Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Patents

Japanese FTC Warns Microsoft 204

Posted by CowboyNeal from the firing-back-at-redmond dept.
ChibiOne writes "The Japanese Fair Trade Commission has ordered Microsoft to cut a restrictive contract clause, designed to protect the software giant from patent-related lawsuits by PC manufacturers that sell products using Microsoft's Windows operating systems. Under such provision, Japanese makers would be unable to sue Microsoft even if the software giant's technologies are deemed to violate their patents. The Japan Times Online has the scoop."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japanese FTC Warns Microsoft More

Japanese FTC Warns Microsoft

Comments Filter:

  • Sign here, no need to read it..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) * <homerun@gmail.com> on Thursday July 15, 2004 @07:50PM (#9712497)
    Under the provision, Japanese makers would be unable to sue Microsoft even if the software giant's technologies are deemed to violate their patents.

    It does seem a bit unfair to have to agree not to sue Microsoft even if they later violate your patent(s). That seems like a "cake and eat it to" proposition.

    Manufacturers have voiced concern that Microsoft could conceivably gain access to proprietary information about their cutting-edge products, and would be able to distribute their technology to competitors using the Windows operating system.

    I don't know if M$ would actually do this or not, but the disputed clause in the contracts essentially gives M$ a free ride to do so. If this is as it seems, I have to wonder at the arrogance involved in telling someone that they need to agree to let me violate their patents with impunity. Somehow I think these folks are genuinely confused when someone says, "That's against the law...." or "You really can't do that..."

    But he said Microsoft would drop the clause from all contracts signed from August onward. He said this decision was made following internal discussions over the past year.

    Perhaps M$ agrees? Sometimes even the 900lb gorilla can catch on.

    Cheers!

    Erick

    • Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... (Score:5, Informative)

      by XeRXeS-TCN ( 788834 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:06PM (#9712597)

      "Manufacturers have voiced concern that Microsoft could conceivably gain access to proprietary information about their cutting-edge products, and would be able to distribute their technology to competitors using the Windows operating system."

      I don't know if M$ would actually do this or not, but the disputed clause in the contracts essentially gives M$ a free ride to do so.

      Is it so surprising that a company like Microsoft would steal technology? They generally license it when they can't get away with it, but if they could steal with no repercussions (as this agreement would technically allow) you can bet that they would steal technology to stay "competitive". They have gone for the most underhanded business tactics against many companies and organisations over the years, most notably the open source and free software movements; and don't forget they essentially stole the original concept for a "windows" system from Apple, so I wouldn't trust them further than I could comfortably spit out a rat.

      Additionally, the FTC obviously considers those concerns legitimate, as the article says:

      The FTC raided Microsoft's Japan headquarters in February as part of its investigations.

      This isn't a *supposedly* "dubious" company like Sharman Networks (KaZaA) are accused of being, this is the so-called "untouchable" Microsoft, who sell nothing but legal product; so for any organisation to go so far as to raid their headquarters, the concern must be very believed and legitimate indeed.

      • While I agree that microsoft is rather underhanded in their buisness practices, the accusation of them stealing the windows concept from apple isn't true. Both apple and ms got the idea from xerox...
        • i would agree that apple got the ideas from xerox but would have to say that windows got 'their' ideas from apple.

          i didn't see the xerox OS - did it have a trash can?

        • Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @11:09PM (#9713479)
          Concepts behind the GUI are older than Xerox. Look up Jef Raskin's 1969 paper on the Quick Draw Interface. Engelbart's mouse is similarly dated.

          Xerox created a prototype from existing ideas. It was nowhere near as developed as the original Mac.

          Apple licenced some concepts and hired developers like Raskin for others.

          Microsoft, on the other hand, licenced nothing and had access to Apple source code when developing the original Word application.

          Hmm...

        • Definitely sign here, no need to read it..... (Score:5, Informative)

          by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @11:53PM (#9713656) Homepage
          While I agree that microsoft is rather underhanded in their buisness practices, the accusation of them stealing the windows concept from apple isn't true. Both apple and ms got the idea from xerox...

          True, but Apple engineers took what they saw at Xerox and expanded upon it into a fully-fledged OS. Microsoft added a clause [64.233.167.104] into a product for the Macintosh which Apple believed was giving a license for UI use on just Windows 1.0 as a cooling off period, but instead gave away the look and feel of the Macintosh to Microsoft entirely, which MS then proceeded to plunder in legendary fashion.

          Ironically, Either Apple or Microsoft could theoretically have sued many of the Xwindows systems out of existence, but once the (legally protected) Windows prescident was set, the (non-legally protected) flood of similar Operating Systems with similar looks and feels was released upon the world.

          Theoretically, this has allowed Operating System creators to learn freely from eachother, which should allow us to reach a state of computing Nirvana. Freeflow of ideas, yadda yadda. Sadly, in many ways it allows the dominant OS vendor to stay "good enough" at all times, freely stealing the fruits of other people's software when it becomes important, and allowing them to fail with their own experiments without contributing to the pot.

          So yes, while Apple was inspired by the work at Xerox, Microsoft's arrangement with Apple more directly resembles contract theft.

          • At the time, Apple was a much larger and richer company that Microsoft. Apple CHOSE to licence Macintosh tech to another operating system vendor in order to get an Office suite developed for the Mac.

            Considering that Microsoft Office ended up dominating the market, and is one of the key reasons that Apple is still competitive today; and considering that the Supreme Court ultimate threw out Look'n'Feel (Lotus v. Borland); Apple didn't do so poorly in with that deal.

            Another reading would be "Industry giant A
            • Sorry to butt into your conversation, but Microsoft already had a lucrative monopoly on it's DOS by the time windows came about. Upstart my ass. Maybe if we were talking basic compilers for 8 bit computers? :P

              IBM literally made Microsoft what it is today.
          • Microsoft's arrangement with Apple more directly resembles contract theft.

            Apple shouldn't have signed the contract, then.

            I don't understand why you're lambasting Microsoft (even accusing them of "theft") when as far as I can tell they acted entirely in accordance with the law.

      • Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:01PM (#9712875)
        Is it so surprising that a company like Microsoft would steal technology?

        At least thay made their own OS instead of stealing it from SCO.

        • You may have been being sarcastic, but there are a number who believe that the rights to significant portions of Windows NT (and therefore 2K,XP) belong to HP - who bought Compaq, who bought DEC, where Dave Cutler and a number of others who architected NT had been working on VMS before they went off to MS.

          -- Steve

      • Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Antaeus Feldspar ( 118374 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:05PM (#9712900) Homepage
        Is it so surprising that a company like Microsoft would steal technology? They generally license it when they can't get away with it, but if they could steal with no repercussions (as this agreement would technically allow) you can bet that they would steal technology to stay "competitive".
        They did. [theregister.co.uk]
      • The Japanese have different standards concerning corporate raids. Microsoft, for example, is a foreign company(which makes them a bigger target than a japanese company thanks to japans almost childlike jingostism with regards to it's companies), and has been the target of raids in the past.

    • Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ZZeta ( 743322 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:09PM (#9712607)

      "If this is as it seems, I have to wonder at the arrogance involved in telling someone that they need to agree to let me violate their patents with impunity."

      Sure Microsoft's attitude is arrogant. But that's only because they are allowed to.

      I'm glad to see someone showing them how things really work (as usual, Japan). But lets not forget that the only reason they ask such benefits is because they're negotiating from a position of strength.

      All I'm trying to say is, it isn't that much of a surprise that they are trying to take advantage of the benefits of having a monopoly. I wonder how many corporations would behave ethically when given such power.

      In fact, the real surprise is seeing someone refusing to their terms and conditions. Way to go Japan.

      Just my 2c.

    • Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rewt66 ( 738525 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:19PM (#9712663)
      This could be really good. If enough people like Microsoft start realizing that patents are a weapon that can hurt them, we might start to see some patent reform.

      Of course, it's going to get worse before it gets better, because right now everybody (Microsoft included) is patenting everything in sight. While Microsoft has given us plenty of reason to doubt their motives, one reason they are doing this is so that somebody else doesn't go ahead and patent an idea that Microsoft is using. This is a distraction from their real business, and it still leaves the possibility of being on the receiving end of a big extortion lawsuit.

      When the pain gets bad enough, enough companies will demand patent reform to get it to happen. The only question is how bad the pain will get for the rest of us before the reform comes...
    • Sometimes even the 900lb gorilla can catch on.

      Hey!! Leave gorillas alone! They are generally very nice creatures.

    • Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... (Score:5, Informative)

      by achurch ( 201270 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:46PM (#9712809) Homepage
      But he said Microsoft would drop the clause from all contracts signed from August onward. He said this decision was made following internal discussions over the past year.

      Perhaps M$ agrees? Sometimes even the 900lb gorilla can catch on.

      Actually, the decision to drop the clause from August onward was made before the warning--the warning was issued because Microsoft refused to drop it before then (which is probably why the article calls it a "largely symbolic" move), and Microsoft is still contesting it.

    • Re:Sign here, no need to read it..... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is what MS OEM team referred to as 12.d which is the section of the OEM agreement or NAP - Non-Assertion of Patents. MS lawyers removed the offending section just a short time before the raid occured as they had a tip off. What the trade commission is trying to do now is make it retroactive. MS sold NAP to the OEMs by brute force under the direction of BillG by saying that if you (Mr/Ms OEM) want to pay a license this low (depending on your perspective it is low...) you must sign the agreement with
    • " If this is as it seems, I have to wonder at the arrogance involved in telling someone that they need to agree to let me violate their patents with impunity. Somehow I think these folks are genuinely confused when someone says, "That's against the law...." or "You really can't do that..."

      Or it's as simple as "Do it our way, and we'll halve the price of our software that you sell your machines with. We both win." Somehow I doubt most of these cases involved a gun to a head or this would have been brough

  • NEVER would they do that! (Score:5, Funny)

    by unclethursday ( 664807 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @07:56PM (#9712530)
    Microsoft would NEVER knowingly or uknowingly violate anyone's patents. They are the most legal company in the world, and their sheer POPULARITY shows it.

    They OBVIOUSLY make all the best software on the planet based on merit alone.

    Which, of course, is why I am on a Macintosh... ;-P

    • This looks like one of the UNIX fortunes where the output is a bunch of crazy shit in capitals adlibed into a sentence. Obviously this is what happened here, because certainly no one could really say these things... :p
    • This is a good point: from the point of view of a single consumer, there are few options in taking on a giant corporation. There's legal process (we saw how well that works against MS and who can afford it anyway), legislation, (see parenthetical sarcasm above) or, a much simpler solution: do not buy their product. Nothing changes a company's policy more effectively than having their bottom line hit. Unfortunately, this can only be achieved through solidarity. MS, among other giga-corporations, pays big

  • In related news ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:00PM (#9712556)
    In related news, Microsoft was found to be violating several Japenese patents on "Bukake."

  • Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:03PM (#9712572)

    Microsoft gets spanked for restrictive licensing... IN JAPAN!

  • That's like Detroit having a license like (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:05PM (#9712579)
    Use of this vehicle for transportation releases General Motors and its subsidiaries from all liability, including but not limited to, fraud, design or manufacturing flaw, and malice.

    It's a nice trick if you can get away with it.

  • Ballmer got his wish (Score:5, Funny)

    by chris_mahan ( 256577 ) <chris.mahan@gmail.com> on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:05PM (#9712586) Homepage
    Ballmer: "Xbox can beat up Sony."

    Japanese Government:
    "You round eye henna gaijin who dances badly, all your base are belong to us. Prepare to die."

  • Is this legal anyway? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by D-Cypell ( 446534 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:06PM (#9712595)
    It seems to me that a patent is a piece of property owned by a legal entity. Does the ownership of a patent differ from, say, the ownership of a car.

    If there is not legal difference between what is essentially two pieces of property, would it be legal for me to draw up a contract with a client that expressly forbid them from filing a case against me if i decide to steal their car?

    I do appreciate that this would be a criminal matter, but presumably a civil case could be brought also (lose of earnings for time without transportation perhaps).

    Would a contract that legitimizes theft be considered valid if legally tested?

    • Re:Is this legal anyway? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:18PM (#9712655) Homepage
      Suddenly I picture a hooded Steve Ballmer in his grotto:

      "I will make it legal"

    • ...because patents are IP, it can exist at multiple locations at once. It would be possible for Microsoft to licence all their patents through a contract, so I would assume anything less than that can also be put into a contract.

      To follow up on your analogy, you could not sign away their right to sue. But they could sign a contract that would allow you to take possession of their car, e.g. as security for a loan.

      Now to take that to an extreme, let us say their contract allow you to take possession of it a

      • To follow up on your analogy, you could not sign away their right to sue.

        AFAIK, you can sign away your right to pursue a civil case, but you can't prevent a criminal case from being brought up. If you sign a contract saying you won't sue someone for anything they say about you, you can't later demand compensation for a damaged reputation. However, a contract allowing someone to stab you doesn't prevent them from being thrown in jail for it if the police catch them.

        I think your other points are al

    • If there is not legal difference between what is essentially two pieces of property, would it be legal for me to draw up a contract with a client that expressly forbid them from filing a case against me if i decide to steal their car?

      No, not really. At least, not in the UK (I know sod all about US law). On this side of the pond, you cannot sign away statutory rights. What this means is that if something is illegal e.g: assault, it is still a crime even if you consent to it. Or, to put it another way, it
      • So in the UK it's illegal to let your friend borrow anything of yours, because that's larceny?
      • There was quite a famous case involving a group of gay guys who were into BDSM. They made videos of themselves nailing one anothers foreskins to a coffee table (I'm not making this up!). The tape fell into the hands of the police, who arrested them and charged them with assault. Even_though_they_had_consented.

        That was the defence used by the German cannibal who escaped a murder conviction, so it worked to an extent.

        German cannibal sentenced to 8 years in prison [www.cbc.ca],
        30 Jan 2004 13:32:37

        KASSEL, GERMANY - A

      • The only differance between boxing & assualt is consent.

        The only differance going on a private garden tour & trespassing is consent.

        You see once one consents then the action is no longer a crime.

        Afterall the only differance between borowing & theiving is consent
    • If there is not legal difference between what is essentially two pieces of property, would it be legal for me to draw up a contract with a client that expressly forbid them from filing a case against me if i decide to steal their car?

      When you rent a car at the airport, you sign some papers, and they tell you where the car is. The key is usually in the car. Without that agreement on paper, you'd be stealing their car. Presumably, for a suitable sum of money, you can persuade the agent to let you use a c

    • (I'm not a lawyer, just a law student. This is not legal advice. Don't rely on it as such.)

      First, you're right that you can't contract out of criminal law.

      Second, you can contract out of civil law, most of the time. The issue here is that it's not 'theft' if two parties agree to something. The only issue is whether the contract itself is valid...

      FYI, legal settlements are basically contracts wherein the plaintiff promises not to sue over a civil offense, in return for stuff...

      In the case of property

  • Another meaningless response from Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:08PM (#9712599) Journal
    But he said Microsoft would drop the clause from all contracts signed from August onward. He said this decision was made following internal discussions over the past year.

    Current contracts remain valid for Windows XP and earlier Windows versions.

    So the vast majority of Japanes companies will still be shackled by MS's contracts -- contracts with a company that has a track record of violating patents!
    • [They] will still be shackled by MS's contracts -- contracts with a company that has a track record of violating patents!

      True, but if Longhorn contains any patent violations left over from XP, it'll be fair game. It's not the best outcome, but Microsoft should be concerned.

    • Current contracts remain valid for Windows XP and earlier Windows versions.

      It's spin, the contracts remain valid except for the clause in question, if Japanese Law is like most places. So instead of saying the clause no longer applies they say the contracts are valid. All part of Microsoft's Trustworthy PR initiative.

  • This is silly (Score:4, Funny)

    by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:10PM (#9712611)
    Haven't Japan learned that M$ is invincible everywhere even in the U.S. If our very own DOJ couldn't put up a dent, what makes you think Japan would be any different.

    • Haven't Japan learned that M$ is invincible everywhere even in the U.S. If our very own DOJ couldn't put up a dent, what makes you think Japan would be any different.
      Japan will rabidly defend any Japanese company from a foriegn company if they find that foriegn firm is a threat. It's happened before, it will happen again. Sometimes good, sometimes bad, but Japan looks out for #1 first.

    • Re:This is silly (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Morgahastu ( 522162 )
      Maybe because Microsoft doesn't have a hand in the japanese government and economy?

      The US will rarely strike its own down if it will affect its economy or the pocket of politicians.

      • Re:This is silly (Score:2, Informative)

        by Atsi Otani ( 731761 )
        Yeah, I think this looks like the Japanese FTC is fighting to protect Japanese comapanies.

        The newspaper I read (the Asahi) reported something like "the FTC decided to act because some computer makers with strong audio/visual technology complained about the contract clause"
        Hmm.. a computer maker with "strong audio/visual technology" that wants to fight Microsoft = Sony?

        The Japanese FTC's nickname happens to be "the watchdog that never barks," because it rarely does anything. I think Sony (or some other J

  • I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:17PM (#9712648) Journal
    The Japanese Fair Trade Commission has ordered Microsoft to cut a restrictive contract clause, designed to protect the software giant from patent-related lawsuits by PC manufacturers that sell products using Microsoft's Window operating systems. Under such provision, Japanese makers would be unable to sue Microsoft even if the software giant's technologies are deemed to violate their patents.

    Assuming that's a fair characterization of the contract provisions, I'd have to side with Microsoft on this one. (Egad! End of the World!)

    Consider this scenario:

    - Some random branch of Sony (or some other japanese conglomerate) gets a JP patent on some random software/hardware thingie.
    - Sony builds it into their laptops and wants Microsoft to support it.
    - Microsoft supports it, and includes it in their mainline product (even if it doesn't work on non-Sony platforms). Now every copy of their software shipped on a non-Sony platform is infringing.
    - Some Sony competitor clones the hardware. Suddenly the patented-in-japan feature starts running on THEIR platform.
    - Sony sues Microsoft. And wins. And collects big bucks for ALL the copies of the software that went out (which WERE infringing...).

    So Microsoft gets beaten up for being a good guy and supporting Sony's gimmick.

    Of course Microsoft wants to head off this scenario. So they write this clause into their contract. Sony (and every other HW vendor) now has a choice: Let MS use their patents, or don't have MS support of their platform.

    What's "unfair" about that? How much is it worth to Sony to have Microsoft support their products? This is the set of terms under which Microsoft is willing to do it. They can take it, leave it, or negotiate a clarifying modification.

    IMHO even their defacto monopoly power isn't being misused in this case.

    (Besides: If Sony {or whomever} doesn't like it, they can always drop Microsoft and ship Linux, BSD, or what-have-you. B-) )

    • What's unfair about this is . . . (Score:5, Informative)

      by achurch ( 201270 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:03PM (#9712891) Homepage

      Sony (and every other HW vendor) now has a choice: Let MS use their patents, or don't have MS support of their platform.

      What's "unfair" about that?

      As has been pointed out many times before, Microsoft has a (virtual) monopoly on operating systems. If Microsoft were the little guy, this wouldn't be so much of a problem, but they're not; shipping computers without Windows is tantamount to corporate suicide. This gives Microsoft immense leverage in contracts.

      Now, keep in mind this is happening in Japan. Japan's anti-monopoly law has a clause forbidding "yuuetsu-teki chii ranyou", literally "abuse of overpowering status": in other words, if one of the parties to a contract or agreement has significantly more power or authority than the other(s), then that party is not allowed to dictate terms freely--they have to limit themselves to what they could reasonably expect to get agreement on without such power. This clause is applied not infrequently(*); in this case, the FTC decided that OEMs would not have agreed to the no-sue clause if they had not been in the position of having to accept whatever terms Microsoft gave them, and so it declared the clause "unfair" and issued the warning.

      (*)For example, the yuuetsu-teki chii ranyou clause was recently used to prevent retail stores from forcing distributors to cut wholesale prices in response to a new law requiring sales tax to be included in display prices.

    • Re:I'm with Microsoft on this one. (EGAD!) (Score:5, Insightful)

      by polveroj ( 786638 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:32PM (#9713036)

      Then Microsoft should ask for licenses to the specific patents that Sony wants it to use in Windows. That way, Microsoft doesn't get to steal Sony's patent on a "system and method for inducing the destruction of a city by means of a giant robot" or any other patents totally irrelevant to supporting Sony's hardware.

      And it is certainly an abuse of Microsoft's monopoly to demand the use of hardware companies' entire patent portfolios. Choosing to drop Microsoft is committing financial seppuku right now, although in a few years it might not be as big a deal. Microsoft would never be able to get away with a contract like that if manufacturers had an alternative other than bankruptcy.

    • There is an obvious way out of your scenario. Microsoft only supports the feature if they are given a license to the particular patent for use in the Windows OS. Of course, even this is probably unnecessary since hopefully the patent is on the hardware and not on some unwritten OS software that communicates with the hardware. (Otherwise, Linux is in a heap of trouble.)

      A much more problematic scenario is that Microsoft uses the contract to include patented features in it's hardware products, such as the

      • "Microsoft only supports the feature if they are given a license to the particular patent for use in the Windows OS. Of course, even this is probably unnecessary since hopefully the patent is on the hardware and not on some unwritten OS software that communicates with the hardware. (Otherwise, Linux is in a heap of trouble.)"

        Doesn't sound much different from what MS has done. Only in their version, one cannot sneak attack them.
    • That's a ridiculous scenario. Microsoft could negotiate a license for that particular patent, and refuse to support the hardware without it.

    • Er. Your scenario is fundamentally unrealistic and foolish. Before implementing a patented feature like that, Microsoft would have to obtain a patent license from Sony. Such a license would likely have a clause specifying that Microsoft was not responsible for patent infringement committed by other hardware vendors. So that if some other vendor reverse-engineered Sony's feature and implemented it on their platform to take advantage of existing software support, they'd be the ones liable, not Microsoft.

    • Why should Microsoft support a particular piece of Sony hardware built-into the OS disc?

      If you haven't noticed already, Sony and other hardware companies can provide their own drivers and software. I don't think it is right for Microsoft to get all of Sony's patents just for them to get the Microsoft OS installed on it.
    • 1. You are a human being who is capable to learn how to shoot and possibly kill me
      2. ???
      3. I will just kill you first, just in case

      Real societies tend to adopt more restrictive laws, where self defence is allowed, but restricted to cases where the threat to your life is immediate and obvious. On the same note, Microsoft can update their contracts with a provision that if using a patent is the most straightforward way to run Windows on the hardware and utilize all it's features then Microsoft gets a free li

  • If I'm not mistaken, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Clockwurk ( 577966 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:32PM (#9712736) Homepage
    The Apache liscense has a similar clause (mostly to protect against SCO-like suits). It will be interesting to see if they are asked to revise their liscense as well.

    • Contract vs. License (Score:2, Informative)

      by shadow255 ( 710534 )
      The Apache liscense has a similar clause (mostly to protect against SCO-like suits). It will be interesting to see if they are asked to revise their liscense as well.

      Don't confuse licenses with contracts. As much as some entities would like us to believe they're one and the same, they're not. What's more, the Apache Foundation doesn't charge money for use of its licensed software, in contrast to Microsoft.

  • Apache License (Score:5, Insightful)

    by femto ( 459605 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:37PM (#9712760) Homepage
    So what does this mean for the patent clauses of the Apache License [apache.org]?

    Is Apache okay because they don't actually say 'you can't take us to court'? Rather they say 'taking action terminates this license'. Consequently the patent holder is free to take action, as long as they wear the consequences of their Apache license being cancelled?

    • Re:Apache License (Score:2, Informative)

      by polveroj ( 786638 )

      Is Apache okay because they don't actually say 'you can't take us to court'? Rather they say 'taking action terminates this license'. Consequently the patent holder is free to take action, as long as they wear the consequences of their Apache license being cancelled?

      The Apache license is very different. It says that any contributors who add patented material implicitly give all Apache users the right to use the specific patents that they added. If you later sue Apache for using the patented material t

    • and Apache Foundation and users have no commercial relationship.

  • Does the clause exist in the US (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:38PM (#9712765) Homepage Journal
    contracts that Microsoft has with the PC manufacturers here? Or has it been conveniently overlooked by bought out politicians/FTC? I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.

  • craziness (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:41PM (#9712783)
    I wonder why existing contracts are still valid if the government says it's illegal and wants the clause taken out? Seems to me their FTC should be able to say "take out the clause or we will rule it invalid". That would signal the other companies (and MS) that their patents would be enforceable regardless of the contract. When it got to court, the contract clause would be a useless defense because the court would invalidate it.

    And it's right to do so. The only way any company agrees to terms like this is when their arm is being twisted. Wanna sell PC's? Agree to our outrageous terms or sell them without Windows. Sadly, the market for non-win PC's just isn't big enough for Sony, et al (yet).

    History shows that a company needs to be VERY careful doing any kind of business with MS. These companies need this protection.

    • I wonder why existing contracts are still valid if the government says it's illegal and wants the clause taken out?

      The FTC has to issue a warning and give the company a chance to correct its behavior before it can start issuing orders--see my post here [slashdot.org].

  • http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6905
    http://w ww.theinquirer.net/?article=7015
    and so on

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @08:53PM (#9712839)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • How exactly is this a warning for MS? Sounds more like a "do whatever the fuck you want, we won't hold anyone responsible" message, to me.

    • Haijo-kankoku: FTC warnings (Score:5, Informative)

      by achurch ( 201270 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @10:10PM (#9713210) Homepage

      How exactly is this a warning for MS? Sounds more like a "do whatever the fuck you want, we won't hold anyone responsible" message, to me.

      The haijo-kankoku (FTC warning, literally "recommendation to eliminate [illegal behavior]") isn't just a "slap on the wrist" in Japan--it's the first step in taking real action against the company. The procedure goes something like this:

      1. The Fair Trade Commission investigates and finds a potential violation of the anti-monopoly law.
      2. The FTC issues a haijo-kankoku to the company. If the company agrees that it was in the wrong, it can correct its behavior (possibly paying a fine) and stop the process here.
      3. The FTC holds a hearing on the issue. It may decide that the action does not actually violate the law, and stop here. Otherwise . . .
      4. The FTC issues an order (haijo-meirei) to the company to correct its behavior, possibly accompanied by a fine.
      5. If the company still doesn't obey, various other nasty stuff can happen. Japanese companies rarely go this far--you can get closed down for things like this.

  • Formal Apology (Score:5, Funny)

    by chrae ( 159904 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:08PM (#9712907) Homepage
    Dear Japan,

    We apologize for Microsoft. You kneel behind and we'll push them over.

    Sincecerly,
    The United States.

  • What's worse.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Slur ( 61510 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @09:53PM (#9713134) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft insists there is a sanity clause while the Japanese assert that no sanity clause exists.
  • but i have to think that all of these governments could care less what microsoft does - they just see an opportunty to have their piece of the cash cow.

    then again maybe i live in DC
  • In other words, the FTCs contract protects Microsoft from lawsuits in the way that plastic wrap protects a steel block from bee stings.

  • Too much pressure! (Score:4, Funny)

    by StarWreck ( 695075 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @10:43PM (#9713352) Homepage Journal
    Ahhh! Software Patents and Frivilious Lawsuits are evil! But Microsoft is also evil! AHHHHH!!!!!! *HEAD EXPLODES*

  • The Same Microsoft Who...? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Bob9113 ( 14996 ) on Thursday July 15, 2004 @11:33PM (#9713567) Homepage
    Under the provision, Japanese makers would be unable to sue Microsoft even if the software giant's technologies are deemed to violate their patents

    Is this the same Microsoft that claims that Open Source software destroys intellectual property?
  • dated July 13th. It is here: [jftc.go.jp],

    The legal reasoning at the very end of the document is just slighty longer as your average haiku . All it says is (translation mine):

    "This is imposing unfair restricting conditions on the enterprise activity of PC makers and sellers in doing business with them and is therefore a case of number 13 of unfair business practices (FTC notice number 15/1982) and as such violating Article 19 of the Antimonopoly Act."

    Readers of this reasoning are left without a clue when this
    • Readers of this reasoning are left without a clue when this kind of clause might be legal. There are many possible situations where this kind of defense against software patent claims might be quite reasonable.

      This is actually a good thing. Even though it opens the door to selective enforcement, a fuzzy legal region stops bad behavior much further from the boundary than a precise line located at the centroid of the legal region. It's a way to balance the conservative nature of legal council against their

  • Actually, Windows Media 9 codec (VC-9), which was adopted as one of codecs in HD-DVD, violates [theregister.co.uk] the patents of many Japanese electronics giants involved with H.264/AVC [mpegla.com], but because of the NAP(non-assertion of patents), they couldn't sue Microsoft.
  • I guess this is Microsoft's answer to the threat of getting sued by some random IP company because your shop uses Linux and oops! that little bit of IP has strayed far from home. (See SCO vs Autozone on the front page).

    Rather than indemnify the customer, microsoft blocks the others in the industry from suing the customer. That's actually quite clever and a good example of what they call "leverage."
  • It seems to me that microsoft, because of all the lawsuites and issues with them not being competative, is laying low so to speak, they are not planning on too many major releases anytime soon, or creating to very much new technology. But whats the best thing for them to do in the mean time? Buy up or "create" every type of IPO they can think of to insure that no one else can make it happen. Works well for them, because it will insure the fucture technology to them.

    This works well for them because it w

Slashdot Top Deals

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Close