Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, IBM Want to Seal Patents Agreements With Samsung
sfcrazy writes "The court battle between Apple and Samsung has created the possibility of disclosing the cross patent agreement between Microsoft and Samsung. Microsoft is suddenly scared and has filed a motion asking the court to seal the cross license agreement. I would like to remind that the Judge has asked both parties to make all the filings in this dispute available to the public for free."
And on Monday, IBM filed for a restraining order to prevent Reuters from publishing their agreement with Samsung as well.
Wait, what now? Slashdot's summaries are starting to get quite childish. Microsoft is scared, really?
It couldn't even barely be possible that Microsoft wants to follow the mobile companies common practice of cross licensing almost all of their patents.
This includes one of the pioneers of mobile industry, Nokia, as well as they could stop licensing their technology and make the other companies really suffer. But the armchair generals and armchair CEO's on Slashdot think everything is outright war between technology companies. In fact it's not.
By the end of this, the whole landscape is going to look very different. Hard to say how exactly, but everyone aware of the licensing between each other could lead to some hilarious later complaints 'hey, wait, you're charging us this much, and them HOW much?!??!" That IBM 'accidentally' sent the full version of the license to Reuters, and then went 'oops'... Wonder if it was an accidentally on purpose. They may be feeling that their part of the deal isn't as good as they'd have liked. And of course, Microsoft is never happy when their business practices are opened to scrutiny. This Apple vs Samsung court time now is going to keep being repeated, both in appeals, and other companies getting upset with each other. Apple's certainly caused some serious havoc in the phone business, wonder if this was the levels they imagined. As always, no matter who wins (this stage), we all lose cool tech. Wish they'd just sorted it out amongst themselves with reasonable licensing fees.
Waiting for an amusing sig.
Which he does very well indeed.
However, I doubt any of it is much of a brake on real technical progress. The limitation on that, at the moment, is battery technology. And that has been the limitation on mobile technical progress since the first mobile phones.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
No, Microsoft has released details of the claimed license, by Samsung of its 'Android patents'. But leaks came out that Sammy would get 'marketing money' back from Microsoft, and lo and behold they did.
Here's Microsoft and their fake claim to IP rights over Android:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15106889
Here's money back from MS to Samsung:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/16/2050244/microsoft-pays-44-million-to-samsung-and-nokia-for-mango-marketing
Now suddenly they want the real details sealed? Yet they were keen to claim it was a patent license for IP claims over Android!
MSFT Investors need to wonder what the truth is here, because Samsung doesn't mind the unsealing, but yet MS does? But MS were the ones making the public claim, not Samsung!!
Why? I really don't understand what they are afraid of
If you're expecting the state to pay because you throw your toys out of the pram then everything should be made public.
Don't want your dirty laundry aired in public, then either grow up or pay an independent arbitrator to make the decision. What is it with people wanting to eat their cake and have it too?
...IBM's motion to prevent Reuters from publishing what IBM gave them has been denied already. Those of a conspiracy turn of mind will now cue the old boy network where IBM execs get together with Reuter's execs at the Old Boys Club and work out what Reuters gets for not publishing after all.
Reuters may gleefully print the whole thing, but that seems unlikely. More likely they'll excerpt it anyway, even without any alleged backroom deals.
I know I know, I read TFA. I'm sorry... it won't happen again.
It's about the patent deals, not the patents themselves. It is a lot more likely that both companies are afraid of being investigated for monopolistic behavior if those deals become public knowledge.
In my opinion they don't want to keep only the public from viewing these agreements, they want the other corporate partners not to know the details, because they could use it to renegotiate the terms.
Imagine this hypothetical situation:
Microsoft has an agreement both with Sony and with Apple. They both agreed on different but confidential patent agreements.
Sony paid (or swapped) more than Apple.
Apple releases their agreement.
Sony sees this and has a reason to renegotiate.
Norland nannies (the expensive, highly trained ones) like them. When I was a small child it used to amuse me to watch them pushing them around St. James's Park or the Serpentine with their small, but usually titled, occupants.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Among those "Monopolistic business practices" must be included "Using the USPTO as a barrier to trade by allowing trivial patents by large corporations and making it prohibitively expensive for small companies to oppose them in court". The US patent system is now designed to achieve the exact opposite of its original goals, just as in the late 2000s the credit ratings agencies were gamed so as to give good ratings to junk debt, at the instigation of the banks, thus doing the exact opposite of what investors imagined.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It's about the patent deals, not the patents themselves. It is a lot more likely that both companies are afraid of being investigated for monopolistic behavior if those deals become public knowledge.
More than likely it has to do with the various companies they've cross-licensed with finding out who got sweetheart deals and who got totally screwed over.
"Hey, why am I paying ten times what he's paying?!?!"
in a word, yes. Or as other sites say "Microsoft's hair is on fire". (as noted elsewhere)
Microsoft wants to keep their patent settlements high and the risk of DOJ investigations low. They have a lot of negative press awaiting if their shakedowns are mae public. Also on groklaw: "IBM's motion has been denied [PDF] by the magistrate judge. Reuters gets to publish" So it appears that an IBM agreement will be able to be published.
Pretty much the second big companies that have questionable settlements are made public, all of this patent shakedown stuff goes away in it's entirety as it no longer remains profitable. A little sunlight can go a long way.
Anyway, the IBM motion has already been denied. If IBM can't get it, there's a fair chance Microsoft won't, either.
One of the big reasons this is interesting is that we might finally find out exactly what patents Microsoft thinks that Linux violates.
Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
Patents are open to the public. Patent licensing agreements however are not. How is this hard to understand? Between your childish use of 'M$' and your complete lack of knowledge about what the article is about it seems pretty obvious which side you're on. Also, Microsoft is scared? What the hell Slashdot. This used to be the place I came for real tech news. Not some user's blatant bias.
You must be new here.
If the companies would be investigated for monopolistic behaviour, that's even more reason for the court to make that knowledge public or at the very least warrant further investigation.
No, more likely it's just about money and secrets, which is how MS operate and make the former. They don't want people to know who's bought what, for how much, and what it entails because that might surprise other people who've got different deals or were told no deal was available.
More likely, it's a purely selfish reason and, when the court orders them opened, nothing of interest is in there and certainly nothing that most people would have bothered to seal.
The patents are open and that isn't being challenged in the slightest.
Microsoft is simply asking the judge to please not reveal to the world how much they paid for something.
Do you want your employer to publish the details of your salary and benefits and work hours? Is them not doing so the same as them hiding that they are employing you?
"scared" or concerned it's the same thing and yes they must be very concerned. Did you read what Barnes and Nobel had released on how Microsoft first insisted on them signing an NDA to see the patents and then tried to trick B&N into thinking there was an old NDA which covered the issue? Forcing companies to keep secret the list of patents they are claiming Linux infringes upon has been shown to be very important to Microsoft in these tactics to get something signed and called a cross licensing agreement.
This judge has added lots of excitement to this case by opening up the documents. Heck, the Comes vs Microsoft case still adding lots of insights into Microsoft and how they've operated for 20 something years.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
yes but it's more likely it is not about how much was paid but what tactics were used, what patents are claimed and how those discussions played out and what Microsoft's internal motives really are. Barnes and Nobel showed Microsoft was very extremely insistent upon keeping even the patent list under NDA. Yes the use of "very" and "extremely" was on purpose because I doubt it has anything to do with the money. The few hundreds of millions they've pulled in from these contracts is a drop in the bucket for Microsoft and they have probably spent more on marketing the fact that they've signed these deals than they've got from them.
So it is very doubtful it is about the money. The Windows franchise is the bread winner for MS and any threat to that, as Android and Linux are, is worthy of them spending billions to derail. Getting a couple hundred mil is nothing to them in that light. IMO
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Do you want your employer to publish the details of your salary and benefits and work hours?
My salary and work hours are not part of one of the biggest patent disputes in recent history.
Further, I think many people would benefit from having all of that information readily available, as it would force the companies they work for to justify the wages they're giving some people.
If they're that worried about those sorts of things getting out, maybe that's a sign to not do such things then, eh?
These deals becoming public may even reveal illegal activity or other ethical wrongdoings.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Yeah, I thought the "Microsoft scared" quote was supremely stupid. It's not like you can link to that post in a professional context now.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Patens MIGHT be Public. The problem is more in what's claimed to be infringing. In truth, the deal itself isn't of real interest- but what the deal was over, which is also not being discussed by the "rights holder" (and SHOULD be made public...) is what is of interest.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Based off of user ID, you must both be new here...now get off my lawn...
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
They're afraid to show that someone who has the resources to fight them gets sweetheart deals, effectively resulting in no financial penalty, or even benefitting the "violating" company - because it'll start to become clear and undeniable that they practice extortion against companies that DON'T have the resources to take on a legal battle. If it was all above board, they wouldn't mind releasing exact info about what patents are involved, and at least the general financial terms (while possibly withholding the exact amounts, for legitimate reason).
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh