Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.
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.
. .
"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.
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
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
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...
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.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
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.
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
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."
...the new SCO. 10 years to bankruptcy, please? Can't we just get this over quick and have all the MS people quit?
I support this decision.
Is this the same Casio that sold sub-par music keyboards?
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.)
Every modern version of Linux that I've seen enables this optional extension out of the box.
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.
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.
Have gnu, will travel.
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?
Casio is not acknowledging the validity of claims with this deal. They are acknowleding Microsoft owns numbers.
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.
there is a big difference, IBM makes quality products people respect
Nobody needs to be "right" when "rich" will suffice. Nobody wants to become Bleem!
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
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
fuck you.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Casio had $1.4 billion (US$) in cash reserves in April 2011 and garners over $4 billion per year in revenue.
Get out much?
"His name was James Damore."
Yes, we need to be brothers in arms against this or we'll end up in dire straits.
Your last 10 not-even-particularly-inflammatory comments (perhaps more) all have a 0 score. What causes that?
I get out fine. Haven't seen a casio product in years.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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).
This isn't even really new for them. It strikes me as an awful lot like their Suse deal from a few years back.
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
> that members of the open-source community have long disputed.
Has long disputed. The community itself is singular.
Because it has: Microsoft v. TomTom
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?
But, the man is too strong.....
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.
Rob Enderle's excellent new book: Everything I needed to know about Computer Science I learned in Marketing School
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
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
That is like having to pay a hooker before you can have sex with your girl friend.
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?
Moderation is overrated. Anything over a 3 is just bad jokes and hyperbole.
Despite popular believe, Microsoft loves Linux and would not do anything to hurt it. If it makes them money.
/* No Comment */
umm... okay?
Isn't that in violation of the GPL ? Linux should sue Microsoft.
Slipping shoelaces ?
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.
...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.
In love, war and slashdot discussions, everything is allowed.
Gates: OK boys, buy him out.
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.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Watches? Pocket Calculators? What do Casio make that runs Linux?
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
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...
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.
Just thinking about it gives me a shiver in the dark
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
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.
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.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.)
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!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
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.
I am officially gone from
How is this even fucking legal?? Why are they allowed to freely say the equivalent of 'I hear he beats his wife'.??
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...
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
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.
... 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.
-- no sig today
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.
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.
FUD.
It may even be that Microsoft is paying Casio more money than Casio is paying Microsoft. Details are lacking.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
Don't forget to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers!
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?
Only if the chair is moving
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.
I am officially gone from
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
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
http://www.amazon.com/Casio-F91W-1-Classic-Black-Digital/dp/B000GAWSDG
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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>
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?
Rethinking email
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!