Look up "extortion" sometime.

Re:A good sign

[evil_aaronm]

How is this any different from a thug standing in your business entry way saying, "It would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to this nice business you have here. If you pay me a small monthly fee, I'll do my best to make sure nothing happens. Otherwise, hey, it's a rough neighborhood. You never know what might happen."

The effect is the same, is it not? The thugs get money for nothing: just the promise of "protection". If MS at least outlined to Casio exactly what patents they wouldn't sue over, then it might carry more legitimacy. As it is, it smacks of little more than, "Hey, it's a rough neighborhood..."

Re:A good sign

[Desler]

Or, you know, these companies might not be as stupid as Slashtards would want to believe and have vetted these patents and have come to the conclusion that they are valid? No, that couldn't possibly be it.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlikely since they haven't been vetted in a court so your speculative reply is well ... exactly that. Until they are.

Feel free to repost once that has happened.

rgds

Re:A good sign

[Junta]

It says very little good actually. Casio undoubtedly has a lot of sunk cost in using Linux, therefore there is nothing to say that they wouldn't have chosen Windows from the start if they knew they'd do this. It also could mean casio agreed to pay some pittance to give MS some ammunition in exchange for some other consideration. In other words, there is no unambiguous endorsement of Linux as 'better' to be had.

However, it does say that through legal intimidation large companies can bully their way into revenue without actually doing work.

Re:A good sign

[Penguinisto]

Start here.

While there is no implied threat of violence, there is the implied threat of severe fiscal damage, which to a company is just as damaging as an arson job on one of their factories would be.

(...and it's shit like this where I would love to see a "loser pays" system apply to any corporation that sues *anybody* else.)

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft should not be allowed to say anything about copyright without showing their sources first, so we too can see how much they have copied from Linux. You think being closetard is much better?

Re:A good sign

[tepples]

How exactly is it a protection racket? For example, any file system that Windows can read and write without installing obscure installable file systems is patented. NTFS is patented, and modern versions of FAT are patented.

Re:A good sign

[syousef]

Ha ha, good point.

Does not change the fact that Microsoft is running an arguably illegal protection racket.

I just had a mental image of Clippy popping up on my desktop. "It appears you haven't paid for protection this month. Would you like to: A) Pay up now B) Have someone sent round to break your kneecaps".

Re:A good sign

[gregfortune]

Microsoft is implying that it will sue and extorting money to protect against that possibility.

"Hey Johnny... You wanna do business on this block, just remember that windows get broken from time to time by... well.. let's just say people. Pay us and we'll make sure you personally don't have a rock thrown through your window."

Pretend I did a mobster impression.

Re:A good sign

[Darinbob]

Almost anything to do with patents these days is a protection racket.

Re:A good sign

[WillKemp]

Except what they are doing is not unlawful. Nice try, though, little freetard.

There's no way to say whether it is or it isn't unlawful without a long and expensive court case. But that doesn't mean it's not unlawful - it just means the court case would cost more than paying off the standover man.

Re:A good sign

[Jonner]

Or, you know, these companies might not be as stupid as Slashtards would want to believe and have vetted these patents and have come to the conclusion that they are valid? No, that couldn't possibly be it.

Just out of curiosity, what's a Slashtard? It couldn't possibly mean someone who posts on Slashdot, could it? Microsoft is a patent troll and should not be accommodated in their abuses regardless of the what the USPTO has said since the patents which are claimed to apply to software like Linux should never have been granted in the first place. In addition, no court has decided that any Microsoft patent applies to Linux, though Microsoft has sued a number of companies claiming that. This, like much use of patents today, is extortion independent of whether patents on software should be allowed.

Re:A good sign

[Desler]

Unlikely since they haven't been vetted in a court so your speculative reply is well ... exactly that. Until they are.

Because you think they didn't have their own lawyers look at the patents? No clearly companies like Casio, HTC, etc are just dumb. If only they had such brilliant slashtards as yourself in charge they clearly wouldn't make these dumb decisions with absolutely no research at all.

Feel free to repost once that has happened.

I don't need to. The fact that all these companies are licensing these patents rather than fighting them lends credence to the fact that these companies probably think these patents are valid. HTC, for example, isn't one to shy down from patent fights when they think they can win.

Re:A good sign

[Desler]

Microsoft is a patent troll and should not be accommodated in their abuses regardless of the what the USPTO has said since the patents which are claimed to apply to software like Linux should never have been granted in the first place.

Based on what exactly? Your word?

In addition, no court has decided that any Microsoft patent applies to Linux, though Microsoft has sued a number of companies claiming that.

Great, I never claimed any court has made such a decision. The point is that these companies aren't just stupidly licensing these patents without having their lawyers look into it. Like I posted above, HTC isn't one that shies away from patent fights so if even they are licensing them it gives lots of credence to the fact that they are most likely valid. Or how else do you explain how they are more than willing to take Apple on in patent suits yet they licensed the ones from Microsoft without any fight?

Re:A good sign

[Jonner]

Microsoft is a patent troll and should not be accommodated in their abuses regardless of the what the USPTO has said since the patents which are claimed to apply to software like Linux should never have been granted in the first place.

Based on what exactly? Your word?

My opinions are influenced by those of many smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. If you're not aware of the reasons software patents are harmful, you may have been living under a rock. Here's a good place to start in that case. Though it's not specific to software patents, This American Life has an excellent program about the current patent mess that is accessible to anyone.

In addition, no court has decided that any Microsoft patent applies to Linux, though Microsoft has sued a number of companies claiming that.

Great, I never claimed any court has made such a decision. The point is that these companies aren't just stupidly licensing these patents without having their lawyers look into it. Like I posted above, HTC isn't one that shies away from patent fights so if even they are licensing them it gives lots of credence to the fact that they are most likely valid. Or how else do you explain how they are more than willing to take Apple on in patent suits yet they licensed the ones from Microsoft without any fight?

I won't pretend to know what any of those companies should do to maximize profits in the short term. The fact that Casio, HTC and many others have yielded to patent trolls is a symptom of a deeply broken system. Even if it's in Casio's interest to make this deal with Microsoft right now, it helps keep in place a status quo that is an obstacle to innovation and therefore a financial drain on the entire industry.

Re:A good sign

[sjames]

Because MS refuses to name any patent that is violated, but will only mumble that there are (may be) a few. They then demand money to make sure nothing bad (like attack of the lawyers) happens to you.

Unlike legitimate insurance, if anything were to "happen", it would be deliberate on MSs part.

How is it NOT like a protection racket?

Re:A good sign

[inode_buddha]

Notice how MS won't say exactly which patents, or what violations without an NDA? They tried the same stunt on Barnes & Noble re: their Nook e-book reader. Barnes & Noble told them to fsck off. Which they did, eventually. After all, if MS was so sure about their case, they would have no problem proclaiming everything right out in the open. By not allowing any possible recourse, they are limiting the possible damages they could collect (in the US at least) by the principle of estoppel.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Right because the R&D that went into developing the tech they patented, and the time, effort, money and labout they sunk into implementing it, making it work and marketing it didn't entail any actual work?

Get it through your heads, Microsoft is not a patent troll, they have products, not just papers that say they have patents.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hey Johnny... You wanna do business on this block, just remember that windows get broken from time to time

Please use "transparent viewing panes" in order to avoid possible trademark infringement suits (alternatively, you can donate $2,500 per year to MS Legal and we'll leave you alone... maybe.)

Re:A good sign

[man_of_mr_e]

You are assuming Microsoft is seeking monetary damages. They would likely just want injunctive relief. Stop selling the product.

Fact is, Microsoft is confused over it's patent strategy. On the one hand, they've spent a lot of money patenting things, buying patents, trading for patents, etc.. and they want to make some money off it. On the other, they hate patents and are constantly getting sued themselves because it's pretty much impossible to write much of any software without violating someones patents.

So I think we'll see Microsoft flip-flopping a lot on how they are going to use patents, although that won't stop them from making threats.

Re:A good sign

[Rockoon]

The principle of estoppel by silence (the only estoppel that applies) requires that B&N would have had to be put at a disadvantage by signing the NDA. Non-discloser is normal in business negotiations, even when there isnt an agreement which enforces it, so its a stretch to believe that B&N would be put at a disadvantage by signing such an agreement.

Re:A good sign

[man_of_mr_e]

He wasn't asking you why patents are bad. He was asking you to back up your claim that MS is patent troll.

Patent trolls are companies that exist only to file patent lawsuits. They don't invent anything themselves and have filed none of their own patents.

Clearly, by no stretch of the imagination or any definition of "patent troll" is MS one.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

> Because MS refuses to name any patent that is violated

Do you really think those companies who are paying Microsoft for said patents haven't been told in a closed door meeting exactly which patents they are?

If they didn't learn about them... then each and every company has some of the worst legal representation imaginable.

Re:A good sign

[jc42]

What I've been expecting for some time is reading of this behavior from a company that turns out to have no registered patents (or copyrights) at all. They just go to various profitable companies, making the claim that those companies are infringing their unspecified IP, and offering to make a deal not to sue for $X per month. If they are exposed, they just close up shop, and the officers form a new company to continue the "business."

It's not clear how this would differ from Microsoft's behavior. True, MS does seem to have a portfolio of patents. But if they won't tell their victims what patents are being infringed, how is their behavior materially different from the above? This is basically the situation with MS's charges against linux. They claim unspecified infringements, and stonewall questions about the specifics.

It's well understood that MS has the legal budget to bankrupt most smaller companies with legal fees, even when MS would otherwise lose the case. If you're bankrupt before the case is settled, it doesn't much matter whether you were right or wrong. So they can get away with this sort of extortion.

Lessee, if I post this, am I aiding and abetting such behavior? I wonder if we'll actually ever know. There's usually a lot of secrecy involved in such dealings.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Threat of doing something illegal is extortion.

Threat of doing something you are legally allowed to do (and MS can legally sue anyone, whether or not they actually have valid patents) is not illegal.

Stop trying to pretend that the threat of illegal actions is the same as the threat of legal ones.

There's nothing illegal in cousin Louie accidentally breaking a few things in a shop either.

Re:A good sign

[morkk]

It's not impossible that Casio are well aware that the patents are bogus but still pay for licenses because that's cheaper and quicker than a legal battle.

Re:A good sign

[Count Fenring]

Actually, if he accidentally breaks them, and then fails to pay for them in accordance with the wishes of the proprietor....

You see where this is going, I take it.

Re:A good sign

[sjames]

On one hand, MS sues you. They will certainly lose, but only after 3 years, millions in legal costs, and crazy injunctions in large markets.

On the other, a quarter million in protection money.

Assuming you can afford either, which do you choose?

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up "extortion" sometime.

I think you need to look up 'extortion' sometime, it clearly doesn't mean what you think it means. Exaggerating the situation like that doesn't help, it just reveals yet another ignorant person jumping on the anti-MS bandwagon. If you want to bash MS at least use facts, goodness knows there's plenty of them so there's no excuse for sensationalist rubbish.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

I do my own R&D in my spare time. Pay me for everything you do. Hey, I'm doing R&D and someone must pay for it. It does not matter you have nothing to do with me.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

"Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion."

Key word here, "coercion". That is exactly what is happening "pay us our demands or we may drag you through a costly legal battle, it would be a shame if your stock prices dropped and investors lost confidence in your company so just pay our much lower fee". And just in case you believe that threats of violence are a requirement, just read the quote below.

"Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc."

Re:A good sign

[sjames]

Why are you trying to pretend that the law is a bright line dividing right from wrong?

Just because it might be technically legal doesn't mean it isn't extortion.

The problem, of course is that the courts have gotten to be such a mess that you lose before the trial even begins. The only question remaining is if you will be the big loser or a lesser loser. The more money you can throw at the problem up front, the less likely you are to be the big loser.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

How is it NOT like a protection racket?

It would be obvious to you if you bothered to look up the definition of a protection racket. They are doing what every single company that licenses their patents does, telling them to either pay the license fees or get sued, very simple.

Re:A good sign

[man_of_mr_e]

Extortion is a legal term. By definition, if it's legal, it's not extortion.

Wow. I just don't understand how people can't grasp simple logical thought.

Re:A good sign

[Hognoxious]

Threat of doing something you are legally allowed to do (and MS can legally sue anyone, whether or not they actually have valid patents) is not illegal.

The threatened action does not have to be illegal per se for the the threat of it to constitute extortion or blackmail.

For example, it would be perfectly legal for me to inform your wife about the affair you're having with your secretary. It wouldn't be legal for me to demand payment to keep quiet about it.

Re:A good sign

[ahankinson]

Because the law is an art, not a science?

The definition of "legal" is pliable. I'm sure MS doesn't think that what they're doing is illegal, and they probably wouldn't call it extortion but a judge or jury might think otherwise after hearing evidence and weighing contextual factors.

That's kinda the problem. If you can simply last long enough in a court room to see someone actually come to a judgement about it, then you might be in the right and MS is in the wrong. Trouble is, most individuals or even corporations don't have the kind of resources to wait that long, especially against giants like MS with huge war chests, so they just pay to settle and nothing gets decided.

Re:A good sign

[sjames]

Most licensors are quite open about exactly what it is that must be licensed. That is the part MS is avoiding. They may or may not have told Casio, but they most certainly haven't allowed that information to become public.

Re:A good sign

[sjames]

Once we develop the ability to think in the abstract, we realize that law, morals, and ethics are much more fluid than a few words in a book. Even the simplest of codes such as the Ten Commandments are subject to centuries of debate.

According to the World English Dictionary:

2. to obtain by importunate demands: the children extorted a promise of a trip to the zoo
3. to overcharge for (something, esp interest on a loan)

It doesn't appear there that all instances of extortion are necessarily illegal.

Re:A good sign

[dwater]

"illegal" is also a legal term.

Not that I don't agree with your general point.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Key word here, "coercion".

No, read the passage you quoted, preceding that the keyword here is 'unlawfully', what they are doing is not unlawful, it is what all companies do when licensing patents. It is lawful to demand licensing fees for patents instead of suing the company, are you so completely ignorant of the fundamentals of the patent system that this most basic of concepts escapes you?

That is exactly what is happening "pay us our demands or we may drag you through a costly legal battle, it would be a shame if your stock prices dropped and investors lost confidence in your company so just pay our much lower fee".

That's how all patent licensing happens so either you have absolutely no idea how the patent system and licensing works or for some reason you just want it to appear different because it's Microsoft. A company asserting their patent rights doesn't just go and sue the infringing party, they negotiate for licensing fees, failing that they will sue, this is more than blindingly obvious for anyone who knows anything about patents and is exactly what MS are doing here, just like any other company.

Re:A good sign

[Dr_Barnowl]

Not such a stretch - B&N would lose face amongst the geek community if they settled a patent deal with an NDA with Microsoft. The geek community buys ebook devices, and is known for expressing their beliefs with their purchasing power, refusing to buy from the likes of Sony. Therefore they would be less likely to buy Nook devices and services from B&N. Therefore B&N would be at an actual disadvantage from harmed consumer reputation and reduced sales if they were to sign such an agreement.

Re:A good sign

[hawkinspeter]

Sending compromising photos to newspapers/partners isn't illegal, so is demanding money for keeping the photos secret, not extortion?

Re:A good sign

[drolli]

Ans this is not an unusual thing at all. The scheme is to save cost for patent lawyers. Big companies have such - lets try not to step on each others feet - agreements often. It makes sense. You can see on the mobile market what happens if companies don't have it.

This is how patents work positively. If MS invented something and Casio want to use it, then Casio pays a reasonable fee for it, even if they use a competitors components (in this case software) otherwise.

Re:A good sign

[Phoghat]

FTW

Re:A good sign

[Phoghat]

"Nice little computer you have, it would be a shame if something happened to it." S. Ballmer

Re:A good sign

[JasterBobaMereel]

The issue here is that the number of Patents MS holds is huge, and they are not being specific about which ones Linux infringes, so no-one can check if Linux actually infringes them or not, Many of MS's software patents are weak, and software patents are often suspect anyway

So it is more like MS claim they invented something, but won't say what, claim that Casio are using their Patented ideas, and Casio are paying MS without any of this being visible or tested in the courts ... sounds like protection money to me ...Especially as MS are not going after the thousands of other companies they could go after, i.e. the ones who might challenge it?

Re:A good sign

[Tomato42]

Because you can't legally drive the company to the ground with litigation costs alone... Oh wait, you can

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

Why have they not been sued for extortion yet?
That is what is baffeling me.
No really, just send a letter asking for the exact spesifics, and if you don't get a proper reply, call whatever authority that is responsible, and charge them.
That is what should be done.

Re:A good sign

[AmiMoJo]

Can someone explain why simply telling MS to fuck off isn't an option? You shouldn't even need lawyers, just keep telling them you think their claims are invalid and if they think otherwise feel free to test them in court. What is stopping other companies doing that?

Re:A good sign

[jbolden]

Microsoft has to prove intent. If Casio were to make a big deal out of demanding information and Microsoft were to refuse that would be a defense.

These are the sorts of things that need to get settled at trial.

Re:A good sign

[jbolden]

Of course they do. Lots of small firms have sued giants and won. It happens all the time in public interest. A huge war chest a legions of lawyers are very helpful. They aren't decisive.

Re:A good sign

[jbolden]

Yes. They also strengthen the level of frustration with America's patent system which might lead to meaningful reform.

Re:A good sign

[Anonymous Coward]

B&N lost face with the geek community long ago when they required users to physically take apart their nook in order to get control of it. What are you smoking?

Re:A good sign

[SigmundFloyd]

"The worse, the better" is quite a dangerous strategy, though.

Re:A good sign

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The whole point of laws is that, yes there is. Before laws, like, say in any muslim country before 1970 or so, you could be "sued" for any reason whatsoever. You could get any punishment whatsoever for any reason, and usually this meant people got the death penalty for some idiotic technicality while "coincidentally" also having irritated the current dictator. (and of course, millenia before that, it worked similarly in the west)

Compared to that, we're golden. In our country you can pay a lawyer to write an extensive document describing the (likely) legality of a number of actions and all concerns and thoughts that govern the decision process of the judge, and in pretty damn close to all cases, this is what will happen (if for no other reason, because it's generally lawyers that get promoted to judge). Once upon a time, laws were simple enough that anyone who went to university (college didn't exist then) would be able to predict the outcome of any court case.

Given that lawyers exist you can place a pretty safe bet these companies did quite a bit of research into the validity of microsoft's patents, and that they were found to
1) be valid patents
2) apply to linux
So you can make a pretty safe bet that, if ever tested in open court, microsoft could get an injuction against linux distribution.

(frankly, given, say, the patents of companies like motorola or ericsson, a lot of companies could prevent linux distribution if they wanted to using patents. And it's still not impossible that a company like oracle could have a valid copyright claim against some important part of linux, or X11, or some other critical part of linux infrastructure today, so microsoft is hardly alone in having this power).

Re:A good sign

[jbolden]

Absolutely. But 15 years of it getting worse has gotten the situation to the point the president now brings up patent reform regularly in his speeches.

Re:A good sign

[poofmeisterp]

They are seeking monetary excellence. "Damages" means that you are required to pay now. Injunctive relief means they want them to stop selling a product that they say is theirs. It looks harmless and polite (but tough/stern). In the end what are they doing? If you think outside the box and slow down while you're doing that thinking, you'll see it's to get someone else to stop selling something so that they have the time to develop and sell that very thing themself.

I hate to say it, but you very rarely hear the "woe is me" stories of companies that really are "woed." You hear it 95%+ of the time from companies that like to use "the system" to their advantage.

Really, I don't disagree with you. I'm adding and trying to explain a little better to people who still don't understand.

IMHOWE - In My Humble, Opinion, With Experience

Re:A good sign

[poofmeisterp]

Can someone explain why simply telling MS to fuck off isn't an option? You shouldn't even need lawyers, just keep telling them you think their claims are invalid and if they think otherwise feel free to test them in court. What is stopping other companies doing that?

Agreed.

While you're at it, you may as well also tell them what harm their proceeding with a suit will do to your company, and that you plan to file a counterclaim against them if they elect to move forward with their suit. Get enough of those in the public eye (because, you know, documentation from such suits is public) and it may slow down or stop.

"Don't walk up to me threatening to punch unless you're absolutely sure that you're not going to miss, and that you ARE going to knock me out. Otherwise you may have some issues. I can play your game, Microsoft." :)

Re:A good sign

[poofmeisterp]

He wasn't asking you why patents are bad. He was asking you to back up your claim that MS is patent troll.

Patent trolls are companies that exist only to file patent lawsuits. They don't invent anything themselves and have filed none of their own patents.

Clearly, by no stretch of the imagination or any definition of "patent troll" is MS one.

It's stretching it, but I think they are referring to the fact that it's popular opinion.

Basically, everyone did not think that Hitler was bad, but since he was bad in enough peoples' minds, over time, it's agreed upon by the statistical majority that he was and IS, in fact, bad.

I don't like to describe every single aspect of a person over and over again in order to plainly describe their looks, their demeanor, their habits and behaviors, etc. I'll just call them "cool" or "slob" (in this referential context).

Same goes for Microsoft and their behavior with patents. I don't think of them as a patent troll in my mind, but I see them performing acts with commonalities in reference to patent trolls. It's easier to call them that then to call them "the company that claims to have patents on several concepts, which has not been proven in court to be sufficient, if they exist, to find another entity guilty of violating said patents, and, continues to use its abilities to coerce companies into believing that the aforementioned is favorable in the direction of Microsoft enough to encourage payments as if the patent rights do, in fact, exist."

It's easier to say "patent troll". :)

Re:A good sign

[exomondo]

For example, it would be perfectly legal for me to inform your wife about the affair you're having with your secretary. It wouldn't be legal for me to demand payment to keep quiet about it.

Except in this case it's perfectly legal for them to sue over patent infringement and it is also perfectly legal to demand licensing fees rather than suing.

Re:A good sign

[smurfs187]

This is still Microsoft where talking about, linux or no linux. Get Ubuntu 11.04. IT'S FREE!

Misread

[Master Moose]

The subject line read to me that microsft employees were being paid to use Linux.

I was wondering where I could sign up for the same deal.

Re:Misread

[shutdown -p now]

The subject line read to me that microsft employees were being paid to use Linux.

Some do, like the guys who write that kernel module for Hyper-V.

I was wondering where I could sign up for the same deal.

Any place that develops commercial Linux software - say, RedHat?

Re:Misread

[hedwards]

I've often times thought that Microsoft ought to pay people to use Microsoft products. Like recently when my MBR went bad and I had to spend several hours figuring out how to fix the damage that came because MS won't allow you to set the drive letter without booting into the same Windows install or using their stupid utility.

Re:Misread

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to work at Red Hat. Everybody in our department (sales) used Windows.

Jumping to conclusions

[gweilo8888]

"The agreement, which calls for Microsoft to receive payments of an undisclosed amount, is an implicit acknowledgment of Microsoft's longstanding claims that Linux violates its patents, an assertion that members of the open-source community have long disputed."

That is, I will grant you, possible. However, it's equally possible that Casio's signing is nothing of the kind, and rather is an acknowledgement that Microsoft's lawyers would be willing to drag a case out for long enough that it's simply cheaper to sign on the dotted line, and have the class bully go pick on somebody else.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[Master Moose]

Seems to me that Casio just wanted to keep their relationship with M$ cosy whilst utilising the full range of technology available to them.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[rhook]

Sounds exactly like extortion to me.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[redkcir]

Sorry, I guess I read that wrong. It looked to me that Microsoft was using Linux and charging for it in violation of the GPL.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[Peter Simpson]

"Dat's an awful nice operating system youse gots dere. It'd be a shame if someone were to look too closely at your source code."

Microsoft has to do something to make money, considering the increasing losses from their world class search engine business. And by "world class", I mean losing $400 Million a quarter: http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-microsofts-bingmsn-results-truly-horrifying-quarterly-loss-balloons-to-713-million-2010-4

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[westlake]

Sounds exactly like extortion to me.

There are grown-ups signing these licensing deals.

Companies like General Dynamics. the six largest defense contractor in the world.

General Dynamics Itronix makes the GD300, a portable computer running Android software for the military to use in the field. It can be worn on the wrist or the chest, it uses GPS and it can be connected to tactical radios. It has a touchscreen that soldiers can use even if they are wearing gloves. The device runs chips designed by ARM.

General Dynamics Itronix will pay Microsoft to use Google Android

The Sectera Edge devices the Air Force is acquiring have their own security built in. The smartphones support the Secure Communications Interoperability Protocol (SCIP) and thus interoperable with the more than 350,000 devices that use it.

The devices also are certified to provide secure data communications that the military classifies as "secret" or less, as well as secure voice communications classified as "top secret" and less. Additionally, it is compliant with the High Assurance Internet Protocol Encryptor Interoperability Specification (HAIPEIS) for interoperability with in-line encryption devices that secure information on the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet) the DOD and State Department use to transmit classified information, according to General Dynamics.

Air Force Brass Get Secure Smartphones

Casio, best known for its watches and calculators, has 11,000 employees and revenues of $4.6 billion a year.

The company was founded in the darkest days of postwar industry for Japan. It is quite capable of fighting its own battles and not as weak as a kittten.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds exactly like extortion to me.

Since I am not a lawyer, I need those who know the laws to tell me if the laws have recently been changed so to allow Microsoft to extort LEGALLY.

Thank you.

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[Dr_Barnowl]

The GPL does not prohibit you charging to distribute software, it explicitly permits you to do so. What it prohibits is preventing you from distributing further copies, and distribution of binaries without source (or the offer of source).

Re:Jumping to conclusions

[hawkinspeter]

Why is charging for it in violation of the GPL?

Shameful and anti-competitive

[ozmanjusri]

Microsoft are a disgusting, disgraceful and unethical company.

They have been a barrier to innovation, blocking so many new technologies they've set humanity back decades. They should be split up and forced to compete on merits

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[tomhudson]

They should be split up and forced to compete on merits

Are you kidding. Then NOT being split up is great. It means that Steve Ballmer can continue to wreck EVERYTHING, rather than just one portion of the business.

Who can forget Ballmer's Greatest Hits, from the Monkey Dance to the KIN, and the Next of KIN, and everything in between ...

Do you really want to lose that sort of entertainment? (though it would be fun to see the various broken-up Baby Ballmers suing each other).

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

If Kin is your biggest bitch about MS they must be doing a pretty good job in your book. Sure you don't want to say some shit about Microsoft Bob or something?

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[EvanED]

Microsoft are a disgusting, disgraceful and unethical company.

In other words... they're a company?

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[chrismcb]

What technologies has Microsoft blocked? How have they set humanity back decades? I guess we were going to the moon in the 70s.

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[koolfy]

and what about apple ?

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft are a disgusting, disgraceful and unethical company.

In other words... they're a company?

Worse. They are a corporation.

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Cuba is calling your name, cunt. Go give it a shot and let us know how it works out for you.

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

careful, companies are people too

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Well thank you Ayn Rand. Let's just all surrender to our corporate overlords.

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[DAldredge]

Decades?

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Groupings of 10 years

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

so, I guess that means you're content with your misery under this oh-so-lovely capitalist system ? Keep working your ass off into the ground, having nothing left to give to your children, keep paying bills and shiver at the mere thought of losing your pathetic job because that would make you homeless.
Humans in general are perfect slaves. And americans are getting pretty good at it too. Oh, and go google how many americans go to Cuba to get free medical care, which they can't possibly afford here.

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Trogre]

In terms of technology companies, Microsoft have been pure evil since the 80's. Apple have been wanna-be evil (ie evil at heart but not big enough to flaunt it) since the 90's. Now that they have reached mega-corp status they have indeed revealed themselves to be every bit as evil as Microsoft.

Boycott them both.

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[F.Ultra]

Yes, I know that it's hard to believe but Microsoft actually predated the Xbox360!

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

See a psychologist for your hate and love problems.

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[devleopard]

Day-for-day, the HP TouchPad from launch to announced discontinuation, had the same lifespan as the Kin.

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Just fucking google it yourself.
Start with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a very shortsighted thought. Microsoft behaves this way, because that's the way all companies must act in the current market environment. Do you really see similar companies - Apple, Oracle etc behave any differently?

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[jbolden]

They have also been the gateway for new technologies into the mainstream.

Its too late to break them up. The sort of uniform control they had 12-18 years ago just doesn't exist anymore. They are big but they don't control things like they used to.

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[jbolden]

So far Apple has been a force for breaking up uniformity which is the primary mechanism for Microsoft's evil. Apple has themselves not created that many new evils, though their policies on iOS are reaching that level.

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[tomhudson]

Day-for-day, the HP TouchPad from launch to announced discontinuation, had the same lifespan as the Kin.

... and people are buying every single Touchpad they can get their hands on. How many KINs sold after they were discontinued?

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

set?

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

Centuries?

Re:Shameful and anti-competitive

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember the horrible day of the forging of 'Wintel' - a pathetic limited addressspace piece of shit that ALL computer users have suffered from ever since...
Backwardscompatibility??? Cue Neanderthal jokes. We'd be contemplating which available, uninhabited star to immigrate next, had it not been this segmented memory addressing piece of crap.

Now that SCO's gone

[idontgno]

I see that Microsoft has stepped up and started doing their own Linux license shakedown.

I see a strong uptick in "$699 Linux License" trollage on this forum, except with "Microsoft" instead of "SCO" in the text.

Re:Now that SCO's gone

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay your 699 you cock-smoking, teabagging, dirty GNU hippies

Casio devices?

[nurb432]

They still are around and sell stuff? That there is the true news story here.

And just because they pay doesn't mean its valid, it may just not be cost effective to fight.

Re:Casio devices?

[mortonda]

Is this the same Casio that sold sub-par music keyboards?

Re:Casio devices?

[Rockoon]

Casio had $1.4 billion (US$) in cash reserves in April 2011 and garners over $4 billion per year in revenue.

Get out much?

Re:Casio devices?

[nurb432]

I get out fine. Haven't seen a casio product in years.

Re:Casio devices?

[d0s]

In the US Casio is mainly known for cheap music gear and digital watches, around the world and particularly in Asia they seem to offer a whole range of gadgets.

As a side note I got a very cheap Casio Privia digital piano at Best Buy recently and it outperforms ones that cost twice as much, so my only experience with them is positive. Their g-shock watches seem to have a cult following too, was shocked to see them being sold at expensive clothing stores (at insane prices).

Re:Casio devices?

[Dr_Barnowl]

Their F91W watch is one of their cheapest lines, but the ultimate in terrorist chic. I got my daughter one to wear on the plane to Florida.

Re:Casio devices?

[poofmeisterp]

Is this the same Casio that sold sub-par music keyboards?

Hey!
One of those sub-par keyboards in the 80's made me the man I am today!

<whisper>a supergeek that knows how to push buttons. Except on women.</whisper>

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when does Microsoft own the rights to the cell phone? and since when do they have the right to bully other people from using other peoples technology? Doesn't anyone remember the litigation results on the browser wars?

Re:WTF?

[wierd_w]

MS: "We own FAT! Pay up or else!"

Linux: "No, you own VFAT, not FAT itself. VFAT is an optional extension to FAT."

USPO: "MS's VFAT patent applies broadly to all use of long filenames on a limited filesystem."

Linux: "That's BULLSHIT."

Not only that....

[Anonymous Coward]

...they also have a bad side!!

Among other things

[GumphMaster]

The article starts:

Microsoft Corp. and Casio Computer Co. Ltd. have entered into a broad, multiyear patent cross-licensing agreement that, among other things, will provide Casio’s customers with patent coverage for their use of Linux in certain Casio devices.

(emphasis mine). I would not mind betting the "other things" are actually the ones that were worth paying for, and that Microsoft slipped the "Linux patents" into the mix because Casio is using Linux. It costs Microsoft nothing but they get "precedent" with which to argue they hold valid patents affecting Linux.

Re:Among other things

[Anonymous Coward]

The article starts:

Microsoft Corp. and Casio Computer Co. Ltd. have entered into a broad, multiyear patent cross-licensing agreement that, among other things, will provide Casio’s customers with patent coverage for their use of Linux in certain Casio devices.

(emphasis mine). I would not mind betting the "other things" are actually the ones that were worth paying for, and that Microsoft slipped the "Linux patents" into the mix because Casio is using Linux. It costs Microsoft nothing but they get "precedent" with which to argue they hold valid patents affecting Linux.

Several decent sized corporations have been paying Microsoft a Linux tax for a while now. It's cheaper than fighting in court, where we know MS can use their infinite coffers to cripple all but the biggest companies.

Re:Among other things

[Tomato42]

Not to mention, it bring MS more money than its own Windows Phone business...

Re:Among other things

[poofmeisterp]

... I would not mind betting the "other things" are actually the ones that were worth paying for, and that Microsoft slipped the "Linux patents" into the mix because Casio is using Linux. It costs Microsoft nothing but they get "precedent" with which to argue they hold valid patents affecting Linux.

I am not sure of a dictionary definition, but I do believe what you just described is a process used in slang and everyday language, colloquially, called "cock-waving".

I believe it can also be described as "flexing [their] nuts" or "trying to get the last word in" in an inappropriately hyperbolic sense. FUD uses this process often.

Microsoft...

[cryptographrix]

...the new SCO. 10 years to bankruptcy, please? Can't we just get this over quick and have all the MS people quit?

Re:Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey bitch, MS has their dick firmly in your ass and they aren't going anywhere. Learn to love it.

That's the last straw

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Americans fix their fraudulent system, I'm going to assume ALL USA patents are fraudulent.

I will no longer respect ANY US patents. I'm not going to even bother to check if I'm violating any of them.

And your lifesucking lawyers can't get to me where I'm at.

Re:That's the last straw

[cryptographrix]

I support this decision.

Re:That's the last straw

[wierd_w]

The pirate bay founders felt the same way...

Never underestimate the reach of big money and multinationals.

(Yes, I know TPB "violated" copyright, not patent laws, but as both are "intellectual property" of the real movers and shakers of the modern world--the multinationals-- the distinction becomes grey at best, and moot at worst. If your project causes them consternation, they will reach out and touch you. Touch you like an angry TSA agent with dermatitis. We are talking full, repeated cavity search here.)

Re:That's the last straw

[nzac]

I don't get this either you are in the US and they can get you (you don't sound coherent enough to hold a Diplomatic Passport or something).
Or you are outside it and you really should not care as they have no legal standing were your live. Patients are only good for the country you have them in or Australia.

Re:That's the last straw

[tepples]

As someone who has lived his entire life in the United States, how should I qualify for Canadian residency so that I can be out of the reach of U.S. software patents?

Re:That's the last straw

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who has lived his entire life in the United States, how should I qualify for Canadian residency so that I can be out of the reach of U.S. software patents?

Will you be bringing beer with you?

Re:That's the last straw

[andydread]

Doesn't matter. Microsoft is on a mission to own your code. If your write software and distribute it as part of an operating system then you probably will be in their radar and they will sue you.

Re:That's the last straw

[Anonymous Coward]

You're in BootyBay and hopping the boat to Ratchet won't save you bud!

Do they a similar agreement with Google?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been under the impression that it was to cover the file system, and if so, does this explain the advent of GFS?

VFAT turned on out of the box

[tepples]

Every modern version of Linux that I've seen enables this optional extension out of the box.

Extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought if someone uses their power to provide threats, rewards, or intimidation (Coercion) for gaining money, it was Extortion.
I also thought Extortion was illegal.

I'm confused how this works...

[flimflammer]

I don't really understand how Microsoft can claim something like this to scare people but not disclose what, if anything, Linux is infringing on. Shouldn't they be required to disclose this sort of information if they're going to threaten people with lawsuits?

Or will it require some sort of lawsuit to get it out of them?

My guess is that Microsoft is just going to keep accepting the money people are willingly giving them and won't actually attack anyone who uses Linux.

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[Locutus]

read up on the Barnes and Nobel threats and you'll see how they operate. B&N told MS to tell them what patents, MS said that's proprietary information, B&N said WTF patents are public via the PTO tell us what patents, MS says only if you sign an NDA, B&N said we don't need an NDA to discuss public information, etc etc. B&N have some real lawyers while the others are cowering clueless idiots IMO. It probably helps that B&N has no connections with MS licensing since they've never sold PCs or PC software and many of the others have already been hooked by MS lawyers for other things.

LoB

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[andydread]

This may answer your question. From geekwire.

"Among the statements by Barnes & Noble are details of meetings between the companies "

At the meeting, Microsoft alleged that the Nook infringed six patents purportedly owned by Microsoft. Microsoft had prepared claim charts purportedly detailing the alleged infringement but insisted that it would only share the detailed claim charts if Barnes & Noble agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) that would cover the claim charts as well as all other aspects of the parties’ discussions. Noting that the patents were public and that the infringement allegations pertained to Barnes & Noble’s public product, Barnes & Noble refused to sign an NDA.

Insisting that an NDA was necessary, Microsoft discussed the alleged infringement on a high level basis only. Microsoft nevertheless maintained that it possessed patents sufficient to dominate and entirely preclude the use of the Android Operating System by the Nook. Microsoft demanded an exorbitant royalty (on a per device basis) for a license to its patent portfolio for the Nook device and at the end of the meeting Microsoft stated that it would demand an even higher per device royalty for any device that acted “more like a computer” as opposed to an eReader.

After sending the proposed license agreement, Microsoft confirmed the shockingly high licensing fees Microsoft was demanding, reiterating its exorbitant per device royalty for Nook, and for the first time demanding a royalty for Nook Color which was more than double the per device royalty Microsoft was demanding for Nook. On information and belief, the license fees demanded by Microsoft are higher than what Microsoft charges for a license to its entire operating system designed for mobile devices, Windows Phone 7.

This pretty much sums up what they are doing. They are approaching companies producing devices with Linux and threating them under NDA to sign a per-device license fee or Microsoft will sue them out of business. Thereby shutting them down.

A scenario:
Microsoft walks into a business
Microsoft: what a nice open source business you have here but this is a dangerous neighborhood, you need some protection.
Store owner: Protection? from who?
Microsoft: well from us really. If you don't pay us to use open source and Linux in particular we will sue you out of the marketplace
Microsoft: Oh and sign this NDA. You cannot talk about this to anyone... get it?

Its really sleazy egregious mobster-like behavior on the part of Microsoft. Unless the Linux developers and greater community start lobbying the government, open source and Linux as we know it is screwed.

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of words like "shockingly" and "exorbitant" make me doubt the truth of this account.

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[Howitzer86]

If Microsoft is doing it, then there is a lot going on like this in the business world that we're not aware of. There will be no change unless businesses demand the change. They aren't demanding it. They are embracing the current status-quo.

It's probably been like this in some form or another since the beginning. Expecting better and thinking you can change things is probably somewhat of a folly. It's just business. If you don't like it, you stay out of business. Capitalism is more than a monetary system, it's a philosophy. If your competitor buys a huge war chest of patents you better do the same. If they lobby the government and put politicians in their back pockets, so should you. Failure to do so is essentially failure to compete. Google is at risk because they didn't want to be 'evil'. They need to grow up, and from their recent actions (buying patents), it looks like they are. I just hope that for them it isn't too late.

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[inode_buddha]

It was all over Groklaw back when it was happening - I'm pretty sure they have more believable links and documentation.

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[greg1104]

"shockingly high licensing fees Microsoft was demanding" and "exorbitant per device royalty" are right from the filed Barnes & Noble complaint response. The wording is somewhat inflammatory, but those are exactly the terms the used when responding to the court.

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[Anonymous Coward]

This may answer your question. From geekwire.

"Among the statements by Barnes & Noble are details of meetings between the companies "

        At the meeting, Microsoft alleged that the Nook infringed six patents purportedly owned by Microsoft. Microsoft had prepared claim charts purportedly detailing the alleged infringement but insisted that it would only share the detailed claim charts if Barnes & Noble agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) that would cover the claim charts as well as all other aspects of the parties’ discussions. Noting that the patents were public and that the infringement allegations pertained to Barnes & Noble’s public product, Barnes & Noble refused to sign an NDA.

Insisting that an NDA was necessary, Microsoft discussed the alleged infringement on a high level basis only. Microsoft nevertheless maintained that it possessed patents sufficient to dominate and entirely preclude the use of the Android Operating System by the Nook. Microsoft demanded an exorbitant royalty (on a per device basis) for a license to its patent portfolio for the Nook device and at the end of the meeting Microsoft stated that it would demand an even higher per device royalty for any device that acted “more like a computer” as opposed to an eReader.

After sending the proposed license agreement, Microsoft confirmed the shockingly high licensing fees Microsoft was demanding, reiterating its exorbitant per device royalty for Nook, and for the first time demanding a royalty for Nook Color which was more than double the per device royalty Microsoft was demanding for Nook. On information and belief, the license fees demanded by Microsoft are higher than what Microsoft charges for a license to its entire operating system designed for mobile devices, Windows Phone 7.

This pretty much sums up what they are doing. They are approaching companies producing devices with Linux and threating them under NDA to sign a per-device license fee or Microsoft will sue them out of business. Thereby shutting them down.

A scenario:

Microsoft walks into a business

Microsoft: what a nice open source business you have here but this is a dangerous neighborhood, you need some protection.

Store owner: Protection? from who?

Microsoft: well from us really. If you don't pay us to use open source and Linux in particular we will sue you out of the marketplace

Microsoft: Oh and sign this NDA. You cannot talk about this to anyone... get it?

Its really sleazy egregious mobster-like behavior on the part of Microsoft. Unless the Linux developers and greater community start lobbying the government, open source and Linux as we know it is screwed.

I just like to know one thing ---- Is what Microsoft doing legal ?

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of words like "shockingly" and "exorbitant" make me doubt the truth of this account.

Here you go:

On information and belief, the license fees demanded by Microsoft are higher than what Microsoft charges for a license to its entire operating system designed for mobile devices, Windows Phone 7.

If Microsoft is demanding a royalty for the patents in question which is over 100% of the price of Windows Phone 7 then it is, indeed, "shockingly exorbitant". If you can buy a 'finished product' for less than the cost of a few of the components used in said product then they are extorting you with a completely unfair deal. The patents are bad enough just by existing, charging more than 5-10% of the cost of WP7 for the royalty is ridiculous.

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[Tomato42]

Yeah, B&N didn't have any licensing "rebates" to loose. The OEM license for companies like Dell is in the order of 20$, if they had to pay the consumer market place for it, it would completely eat their profit margins.

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[tesire]

this are mafia methods!!

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[TheDarkMaster]

If I was Barnes & Noble, I would throw the Microsoft lawyer by my office window on the 10th floor.

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[Locutus]

exactly. regarding Dell and profit margins, I'd heard somewhere that Dell's marketing deals with Microsoft alone result in close to 20% of their profits.

Lob

Re:I'm confused how this works...

[poofmeisterp]

Ah, I see they're also trying to set precedent.

Phase 1: If they showed that a device that wasn't even a computer, but LIKE a computer, it could be verified to be close enough to a computer to be called one. Move forward. Agreements with other companies that include paying royalties to Microsoft for the file system on a computer constitute written consent. Move forward again. A judge reviewing the consent to pay for "[their] file system on a computer" plus the signed agreement that the Android-based eBook reader was a computer, could see this as enough to determine that the file system was, in fact, Microsoft's.

Phase 2: Suit after suit after suit ensue, and Microsoft keeps the companies quiet by offering them a written consent to keep their mouths shut and get a "huge break" in license pricing. Then, one day, another judge (years later) decides that the original precedent-based determination was unjustified and overrules it. Microsoft is then required to pay back the licensing fees but, all of that money was kept in the bank accruing interest (or somehow benefiting from another type of fund) for those years that have passed.

Phase 3: Profit.

In related news ...

[PPH]

... people in NJ pay Tony Soprano not to burn their businesses down.

This is not what the agreement states

[techsoldaten]

Casio is not acknowledging the validity of claims with this deal. They are acknowleding Microsoft owns numbers.

Re:This is not what the agreement states

[catmistake]

It matters not what Casio or any one else acknowledges. Unless Microsoft successfully defends its patent claims in court, the claims are meaningless and unenforceable. Linux, please feel free to "infringe" away.

Re:This is not what the agreement states

[Anonymous Coward]

They are acknowleding Microsoft owns numbers.

What? They do!?!? And for 13 years now I thought that was just a joke.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if...

[dcavanaugh]

MS gets a token payment from Casio in exchange for discounts and freebies on MS products. It wouldn't be the first time a company offered $2 of free stuff for a $1 "purchase" of a patent license. As I recall, SCO was bundling Linux "licenses" into a variety of unrelated contract matters and calling it a "sale".

Given the unwillingness of MS to identify (much less litigate) these mysterious patents, the salesmanship must be very creative.

Right and wrong do not matter

[mykos]

Nobody needs to be "right" when "rich" will suffice. Nobody wants to become Bleem!

it also says they prefer Linux to Windows and will

[Locutus]

they will still pay Microsoft but don't want their software. I don't think I've read one story where these licensing fees were mention and it was brought up why they would still pay to use Linux instead of paying to use Windows.

And the income from the Linux licensing deals is still in the noise level compared to the losses of say BING, Windows Phone, and even XBox.

LoB

dear microsoft,

[friesandgravy]

fuck you.

The expected behavior of a patent holder

[tepples]

Microsoft is implying that it will sue and extorting money to protect against that possibility.

Which differs from the expected behavior of the lawful owner of an exclusive right in what way? What you call "extortion" they call "selling a license".

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[gregfortune]

I think it's the lawful owner part that's in question.

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[i.r.id10t]

So why hasn't MS gone to court about any of it?

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe ownership of rights is a bogus concept. everyone has rights.. they are inalienable. this would force people to build business that has natural scarcity.. this would benefit everyone.

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[inode_buddha]

So why won't they specify exactly which patents? Patents are public, after all. And exactly which parts of those patents may be infringed upon? With specificity.

It's the exact same BS that SCO pulled... and when the judge asked them where the infringement was, they imploded.

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[man_of_mr_e]

They have specified patents, in particular in certain lawsuits.

The fact is, Linux *does* violate lots of peoples patents. Tons of them. Not just Microsoft's. The question is, a) will those people sue you for using them. and b) are those patents valid.

If both are true, then you're in for a world of hurt. But it cannot be argued that Linux doesn't violate patents. It does so with extreme prejudice. two examples are the FAT and NTFS drivers. It is a fact that these systems implement patented claims. What's not clear is whether or not that actually means anything.

So do yourself a favor, stop pretending Linux is patent infringement free. It's not. And instead, deal with the real issues of whether or not infringing those patents is really an issue.

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[inode_buddha]

So which ones are they then? And exactly where is the infringement?

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[man_of_mr_e]

Are you an idiot? I gave you two examples.

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[inode_buddha]

Oh, you mean the Barne's and Noble stuff? that isn't even in the lawsuit phase yet IIRC.

Otherwise, let's see you prove it.

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[inode_buddha]

One: since when is it a patent violation to come up with something that can read and write FAT and NTFS, as long as your implementation does so in a different way?

Two: are those even protectable anymore?

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[tepples]

One: since when is it a patent violation to come up with something that can read and write FAT and NTFS, as long as your implementation does so in a different way?

The claims of the VFAT patent appear broad enough to cover any method that successfully decodes the format used by VFAT directory entries.

Two: are those even protectable anymore?

The essential VFAT patents have been reinstated after reexamination and won't expire until at least 2016.

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[KingMotley]

Since forever, where have you been?

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[man_of_mr_e]

That depends entirely on the patent. Some patents simply have no other way to do something.

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you cite the relevance and case law that references either of those, specifically showing a patent infringement, please?

Re:The expected behavior of a patent holder

[man_of_mr_e]

Can you be any more vague? The USPTO has approved patents for the items. Linux implements them. Ergo, Linux infringes the patent. That is fact, and requires no case law.

All your code are belong to us.

[andydread]

Microsoft is on a mission to destroy open source and this is their strategy. They approach companies producing devices with open source operating systems and use dubious software patents to force them to pay or face a massive litigation expense. I suggest people do a search on "Microsoft Barnes and Noble" to see how B&N is fighting back against this egregious campaign by Microsoft to own other people's code. I wish B&N well.

flush

[__aaacoe2998]

I can't wait til I have to pay Microsoft to use my toilet. Maybe they can get a patent on oxygen next.

huh?

[PopeRatzo]

I'm missing something here: What the hell does Casio still make that would require Microsoft tech?

Last time I checked, a six dollar digital watch doesn't really use anything that Microsoft makes. Or does it?

Is Casio planning to fail in the smartphone business or something?

Re:huh?

[F.Ultra]

Well if you had bothered to check out their website you would see that they make a wide range of products, including POS systems and "Mobile Industrial Solutions" which seams to run Windows Mobile OS according to the screenshots at the site.

Re:huh?

[macshit]

Er, well never mind that they're not paying to use MS tech, they're paying MS not to sue them over vague IP claims, but Casio makes vast quantities of things besides digital watches — cameras, digital pianos, printers, electronic dictionaries, lots of specialized business electronics (cash registers, that kind of thing), and, yes, smart phones (running android)...

Re:huh?

[PopeRatzo]

Well if you had bothered to check out their website you would see that they make a wide range of products, including POS systems

Of course I know that. Every Casio product I ever owned was a POS.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Casio makes mobile phones and digital cameras. Their EXILIM point and shoots are quite popular and pretty good too (at least in Japan). If I were to guess it would be these types of consumer devices that writes to either FAT or NTFS for the memory storage that violated MS patents.

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's my guess...
Maybe they're throwing some cheap laptop parts into one of their music keyboards, and letting some Linux based software do the heavy lifting as a soft-synth so they don't need to develop anything really fancy or costly and still get good sound. The microsoft fee would then cover the "plays well with others" stuff, so people don't have to do pointless and unnecessary worrying about file formats.

I could see it working as something designed to be portable where you can take it out of the box, play it (or play with it) with access to an easy to use editor (likely a fork of something open-source based), and plug in a USB flash memory stick and have your composition files and .ogg/.wav/.mp3 files ready to go. Hell, I could see a market for that if it was packaged nice enough and priced somewhere under $600.

Dunno what else it could be. Cell phones, scientific calculators, watches? What has Casio been up to these days?

Re:huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Casio are one of the major phone & smartphone manufacturers for the Japanese market.

But that's one of those "furren" countries of which you're probably unaware.

Re:huh?

[F.Ultra]

:-)

Casio

[Anonymous Coward]

is still in business?

WHAT casio devices use Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.casio.com/products

Watches? Label Printers? Cash Registers?

Re:WHAT casio devices use Linux?

[O('_')O_Bush]

The GZone Commando looks to be running Android, at a minimum. It explicitely mentions froyo in their procedure docs for that phone.

Also, under specs, it has listed "Bing Search/Bing Maps", which makes me think that is really what these licensing fees are about. Running Bing apps on an Android device.

http://www.casiogzone.com/commando/
http://www.casiogzone.com/commando/gpl/Procedure.txt

possible solution

[Anonymous Coward]

stick a sticker on your product:
"Not for sale or use in the USA"

Re:it also says they prefer Linux to Windows and w

[Anonymous Coward]

I *LOVE* this!

- Microsoft makes basically no money off it

- Large companies will be paying Microsoft lawyers to go away

- Because Linux isn't "sold", it will never become a "business as usual" hidden cost, but always directly be an attack.

- This builds a coalition of companies (previously patent-neutral) that want Patents gone & Microsoft gone!

- Corporates drive law changes and consumers (ahem, citizens) follow.
- They're not polarizing the market, Linux is too important. They're just killing themselves off faster then could ever be done from the outside.

Grammar

[Ranguvar]

> that members of the open-source community have long disputed.
Has long disputed. The community itself is singular.

Re:Grammar

[seyfarth]

>> that members of the open-source community have long disputed.
>Has long disputed. The community itself is singular.

The noun of the clause being criticized is "members" which is plural, so "have" is appropriate.

Microsoft v. TomTom

[tepples]

Because it has: Microsoft v. TomTom

Re:Microsoft v. TomTom

[dhammabum]

But nothing was proven either way - Tom Tom settled. A pity because the vfat patents are weak and will no doubt be ruled invalid, both through previous art and non-inventiveness. MS could have (and still could) sue anyone using FAT but they pick their victims carefully so there is less likelihood of an actual trial. Extortion works best behind closed doors.

Microsoft wants full tilt profits

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad the Linux Foundation can't sue Microsoft for false statements..Or could it? They did manage the Linux trademark, after all. The lawsuit will force Microsoft to reveal the patents claims so that the community can stop infringing them by coding around them. Or has Microsoft given up on protecting its intellectual property and reduced to criminal organization?

The interesting question

[Urkki]

The interesting question is, how much is MS paying Casio to pay them and create news about it? Is it a deal like, Casio pays X, and gets 2X discount on whatever MS licenses they actually need?

Re:The interesting question

[Tomato42]

Creative accounting meet creative legalese

Judge Penfield Jackson said it best...

[gov_coder]

The original ant-trust breakup judge, Penfield Jackson nailed it:

Most harmful of all is the message that Microsoft's actions have conveyed to every enterprise with the potential to innovate in the computer industry. Through its conduct toward Netscape, IBM, Compaq, Intel, and others, Microsoft has demonstrated that it will use its prodigious market power and immense profits to harm any firm that insists on pursuing initiatives that could intensify competition against one of Microsoft's core products. Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft. The ultimate result is that some innovations that would truly benefit consumers never occur for the sole reason that they do not coincide with Microsoft's self-interest.

Sex

[xs650]

That is like having to pay a hooker before you can have sex with your girl friend.

Re:Sex

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't pay the hooker for sex. You pay the hooker to be quiet and leave.

Re:Sex

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're still paying her you can;t really call her your girlfriend.

captcha: income

Surprise!

[Tarlus]

Despite popular believe, Microsoft loves Linux and would not do anything to hurt it. If it makes them money.

Re:Mozilla exists for its own employees

[Zibodiz]

umm... okay?

It's not idiocy to consider more than the shallow

[dbIII]

One started in 1977 and the other was done in association with IBM. Are there REALLY valid patents today on those two filesystems that linux actually infringes? I don't think that's such a simple question to answer as you pretend.
The other factor is that MS is historically a low cost implementer instead of a cutting edge (and expensive) innovator. There is very little in any product they have that does not have obvious proir art elsewhere. That greatly weakens any patent claim.

Wait...

[Anonymous Coward]

Casio uses Linux? Why has no one told me of this? Where do they use it? Calculators???

1 more

[Anonymous Coward]

company to boycott

Its poker bluff until someone calls

[Anonymous Coward]

until a company comes along and calls MS bluff on their so called patents that are being infringed they will get away with it hands down. If their claim was legit why don't they just come out and make the claim? Perhaps they don't want the infringing to stop so they can go on extorting, perhaps. Bottom line is though someone has to call on em to lay the poker hand down. Who though?

The Simpsons

[Lunzo]

Gates: OK boys, buy him out.

Certain devices?

[dutchwhizzman]

Watches? Pocket Calculators? What do Casio make that runs Linux?

Forbid it!

[Anonymous Coward]

It is now time for the GNU licences to explicitly forbid such patent-protection agreements on software covered by the licence.

Grammatically Ambiguous Title

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounded like Microsoft was using Linux.

Note very carefully the choice of target

[jimicus]

Note Microsoft's choice of target. As a rule, it's companies that:

1. Have sufficiently deep pockets as to be worth pursuing.
2. Are unlikely to have patents that would impact any of Microsoft's products.
3. May not have the expertise to be able to examine the alleged patents and ultimately contest them.

(Interestingly, if you substitute "SCO" for "Microsoft" and broaden the discussion to cover any sort of intellectual property, you note that rules 2 and 3 above were ignored. Perhaps Microsoft took that as an object lesson.)

It'a worse than that, much worse

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a thug standing in your doorway saying "If you don't pay me, I'll burn your house down".

And grown ups were paying extortion

[Anonymous Coward]

And grown ups were paying extortion money to the mafia. Or were the mafia only after the kids dinner money???

Is Casio not violating the license conditions on L

[Anonymous Coward]

Is Casio not violating the license conditions on Linux by doing this? They have to give their users permission to copy the code and use it on other devices, if Casio don't grant the customers that permission, they have violated the license conditions they received Linux under.

Goddammitsomuch

[ThatsNotPudding]

Because MS refuses to name any patent that is violated

How is this even fucking legal?? Why are they allowed to freely say the equivalent of 'I hear he beats his wife'.??

Re:Goddammitsomuch

[sjames]

Because most prosecutors prefer to focus on poorly defended targets?

This is great

[FuzzyDaddy]

Seriously, think about it - all we need is some non-microsoft company to sue casio for patent infringement, and Microsoft would argue that those patents were invalid, and get them invalidated. Then we just have to get someone else to indemnify linux a set of Linux users to work to invalid any claimed patents of Microsoft...

Patents - protecting innovation (tm)

[Anonymous Coward]

It has not been shown anywhere that Linux or Android actually infringes on Microsoft's patents.

B&N should've made a big stink about it and gone to court, charging Microsoft for extortion via their unsubstantiated claims.

FUD?

[darkonc]

Possible flow: Microsoft and Casio arrange a broad patent swap. Microsoft attaches a rider that says their patents can be used on Linux. Casio doesn't mind this. Microsoft puts out a news release that Casio is buying patent licenses for Linux.

FUD.

Microsoft Corp. and Casio Computer Co. Ltd. have entered into a broad, multiyear patent cross-licensing agreement that, among other things, will provide Casio’s customers with patent coverage for their use of Linux in certain Casio devices.

It may even be that Microsoft is paying Casio more money than Casio is paying Microsoft. Details are lacking.

SCO^W M$ shakedown

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers!

Just how big part of the world is affected?

[Kartu]

Does this "we've patented stuff that allows us to sue those, using Linux" thing work outside US / Australia?
When HTC pays Microsoft for using Android (insane) is it only for devices sold in US/Australia or worldwide?

Paying Microsoft to not be open

[sgt scrub]

I keep thinking companies will learn this. They are paying Microsoft to not be able to read file systems that all other OS's know. If they used UFS everything from an old mac to the ps3 would be able to read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System

grey screen of death:

[Thud457]

http://www.amazon.com/Casio-F91W-1-Classic-Black-Digital/dp/B000GAWSDG

Also

[marcosdumay]

Microsoft is finally "selling" Linux. Now they can fade into irrelevance while still feeling confortable because they have a revenue stream.

How long do those patents last?