Microsoft/Samsung Ink Patent Deal

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."

Re:Patent Reform

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Software patents are the worst thing to ever come out of the patents office.

Actually, you have the courts [wikipedia.org] to thank for allowing software patents (at least in the U.S.).

Re:I'm going to start a business

[kebes]

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 an anti-Linux patent case in court. (Others have tried without success.) I guess some companies want this protection not to avoid losing a court case per se, but to avoid the cost of going to court at all. But like I said, by accepting the patent deal you make it impossible to ever credibly defend yourself against Microsoft's claims that you owe them money.

summary from Groklaw

[jamienk]

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.]

Don't panic - Linux etc. not dead yet.

[Bearhouse]

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 that people are going to deploy Linux, we want Suse Linux to have the highest percent share of that, because only a customer who has Suse Linux actually has paid properly for the use of intellectual property from Microsoft."

i.e. we'll claim to push technical interoperability with Novell/Suse, (which will probably be more bullshit), since they will be more pliant to our desires...we'll also threaten to sue anyone who develops, distributes or uses other products.

2. Novell rebuttal

"We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents," Hovsepian [boss of Novell] said.

A Microsoft representative on Monday issued a response to the Novell letter, saying the two companies disagree on this point.

i.e. Who cares about public posturing - we both know that this is all about the two getting together to screw everyone else, including users.

3. The reaction from IBM & Red Hat

Scott Handy, IBM's vice president of Linux and open source, said that the patent protections included in the Novell-Microsoft deal are unnecessary. "We aren't sure what Microsoft's intentions here are, but IBM has long asserted that we don't see the need for this coverage," Handy said. "To our knowledge, there has never been a patent suit against Linux, and it is our view that legal claims, if they exist, should be settled without involving end-user customers...Microsoft is trying to create "fear, uncertainty and doubt" around Linux because it poses a competitive threat."

This from the company that INVENTED FUD - they should know... And RH?

"The day after the announcement of the Novell deal, Red Hat responded with a statement saying that it will not pay an "innovation tax."

So, a big 'fuck you' from the major players. Why? They know that if M$ could attrack them directly, they already would have.

Especially after the SCO debacle, M$ knows that if they take on IBM, in particular, the only winners will be the lawyers. Nobody has more patents than the boys in blue. But that won't stop them trying to chip away at the edges...

By the way, the original article was far more interesting:

http://news.com.com/Microsoft%2C+Novell+spar+over+ Linux+agreement/2100-7344_3-6137444.html [com.com]

You're not going to start a business that way

[Harmonious Botch]

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 effectively lets MS ( or any other rich plantiff ) write the law. No judge will allow that, so they stop it cold at the very beginning by refusing to even listen to such arguments.

Re:I'm going to start a business

[Haeleth]

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 patent and says "ahem, you're violating this and we want money or we'll sue". And there's no reason to think that's going to happen any time soon.

Re:I'm going to start a business

[Bruce Perens]

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.