Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft/Samsung Ink Patent Deal

Posted by Zonk on Fri Apr 20, 2007 11:04 AM
from the so-happy-together dept.
Patents Businesses Microsoft Software Linux
An anonymous reader wrote with an article at ZDNet, discussing further implications of their patent cross-licensing initiative. With options already in place with Fuji Xerox, the company is now signed up with Samsung as well. From Samsung's perspective, it is simple: these deals ensure it can sell products using Linux without facing a suit from the Redmond-based corporation. "The notion that customers and businesses need Microsoft's legal go-ahead to run Linux has been controversial for some time, with the issue rising to the surface last November after Microsoft reached an accord with Linux vendor Novell. Novell has since taken issue with Microsoft's assertion that the deal represents an acknowledgment that Linux infringes on Microsoft patents."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Linux: Linspire Signs Patent Pact With MS 386 comments
RLiegh sends us to an AP article reporting that Linspire has signed a patent deal with Microsoft. The company, which started out life as "Lindows," joins a growing list of patent agreements reached between Microsoft and vendors. Linspire will be granted a license to use True Type Fonts and "various code" that would allow for Linspire users to use voice on Windows Live Messenger as well as the usual patent protection for Linspire's customers. In return, among other things, Linspire will make Microsoft's search engine the default search on PCs shipped with their OS. Kevin Carmony, the CEO for Linspire, approached Microsoft a year and a half ago, according to the article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft/Samsung Ink Patent Deal 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Where I tell people that if they give me money, I won't sue them. What a concept!

    • Re:I'm going to start a business (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kebes (861706) on Friday April 20 2007, @11:23AM (#18812901) Journal
      I don't understand what the companies signing these deals are thinking. It seems like suicide to me. You sign the deal, and MS agrees not to sue you for awhile. But eventually you have to re-sign the deal, and MS can dictate whatever terms they want... because if you don't sign the deal, you won't be able to distribute Linux anymore?

      After all, MS can argue in court that your acceptance of the prior deal was basically an admission that you wouldn't have been allowed to distribute Linux without their blessing. So as soon as you sign the deal, you are forever controlled by MS (at least with regard to Linux distribution). Why would a company purposefully agree to have one of their business plans depend upon the whims of another company?

      I typically don't like conspiracy theories, but it is almost as if Microsoft is creating these deals (using shady behind-the-scenes payoffs?) in order to create a climate where they can, eventually, either crush Linux through patents, or at least make money off of every Linux sale.
      • Um, because otherwise there is a very good risk of being sued by Microsoft? If it costs them next to nothing, then why not? At the end, they will be in the same position as they started out with.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by kebes (861706)

          If it costs them next to nothing, then why not?

          I guess my point was that it may not cost much right now, but you're basically locking yourself into paying these fees, and have no control over how big those fees might be in the future (it's not like you can buy this "patent protection" from a competitor at a lower price). Being at the mercy of another company seems unsafe.

          As to the "very good risk of being sued", I guess that's the very core of the debate. It's really unclear whether Microsoft could win

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Haeleth (414428)

          Um, because otherwise there is a very good risk of being sued by Microsoft?

          That's very debatable. I can't think of a single occasion where Microsoft has sued anyone for violating software patents, and in the case of Linux they haven't even identified any patents they allege it violates. All they've said is basically "something that good must violate our patents, and if we ever work out how we might possibly sue someone".

          The time to start getting worried is when Microsoft actually points to a specific pate

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by Bruce Perens (3872) *
              First-to-file (in the article you cited) is not about prior art. It just means you can't pre-date your date-of-invention by 364 days. The US patent law currently lets you do that.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by lumber_13 (937323)

          Dont you know how Mafia works ??


          BOSS : Pay me the money, I will give you protection (from myself)

          Shop owner : Here 100 $ per month


          Next month ....

          BOSS : Pay me the money ......

      • After all, MS can argue in court that your acceptance of the prior deal was basically an admission that you wouldn't have been allowed to distribute Linux without their blessing. So as soon as you sign the deal, you are forever controlled by MS...

        Sounds reasonable at first, but no court will even consider that argument. The problem ( from the court's point of view ) is that if company A makes a deal with MS and the court rules that company A's actions constitute an interpretation of the law, then that sets a precedent for company B. ( and C, D, etc )
        In other words, if such things were admitted, MS could hire a shill company to do something stupid, and the stupidity becomes precedent which is binding on everybody who does business with MS. This

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dosquatch (924618)

          In other words, if such things were admitted, MS could hire a shill company to do something stupid, and the stupidity becomes precedent which is binding on everybody who does business with MS.

          *Ahem*SCO*cough*Novell

      • ...and ready for Samsung's most lucrative products by the time the deal expires. Ta-da, embedded Linux has shrinking market-share.

        Don't worry, MS will make sure that Samsung has software for use in their products.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by kripkenstein (913150)

        I don't understand what the companies signing these deals are thinking. It seems like suicide to me. You sign the deal, and MS agrees not to sue you for awhile. But eventually you have to re-sign the deal, and MS can dictate whatever terms they want... because if you don't sign the deal, you won't be able to distribute Linux anymore?

        If that is suicidal, then Microsoft is suicidal as well. Remember, the Microsoft-Novell deal is symmetrical (I am less sure about the Microsoft-Samsung deal) - the covenant i

    • Where I tell people that if they give me money, I won't sue them. What a concept!

      Sorry, I already have a patent on that... but if you still want to proceed, I will gladly collect royalties

      tm

    • It's called extortion.

      and it seems that only rich companies can legally get away with extortion.

      Gotta love it when the US govt stands back and allows organized crime behavior from corperations.

  • Got Permission? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by netrarc (1083207) on Friday April 20 2007, @11:09AM (#18812715) Homepage

    these deals ensure it can sell products using Linux
    So nice of Microsoft to give organizations permission to use Linux. Do I need to check with them before I use my electric toothbrush, as well?
  • -Patent the obvious.
    -Push for MS-Favorable patent laws
    -Cross-license patents as ONE revenu stream
    -Sue into oblivion companies that create real products, as the other revenu stream.

    FYI: MS bought out NTP to avoid a patent suit in 2010 and fired all their programers and support people in 2016.

  • Microsoft/Samsung Ink Patent Deal (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bloke down the pub (861787) on Friday April 20 2007, @11:11AM (#18812745)

    Microsoft/Samsung Ink Patent Deal
    They're conniving to make us pay licensing fees for "a solution or suspension of some or other pigment that [800 pages snipped for brevity] dries leaving a visible mark on paper or some similar or different substance"?

    I call shenanigans, it was invented years ago. There is, quite literally, prior art!

  • Novel, pioneering the fututre (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pembo13 (770295) on Friday April 20 2007, @11:14AM (#18812763) Homepage
    Thank you Novel for pioneering the future where MS doesn't even have to use or code for Linux to profit off of it. Thank you for the future where we essentially need MS's permission to run software.

  • Patent Monopoly/Cartels (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday April 20 2007, @11:18AM (#18812817) Homepage Journal
    This "patent indemnity" system is turning patent monopolies into patent cartels as protection rackets. They are all so clearly anticompetitive that they should not be allowed whatsoever.

    I've been part of some negotiations to sell some new applications that include GPL software to some established service providers to be deployed in their networks. They're all freaked out about "patent indemnity": how will a little company offer patent indemnity along with the apps they deliver? When the little company tells them "we abide by the GPL, so we're safe from license problems, and we wrote the new code ourselves", that's not good enough. The big companies now love to say "what if something happens to you like how Verizon is shutting down Vonage on patents, how will we cope with losing your services?" Even though Vonage has deep pockets, and there's nothing GPL about their conflict with Verizon.

    Not only are the patents monopolizing innovations, and way too broadly. The entire racket has big, risk-averse companies avoiding business with the source of most innovation and economic growth: little companies. We are heading for a total freezeup of real innovation and growth. And these bogus patents, used like a weapon, are killing it.

    • And these bogus patents, used like a weapon, ...

      How else would they be used? There's no such thing as a defensive-only patent. Just holding a patent is enough to cause damage to others, you don't even have to actively go around suing to be using it as a weapon. This sort of cross-licensing economy should not be making that more obvious. The only true defense against patents that the law provides is publication, and unfortunately its not balanced, sort of like leather armor in the days of gunpowder. An

    • When the little company tells them "we abide by the GPL, so we're safe from license problems, and we wrote the new code ourselves", that's not good enough.

      No, and it never has been. The patent indemnity agreements formed recently have not changed anything - except perhaps to raise the general awareness of this problem.

  • Cross-licensing good enough for now. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by headkase (533448) <pickett.bill@gmail.com> on Friday April 20 2007, @11:24AM (#18812931)
    Any cross-licensing is a good thing for now. It enables business' to sell and support Linux with reduced risk. They are not going to get sued. For sure. If or when the issues of unlicensed patents comes to a head then go to court but, in the meantime Linux gains more of a foothold. All Linux has to do is reach a critical-mass. Once theres enough people using Linux then more support will exist. More support leads to more users and the cycle feedbacks onto itself.

    I'm waiting for the day when in a last-ditch effort Microsoft Open Sources Windows to remain relevant :^)

  • fight fire with fire (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PatentMagus (1083289) on Friday April 20 2007, @11:30AM (#18812989)
    With open source there's always the question of who to sue for patent infringement. M$, and others, have decided to threaten the customers. Nothing new here. It's always fun to threaten someones customers - it really saps their business.

    That is where I think most open source licenses suffer. If the license gave everyone standing to sue on the open software's behalf, then it would pay to sue M$ and others for infringing on open source. Then M$ can try to shake someone down for protection money and the person can respond by shaking down M$ for protection money. Currently, M$ holds all the guns.

    • If the license gave everyone standing to sue on the open software's behalf

      The annoying this is that the situation is not symmetric. With copyright, the FLOSS camp use the GPL to protect their interests. This allows them to put pressure on (or sue) people who break the GPL.

      But with patents, there is no reciprocity of control between proprietary and open-source groups. The proprietary guys patent everything they can think of, and then they agree not to sue each other. But no one in the open-source softwa

  • So does anyone have any idea exactly what this intellectual property is that Samsung are paying for, and what Linux based systems actually infringe on? If Samsung haven't asked for specifics then they're yet another weak minded company who's been badgered by Microsoft into doing something stupid.

  • outsmart Microsoft lawyers? Novell added to list (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Locutus (9039) on Friday April 20 2007, @11:40AM (#18813119)
    There is over 20 years of Microsoft's lawyers striking up 'deals' with 'partners' only to find out that what the 'partner' thought the contract/license/deal/scam ment was something entirely different from what Microsoft planned all along. In 1996 I was shocked that Sun Microsystems could even THINK that Microsoft would work with Java and play the good Java citizen but their lawyers thought they trust Microsoft even then and once again, we know what the result was. And that was 1996. Here we are over 10 years later and Novell lawyers and executives are surprised that what they thought they signed is different from what Microsoft knows it signed? Somebody is REALLY flunking law school or maybe their just too 'full' of themselves to realized Microsoft is not a trustworthy partner. Either way, these people have not learned a single thing from over two decades of Microsoft double-speak. IMO.

    LoB

  • summary from Groklaw (Score:4, Informative)

    by jamienk (62492) on Friday April 20 2007, @11:47AM (#18813225)
    MS's Patent Deal Covers "Certain Linux-Based Products" [informationweek.com]

    Microsoft and Samsung Electronics have agreed to a broad, cross-licensing patent agreement that apparently includes a controversial clause that protects against any legal claims Microsoft may have on technology used in Linux....

    Within the joint press release announcing the deal, however, the companies said, "Samsung and its distributors and customers may utilize Microsoft's patents in Samsung's products with proprietary software, and Samsung will also obtain coverage from Microsoft for its customers' use of certain Linux-based products ."[PJ:Emphasis added. So it isn't Linux itself, I gather, rather stuff that runs on it, perchance things like Mono, OpenOffice.org, etc.]
  • Novell is a weak company - they inked a deal with M$ because it suited both parties who feel threatened in this space.

    But following links in TFA, and back beyond them:

    1. The M$ Balmer FUD bullshit:

    "...and because open-source Linux does not come from a company -- Linux comes from the community -- the fact that that product uses our patented intellectual property is a problem for our shareholders..."

    i.e. we can't threaten to sue *everyone*, so we picked-off the weakest member of the flock...

    "But to the degree
  • We have to start filling out overwhly broad stupid patents just so we can finally make that matter public.

    How about something along the lines of "using 1's and 0's in order to do automated tasks and/or store data via branching and/or decoding processes." Of course that's ANY digital device (CPU, GPU, software, hardware, etc). But inflate that simple sentence into the usual 500-pages patent application, keeping it as broad and inclusive as possible, then send the news everywhere that you've just been able to

  • GPL? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by PPH (736903)
    From the GPL (v2):

    You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
    except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
    otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
    void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.

    So, isn't what MicroSCOft doing in essence sublicensing the Program? And it appears to me (not being a Lawyer or subspecies thereof) that they have just lost there rights under this license.

  • The Linux "patent pool" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by IGnatius T Foobar (4328) on Friday April 20 2007, @12:15PM (#18813603) Homepage Journal
    It is clear that what Microsoft is now trying to establish, is a Linux "patent pool" similar to the one in place for MPEG. If you're in the pool, you're fine; if not, you have to pay a per-unit royalty to the pool members in order to use it.

    This, of course, is so infuriating that it makes most of us want to commit actual acts of homicide against the people pushing it.
  • If the Novell-Microsoft pact has taught us anything, it's that these agreements aren't a "company pays Microsoft millions of dollars to run Linux" sort of trade. The Novell agreement was more of a "Microsoft pays company hundreds of millions of dollars to cast legal FUD on Linux" deal. Until I hear some dollar figures (including the direction of the payments), I think it's ridiculous to guess what "Samsung's perspective" really is.
  • ...I'd really started to like Samsung stuff. Well, there's plenty of other parts available.
  • These "oh, and you can run Linux, too" are Microsoft marketing gimmicks that are thrown into the deal. It's easy to tack these onto "oh, we give you $300M and we give you our patents, too" or "let's cross-license, and, oh, that means you can use Linux, too".

    Microsoft is trying to create the false impression that there is a significant patent risk when there actually isn't: first of all, any patent infringement that Microsoft were to sue over would be removed immediately, and secondly, the damage from such
  • From Samsung's perspective, it is simple: these deals ensure it can sell products using Linux without facing a suit from the Redmond-based corporation.

    Yeah, but what's the upside? First, there's no evidence that MS has any property in Linux, so this changes nothing for Samsung, they could have easily sold products using Linux before (so did others, such as the Cowon A2, or the Tivo DVR, and MS never complained... I bet they'd love to have a few bucks any time someone used a Tivo, especially since it co
    • ...for clinching the decision on whether I need to boycott Samsung. I've had one of their DVD players for a couple years now and it's a bunch of ass.
      • Darn. I just bought a Q35 laptop and now I read this!

        (It works quite well with Linux too).

        If I knew they were subscribing to this protection racket it may have influenced my decision.
      • I'm going to buy the best hardware I can afford, & if that means Samsung then so be it. I have 2 Samsung hard drives (no problems), a Samsung DVD burner (no problems) & a Samsung laser printer (no problems, & it even came with Linux drivers). Maybe I won't buy anymore Samsung products from now on, but I'm not going to stop just because of one cross-license deal. I'm sure just about every major technology company has a cross-license deal with Microsoft, are you going to boycott all of them too?

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Synchis (191050)
      Here's the catch, because you obviously don't know much about law, particularly when it comes to patent, trademark and copyright law.

      Much of the law is based on precedent, which means that prior decisions in similar court cases influence or completely decide the outcome of current cases. The biggest problem with this kind of corporate behavior is that it sets a precedent. Microsoft can now demonstrate based on these two *HUGE* deals, that these companies acknowledge that Linux infringes on Microsoft's paten
        • They didn't get this "protection" for free. Even if the balance of payments is neutral, Samsung has given MS access to at least part of its own patent portfolio.

          That is the middle option.

          Their best option is to ignore MS and, should MS choose to sue over something, win. The costs of doing this could be more than the middle option, but it would leave them in a good position for the future.

          Their worst option is to ignore MS and, should MS choose to sue over something, lose. The costs of doing this are the
    • You've described how things would work in an idea world. I'm assuming that you've never sat in a meeting with executives and asked yourself how on earth they could think this will work? obviously most decisions must be good or at least harmless in order for the company to stay in business. Some bad decisions will creep through though - even when you have a massive legal team. Hoover's Free Flights Promotion being a classic example. That cost Hoover around £40-50 million.

      Shareholders might sue if they
    • Now what exact patents that Linux might be infringing on remains to be seen.

      No, it doesn't "remain to be seen". Microsoft and any other proprietary software house has had since 1992 to view the Linux source and determine if any of their "IP" was incorporated.

      Microsoft claimed as long as TWO YEARS ago that Linux IS violating one or more of its "IP". IF that is true then they have a responsibility to INFORM the Linux kernel crew of the EXACT violations in order to mitigate the damages. They are not allowe

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.