Microsoft and LG Electronics Sign Linux Covenant 263
rs232 wrote with a PC World link discussing another alliance between Microsoft and a vendor via Linux. The vendor this time around is electronics maker LG, and marks the fifth company to license unspecified patents relating to Linux or Linux devices from the OS giant. "'This agreement is focused only on exchange of patent rights,' said David Kaefer, general manager of IP licensing at Microsoft. 'The open-source elements of the deal do utilize a covenant model similar to the Xandros and Novell deals, but this deal is most similar to recent agreements with Samsung and Fuji Xerox.' Those deals were signed this year in April and March, respectively. Both covered general access to intellectual property contained in patent portfolios and included protection for customers using Linux-based software."
Re:Just wasting their money... (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't like it one bit. I bet they're afriad of Linux and want to crush it.
I hope the community stands up and absolutely smashes Microsoft
Help! I'm confused (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Just wasting their money... (Score:4, Interesting)
When all is said and done MSFT is PAYING Novell 140 million dollars.
That's right people MSFT is paying protection money to Linux vendors, while telling the press the exact opposite.
read the facts for yourself. not MSFT PR spin only.
Re:What a deal (Score:4, Interesting)
Both companies are simply saying we could sue each other but we won't.
One quick point... (Score:4, Interesting)
Before I get my qwerty in a knot over this, am I not correct in pointing out these covenants and agreements apply only to companies who deal with the U.S.A., while doing business in said state?
Last time I checked, I live elsewhere, my current distro is E.U. based, and my probable future distro is based in the Isle of Man, so why should I care about Americans shooting themselves in the foot?
This is becoming scary .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this basically giving Microsoft free access to everyone else's patent portfolio? It's not like they've specifically enumerated which patents are at issue here. So if these companies are signing something which says "I promise never to sue MS for patent infringement", and furthering the belief that open source must be in violation, aren't MS getting a tremendous advantage and leverage over the rest of the industry?
Man I wish the USDOJ hadn't dropped the ball on anti-trust proceedings.
Re:Just wasting their money... (Score:4, Interesting)
Haven't we seen this before? (Score:3, Interesting)
http://lwn.net/Articles/73592/ [lwn.net]
Re:Just wasting their money... (Score:3, Interesting)
--jeffk++
So let me get this straight! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just wasting their money... (Score:2, Interesting)
In Canada for instance someone making a claim about another person or group of people must ensure that the public claim is true. If the public claim is not true that is slander and the person being slandered can be sued for damages. So if Ballmer says that Linux is violating 238 of their patents they better make sure there are 238 patent violations or this will be slander. The courts will also take into consideration that the person in question gave the other person the opportunity to reverse the patent violation. So if they do have that number of patents they are doing themselves a disservice by not identifying them.
OK, What's going on here? (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps all these deals are to give an aura of legitimacy to their patent claims, enabling them to spread FUD more effectively.
Perhaps they want to get enough people to continue Linux support under GPLv2.
Perhaps it's an attempt to tie Linux to some actual companies, which they can later undercut and drive out of business (which is how they've dealt with their traditional competitors until now, but which hasn't worked against open source.)
Honestly, I haven't been able to figure out what this is about.
Re:Being pedantic... (Score:4, Interesting)
BTW, how much does it cost to fight a patent invalidation suit when you have some clear prior art? Is it possible to ask the USPTO (we are almost always talking US software-related patents) to re-examine a patent in light of some newly found prior art?