Slashdot Log In
Microsoft/Samsung Ink Patent Deal
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Apr 20, 2007 12:04 PM
from the so-happy-together dept.
from the so-happy-together dept.
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."
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This discussion has been archived.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.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I'm going to start a business (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm going to start a business (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
You're not going to start a business that way (Score:3, Informative)
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)
*Ahem*SCO*cough*Novell
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I already have a patent on that... but if you still want to proceed, I will gladly collect royalties
tm
Got Permission? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Got Permission? (Score:5, Funny)
Do I need to check with them before I use my electric toothbrush, as well?
That depends.
Does it run Linux?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Got Permission? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh well that's OK because so does Microsoft!
Parent
2020: MS' business plan (Score:2)
-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)
I call shenanigans, it was invented years ago. There is, quite literally, prior art!
Re: (Score:2)
Novel, pioneering the fututre (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Novel, pioneering the fututre (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Patent Monopoly/Cartels (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Cross-licensing good enough for now. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
outsmart Microsoft lawyers? Novell added to list (Score:5, Interesting)
LoB
summary from Groklaw (Score:4, Informative)
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
The Linux "patent pool" (Score:3, Interesting)
This, of course, is so infuriating that it makes most of us want to commit actual acts of homicide against the people pushing it.
Thank you MS (Score:2)
Re:Patent Reform (Score:5, Informative)
Parent