Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Courts Operating Systems Software Windows News

MS Indemnifies Customers Against IP Threats 257

Posted by timothy from the we-guarantee-this-avacado-won't-eat-your-baby dept.
bigtallmofo writes "Microsoft announced today that it will indemnify nearly all its customers against claims that their use of Microsoft software infringed on any intellectual property rights. The only exception will be for embedded versions of Windows, since vendors are able to modify the source code. Is Microsoft opening itself to defending thousands of lawsuits against their customers?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Indemnifies Customers Against IP Threats More

MS Indemnifies Customers Against IP Threats

Comments Filter:

  • Will help with all the existing lawsuits... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cdrguru ( 88047 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:05AM (#10777241) Homepage
    ... except there aren't any.

    I don't see any coming, either. Of course, this might just be a trick to prevent a big one that MS knows could come, but I doubt it.

    • Ya know I think this whole thing is astroturf. This idemifaction 'issue' seems to be part of the larger FUD campaign against linux. I dont recall if this initiated from SCO or MS, or SCO via MS

      • Not just FUD but free FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @01:19PM (#10778847) Journal
        This idemifaction 'issue' seems to be part of the larger FUD campaign against linux.

        It's not just FUD but free FUD. They'd have to help defend anyway, because a successful suit against a customer of their products would put their entire customer base in jepoardy and result in an instant migration to another platform and a crash in their sales. (It might also be followed by a suit against their distributors, too.)

        As for being FUD, wasn't one of the issues that got settled in the SCO debacle that a user, even of open source that he loaded as source, wasn't liable for damages from the owners of any IP that got improperly included? If so, by promising indemnification they can make people think the legal system will zing them even if it's already decided it won't.

    • Re:Will help with all the existing lawsuits... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:11AM (#10777316)
      What about TimeLine suing MSSQL users?
    • Of course they know that they're the primary instigator of the really annoying lawsuits anyway, so it's promise that doesn't cost 'em anything...

    • re: will help with all the existing lawsuits... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ed.han ( 444783 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:16AM (#10777389) Journal
      this is about something much bigger:

      "the company plans to make indemnity a new plank in its "get the facts" campaign, which touts the advantages of windows over linux."

      IOW, it's benefitting from SCO's FUD. of course, at some point, SCO will run out of gas, these IP cases go away, but for those M$-thralls whose contracts renew, that resolution will probably come too late.
    • Generally the only people suing for illegal use of microsoft products are Microsoft. Does this protect us against them too?

    • Re:Will help with all the existing lawsuits... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gewalker ( 57809 ) <Gary@Walker.AstraDigital@com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:19AM (#10777422)
      Gee, I guess you never heard of SCO.

      For once, MS is doing a good thing, Though I'm sure they will spin it to their advantage, this is one of the actual advantages of commercial software to users of such. Since vendor is making money off of the software, they can afford to take the risk of patent infringement.

      All commercial software vendors should do this.

      And yes, MS products have been affected by this before. MS gets sued over patent infringement regularly, and some of the IP holders have threatened to go after individual users.
      • For once, MS is doing a good thing,

        They are doing the bare minimum they should be doing and no more. If there is any infringing code in Microsoft products, it could only have come from Microsoft. They are responsible and should be held responsible.

        Though I'm sure they will spin it to their advantage,

        It's the old "taking credit for what you should be doing anyway" bit. I'm reminded of a Chris Rock routine: "I take care of my family", "Dammit, you're supposed to!".

        MS gets sued over patent infringem

        • Hey Jackass!! (Score:2, Funny)

          by pVoid ( 607584 )
          Wake up man. Who was it that let every Linux custommer be sued? Was it... uh wait.. RedHat?

          You remind me of Chris rock too:

          Whenever there's any article on slashdot concerning microsoft, some ignant ass mother fucking basement troll needs to come out and make stupid comments.

    • Can someone please explain to me the quandry: Why are all the engineering jobs going to Bangalore, and all the Lawyers staying here? Am I living on the wrong continent?
      • Since an attorney is a licensed profession, and they have to be licensed in the state they are practicing in, outsourcing attorney work to India is nearly impossible. In any case, it would be hard to outsource legal work and be confident that the outsourced attorneys are familiar with all of the federal and local laws at the client's location.

    • The reason that there aren't any end user lawsuits concerning patents that Windows infringes is that the patent holders tend to go after Microsoft directly. Microsoft is currently facing over 30 patent infringement suits. Most patent holders are more interested in going after Microsoft's cash hoard than in penny-ante attacks on Microsoft's customers.

      Microsoft finally realized that since they were going to bear the brunt of the patent infringement lawsuits that they might as well formalize the arrangemen

    • Quote the parent: Will help with all the existing lawsuits... except there aren't any.

      You didn't even bother to try to look that up, did you? As of last January, MS was a defendant in 30 patent lawsuits [pcworld.com], many of these are sure to be going on still today. Some that made the papers:

      Teleshuttle Technologies, LLC - software updates

      Eolas - browser plugins

      Interactive Data (TVI) - autoplay of cds

      Research Corporation Technologies - resolution enhancement

      InterTrust Technologies - software registration and activa

  • This is a big statement by M$ (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:06AM (#10777253) Journal
    Of course, they are saying the following:

    1) We have never stolen anyone else's code
    2) Even if we did, we believe it cannot be proven
    3) If someone does claim to prove it, we will destroy them in court

    1 + 2 + 3 = We own all software anyway, so you don't have to worry...

    • Re:This is a big statement by M$ (Score:5, Insightful)

      by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:15AM (#10777375) Journal
      Of course, they are saying the following:

      1) We have never stolen anyone else's code 2) Even if we did, we believe it cannot be proven 3) If someone does claim to prove it, we will destroy them in court

      All companies are like this, to some extent. They quickly decide what costs more, to go to court or pay out a claim. Think about cars. Back when Ford had those bad tires and cars rolled over. Rather than change the tires on ALL fords, they decided the one death per 100,000* would cost less to settle in court. *number made up to illustrate point.

      But I think this is a good move on Microsofts part. They are standing behind their product. I like that. Now if they will stand behind it a little more and offer a product the customers want rather than one which seems to be more and more filled with drm.

      • Re:This is a big statement by M$ (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EmagGeek ( 574360 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:32AM (#10777591) Journal
        Well, this is a little different than the Ford/Firestone case. In the latter, the customers were perfectly free to drive within the speed limit, keep their tires inflated to proper spec, and to not kill themselves. This issue was between the Customer and the manufacturer.

        The microsoft issue is between the Customer's Vendor, and the customer's vendor's competitor. The customer really should have nothing to do with IP claims over software they buy to use. SCO has no business suing Linux end users over IP claims. SCO's beef is with the Linux authors, but customers are easier to go after because they have money.

        It's all a bunch of legal horse shit if you ask me. There's no way a customer should ever be held responsible for the content of stuff they buy from their vendors because they have little or no control over what goes into that stuff.

        • The microsoft issue is between the Customer's Vendor, and the customer's vendor's competitor. The customer really should have nothing to do with IP claims over software they buy to use.

          In most cases, this is true as the customer is often a retail user and is not someone with deep pockets from which to obtain money.

          SCO has no business suing Linux end users over IP claims. SCO's beef is with the Linux authors, but customers are easier to go after because they have money.

          Anyone who makes, uses, or sells any

      • Re:This is a big statement by M$ (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Naikrovek ( 667 ) <jjohnson&psg,com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:47AM (#10777754)
        (fight club reference)

        Multiply number of vehicles in the field (A)
        by probable rate of failure (B),
        by average out of court settlement (C).

        A * B * C = X.

        If X is less than the cost of a recall, no recall is made.

        It is a common practice to this day.

    • Re:This is a big statement by M$ (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) <Satanicpuppy@nosPAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:20AM (#10777437) Journal
      A big statement would be:

      "We will indemnify customers against time lost due to exploits found in our own code."

      Until they have that clause, I'm not holding my breath.
      • "We will indemnify customers against time lost due to exploits found in our own code."

        That would be *huge* coming from almost *any* software developer - even the GPL specifically disclaims any warranties concerning fitness for purpose. You generally only get that sort of thing with very expensive bespoke software.
        • even the GPL specifically disclaims any warranties concerning fitness for purpose.

          I would like to see EULAS ammended to read no warranty concerning fitness for a particular purpose including what our advertising claims it will do.

      • You can get that (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )
        Maybe not form MS, but you can get that. Companies, specifically those that make mainframes, will gaurentee esentially 0 downtime. Problem is you do it in their terms. You run only on the hardware they tell you, and you don't modify it. You want an upgrade? Fine, you pay one of their people to come do it. You also run only the software the allow. Each package must be tested and certified to work with the OS and all other packages. You then can't load anything else without their approval. Finally, you can on

    • Re:This is a big statement by M$ (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pavon ( 30274 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:29AM (#10777552)
      No it doesn't say any of those things. In fact all it really says is this:

      If Microsoft infringes on someone's IP, it is Microsoft that is liable, not their customers.

      That was true regardless of whether they made the statement or not. The only purpose of this announcement is to create doubt that other software may have this liability, but MS software definately doesn't.

      In particular they want you to think that open source software does have a potential for liability. Don't get me wrong - simply using a peice of software does not infringe on any IP rights, regardless of whether it is open source or not. However open source software lets you redistribute and modify it. If you redistribute software which infringes someone's copyright you might have some liability. In reality I'm pretty sure that the person who originally redistributed the software under an open source licence would be at fault for illegally sublicencing a copywritten work, and the people who redistributed the software later under the open source license would not be liable.

      But basically this is just an empty statement that Microsoft is making to help prop up it's FUD campain.
      • What you're saying is true about copyrights, but not about patents. Simply using a patented process is illegal, it doesn't matter if someone else gave you the software or you wrote it yourself.
      • I'd like to amend my previous statement. I was thinking from a legal point of view not a practical one. While legally customers never had any liability in court, that didn't prevent anyone from sueing them. So basically what Microsoft is saying is that it will pay for any of these unbased, frivilous lawsuits brought against their customers. When they do so however, they need not prove or disprove whether MS is infringing, just that the customer has no legal liablility.

        Sad. Our legal system is so screwed up

      • In particular they want you to think that open source software does have a potential for liability. Don't get me wrong - simply using a peice of software does not infringe on any IP rights, regardless of whether it is open source or not

        Incorrect. If a patent covers a particular concept then any manufacture, use, or sale of anything based on that patent is infringing, and anyone not licensed may be sued. When you purchase a product at retail containing a patent which is patented by the manufacturer - like

      • That was true regardless of whether they made the statement or not.

        You are forgetting that there is already a precedent of MS customers (MS SQL developers) being liable and MS covering neither royalty cost nor liability. Here is one reference to the Timeline lawsuit. [theregister.co.uk]
    • Actually, they are saying, "We can't compete on price or quality, so we cooked up this idea to make it look like we're better at something.
    • I wonder if this includes Timeline?? Since Msft settled that and left MS SQL developers out in the cold.

      Timeline could get some more moeny from MSFT this way.

      Unless I missed it where MSFT actually took care of timeline and developers for MS SQL.

  • Here we go (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PigeonGB ( 515576 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:06AM (#10777255) Homepage
    A summary of some posts below:

    SCO sues Linux users, prompting fears that Linux is legally scary to have deployed commercially in your business.

    Microsoft says, "See? TCO for Linux rises because you need to be ready to pay the legal costs of defending yourself. We at Microsoft, however, will do such defending for you."

    A summary of other posts: "Screw you, M$!"

    • Re:Here we go (Score:2, Interesting)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 )
      MS has been hit by some big IP suits lately, the Eolas plug-in horseshit, and now Novell is going to start a bunch of shit because apparently they patented "word processors" when they bought up WP.

      The difference is, MSFT is losing them. Linux is a piece of source code, not a company that can be sued.

      In corporate minds, MSFT is the one on the hotplate, and linux is the "safe" looking choice. SCO really doesn't have much street cred, at least according to the folks I've talked to.

      This is MS trying to pre

    • Re:Here we go (Score:3, Informative)

      by GuyZero ( 303599 ) *

      That's it exactly. Sun said the same thing a few weeks back...

      Jonathan Schwart's Blog [sun.com]. In regards to settling a lawsuit with Kodak...

      That's why we settled - not to validate Kodak, not to validate those patents, but to let our customers and employees and stockholders focus on market opportunity, not litigation.
      It's a direct attack on Linux.
    • Actually you forgot one;

      "We here at Microsoft will protect you from the raving lunatic Darl McBride, and if he comes anywhere near our Redmond campus we have permission from the Dept. of Homeland Security to shoot^H^H^H^H terminate his license."

    • Microsoft says, "See? TCO for Linux rises because you need to be ready to pay the legal costs of defending yourself.

      I'm not sure It's that simple. I read an article over the weekend that said M$ spent more on Linux than any other company this year because of the Novell and Sun billions they forked out. That money is likely to be put into Linux atleast in some cases. You don't give your competition a few billion dollars just for an "i told you so".
    • To go a little further down that road...

      SCO claims Linux is "legally scary" because no Linux vendor will provide indemnification.
      Linux vendors then provide indemnification (effectively saying SCO is full of it).
      SCO then says, "See Linux has legal problems, otherwise why would you need indemnification?"

      If we then follow SCO's logic...

      Microsoft's products must have legal problems, otherwise why do they need to indemnify their customers?

      --
      Free Flat Screens [freeflatscreens.com] | Free iPod Photo [freephotoipods.com] | It really works! [wired.com]
      • Following their logic:

        Microsoft had legal issues before because they didn't indemnify. Now they have legal issues because of indemnification. So they just have more legal issues, which means you should pay SCO a license to avoid infringement of their copyright in using Microsoft's products.
    • Well, except for one detail...

      Who, exactly, has actually paid any legal costs of defending themselves against SCO other than IBM?

      Sure there have been reports about people selling out to SCO, but I can't think of any organization that SCO has wanted to sue thaat has spent any money defending themselves in court.

  • MS trying to use their own patents? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Slartibartfast ( 3395 ) * <ken@jot[ ]rg ['s.o' in gap]> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:06AM (#10777256) Homepage Journal
    One thing that occurs to me, not that I harbor an ill will against Microsoft , is that this could be the call to arms of MS gettingready to start trying to collect/stifle with their patent suite. After all, just last week(?), MS pointed out that they feel they have all sorts of rights regarding myriad open protocols. Perhaps this is just to make their customers feel safe, considering what they may be about to try with Linux customers? Thank heavens that IBM can fight this one toe-to-toe.

    • Re:MS trying to use their own patents? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Pros_n_Cons ( 535669 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:23AM (#10777474)
      You're exactly right

      They've spent the last 2 years accumulating as many patents as they could, some of them incredibly silly. They are getting ready to mount a legal attack, perhaps to the wine/NTFS/mono(?) distro's of the world. There might be something to this sue the customer thing cause MS has just gave a couple billion to linux companies (novell/sun) in order to clear their name. When they come for linux they sound like they'll come for its customers. Again, I don't know if they can win but they seem to be spending billions which says they atleast think they can.
    • Probably not MS directly. They will probably pull an SCO and fund somebody to do it for them.

      This is a good tactic. Since MS/SCO is the only one suing they will probably never pay out.

      Of course SCO is only suing it's own customers and partners so that might throw a monkey wrench into the plan. What happenes when MS sues one their own customers?

    • Not exactly (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DJerman ( 12424 )
      MS is trying to unearth software patents that affect basic OS and app issues.

      They want to do it because:

      a) they have a patent warchest to make cross-license deals which don't cost them a dime and let their products off the hook.

      b) they have a $30bn warchest for those that can't be threatened into a cross-license

      c) Linux, OpenOffice, Apache and other free projects don't have these advantages.

      They're trying to increase the cost of doing business for all programmers by saying "here's a money source,

    • I doubt it ... yet. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by debest ( 471937 )
      ..this could be the call to arms of MS gettingready to start trying to collect/stifle with their patent suite.

      I believe it unlikely that Microsoft will start to pull out the patent weaponry against anyone at this time.

      A patent attack is different from claiming copyright infringment in the code: SCO public propaganda aside, remedying copyright violations (if any exist) is a relatively trivial matter of rewriting the sections of code proven to have been unlawfully copied. Patent violation, on the other ha
    • could be the call to arms of MS gettingready to start trying to collect/stifle with their patent suite. . . . Thank heavens that IBM can fight this one toe-to-toe.

      I wholeheartedly agree with you, and think it is far more one-sided. MS could file suit against five million Linux users. IBM could file suit against one hundred million Windows users. MS would get nuked ... *if there were any grounds for suing the users of products for that product's IP infringement*. But there is none - this is entirely about

  • Let's all sue each other now! (Score:5, Funny)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:06AM (#10777264)
    Everyone buddy up and sue each other now! Microsoft will have to defend us against ourselves.

  • Nope. (Score:4, Informative)

    by JollyFinn ( 267972 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:06AM (#10777267)
    This is just a case where instead of both customers and MS as target. MS says that customers are not the target its only MS. Also they probably think they could counter sue any big player suing them.

  • This isn't the first time (Score:5, Interesting)

    by leroybrown ( 136516 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:09AM (#10777293) Homepage
    Henry Ford did something similar to this in the early 20th century. Other automobile manufacturers claimed to have a patent or some such nonsense on what a car is. They didn't like Ford and wouldn't "license" the idea to him, and threatened to sue anyone who bought a car from Ford. Ford insured his customers against any lawsuit brought against them by the other car manufacturers. It was a huge coup for his business and Ford eventually won out his lawsuit against the other manufacturers.

    • Time to do so with your Linux products!
    • I did not know that.

      Actually, I thought it was bullshit and that type of U.S. litigation was a relativeley recent thing. So, I googled around a bit, and it looks to be true:

      http://www.cojoweb.com/selden-motor-car.html

      It seems that Mr. Selden, a patent attorney, was working the patent system way back then. He filed for it in 1879, but delayed issuance until cars were more popular.

      http://www.bpmlegal.com/wselden.html

      The above link has a great image of the "Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacture

  • A publicity stunt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Badgerman ( 19207 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:09AM (#10777297)
    I think it's fairly obvious it's a publicity stunt. I hadn't heard of any lawsuits affecting customers anyway, and it's just extending an existing policy.

    It's just another tool to take on Linux and OS advocates. It doesn't make Windows any less bloated or secure.

    However, this does spell out some of their battle plan - they're going to play up the IP angle more.

    I'm curious as to how the Linux/OS community will respond.

    • How will the Linux/FOSS community respond? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Vengeance ( 46019 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:23AM (#10777480)
      As we always do: By continuing to write and release useful software. Companies which are scared off can just go ahead and tie themselves (and an increasing portion of their profit margins) to Microsoft. Smarter organizations will benefit from what is freely available, and will prosper in the long-term. Microsoft will adapt or die.

  • It's not a defense move, it's an attack (Score:3)

    by Delirium Tremens ( 214596 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:10AM (#10777305) Journal
    MS is most likely readying itself to attack customers on non-Windows platforms.
    They are basically saying I'm suing your customers, and you can't stop me. Try to sue mine, but I'll stop you 'cause I already secured all those IP rights with Sun Microsystems and all.
    Mwaaah ... MWAAAAAH ...

    Or maybe I am being over-paranoid.

    • I bet they will find yet another one of those 3 letter companies on their way.. one that happens to have a lot more 'IP' then MS can dream of for now.
      MS, meet IBM... Oh wait... you already know eachother ;P

      Nah, this looks more like 2 other things
      - They actually think that such a thing might happen
      - Its nice publicity and a good marketing argument
  • What did I miss. Who said M$ used stolen code? Is this just some scare tactic for people who use Linux, to say "see... you could get sued an nobody will protect you"??

    But on the other hand, I have to say it is nice to have a manufacturer stand behind their product. Although I would preffer if M$ withheld windows release dates until they had all the bugs worked out.

  • Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gowen ( 141411 ) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:11AM (#10777318) Homepage Journal
    Is Microsoft opening itself to defending thousands of lawsuits against their customers?
    No. It's opening the way for the next attack on the supposed IP irregularities of Linux. Microsoft is an 800lb gorilla, with an enormous patent stockpile to use againts agressors. Just making this promise means they're unlikely to have to go to court.

    RedHat, or whoever, aren't. They simply can't make comporable promises. Mix in some FUD from MS's attempts to get licensees from TCP/IP, HTTP etc (slashdot, passim) and you'll keep your business consumers scared away from Open Source.

    Ob/. : 3) Profit...
    • Microsoft is an 800lb gorilla, with an enormous patent stockpile to use againts agressors...

      RedHat, or whoever, aren't.

      But IBM is.

  • Best Defense (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:11AM (#10777319)
    Microsoft's going to defend me when I get sued for IP violations? Wow, that's great!

    Now all I need is a legitimate copy of Windows.
  • There's a company called Acacia [acaciaresearch.com] that's suing lots of .edu for streaming media patent infringements. Looks like MS has offered a pretty big shield for .edu here - so long as you stream using MS tech, they'll protect you.

    That'll be a blow for Acacia - their business plan relies on suing individual institutions in a 'divide and conquor' manner and persuading others to license the right to stream media for a pretty substantial fee. They won't want to take on MS.
  • Is Microsoft opening itself to defending thousands of lawsuits against their customers?"

    I'd say it's more likely that by a remarkable coincidence, a rogue company, with no discernible ties to Microsoft, will begin suing Open Source end-users for IP infringement, effectively underscoring the significance of Microsoft's indemnification. Remind you of something [sco.com]?

    --

    I write stuff [livejournal.com], but not that often and not that well...

  • Aimed Squarely at Linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by antiMStroll ( 664213 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:12AM (#10777333)
    What possible relevance could this have to core Microsoft products? Very clever actually, insulating MS clients from a non-existent risk in order to imply it's a valid concern. There's no legal path from seller code theft to client culpability. Microsoft's way once again of bolstering the SCO suit (unless they're genuinly worried their Shared Source Initiative unearthing skeletons.).

  • Best of both worlds (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tbase ( 666607 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:16AM (#10777388)
    If a company doesn't have an airtight case, they're not going to go up against someone who is going to be defended by Microsoft. So anyone who gets sued will be doing MS a favor, because it's an easy way for MS to find companies with good IP that they can then buy (or crush and then buy), then turn around and sue other software companies for violating their newly acquired IP. It's freaking brilliant if you ask me. Brilliantly evil, but brilliant nonetheless.

  • No Risk (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Hasler ( 414242 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:20AM (#10777439) Homepage
    > Is Microsoft opening itself to defending
    > thousands of lawsuits against their customers?"

    No. They are revealing that they know that there is no significant risk of end-users of software being sued.

  • Harder for the little guys (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Quantum Jim ( 610382 ) <jfcst24NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:29AM (#10777545) Homepage Journal

    Microsoft just wants to make it harder for the little software developing companies and individuals.

    It is a really stupid patent system when someone who buys a product in good faith is liable for the other person's mistakes. That's why the big companies - with lots of dough - are promising to fund the legal expendures of their customers. The threat of these kind of lawsuits haven't changed much in the last twenty years (and IANAL); however, the fear of them seems to be increasing. This is extortion insurance - in my outraged opinion.

    If this becomes standard practice, then these guarantees to indenify users will cost the individual and small software company developers much more than the big guys. Imagine that the only reason people can't start a development factory are the (non life altering insurance) legal costs rather than physical constraints. That's f'''ed up!

    • If this becomes standard practice, then these guarantees to indenify users will cost the individual and small software company developers much more than the big guys. Imagine that the only reason people can't start a development factory are the (non life altering insurance) legal costs rather than physical constraints. That's f'''ed up!

      No, it means you start building your company first to make it as close to judgement proof as possible as opposed to mere limit of liability as was the prior practice. First

  • Good news! (Score:4, Funny)

    by budhaboy ( 717823 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:29AM (#10777547)
    I have decided to indemnify each and every person on the planet from damages resulting from this bottle of vitamins sitting on my desk.

    Not only am I indemnifying you from damages from the bottle, but also the contents!

    You may now all pay homage to me as your God.

  • The real attack will begin with openGL. This is not about the server space (where they have to fear IBM/HP/SUN/Novell/ etc.). This is about the desktop.I am guessing that it will probably start in the new year.

  • Another brick in the wall of "protectionism" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by crovira ( 10242 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:32AM (#10777594) Homepage
    America is bricking itself off. Now every idea will have to be bought and paid for. The barriers to entry will be such that what created America will cease to exist.

    Since any idea can be found to originate with the words used to express it, that will mean the slow strangulation of original thought; just because you'll have to pay God knows who, probably some lawyer who's acquired a bunch of patents, God know how much, every time the light bulb goes off in your head. (The imagery owes something to Edison.)

    It won't take too long before you stop attempting to act and then to even think.
  • Why does noone point out that
    Opens Source Risk Management [osriskmanagement.com] do that for opensource products in a vendor-neutral way ?

    And, btw, MS new "indemnification" doesn't come for free like Internet Explorer, all MS users will pay for that ...

  • Okay....! (Score:5, Informative)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipakNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:35AM (#10777629) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft faced lawsuits in the past over actual or alleged stolen software. The cases have tended to drag on for ages, be expensive for the plaintif, etc.


    In light of the switch in tactics by the RIAA and MPAA, it might have dawned on Microsoft that future litigants might go after consumers of Microsoft products, rather than Microsoft itself. Such a tactic could, potentially, reap plaintifs far more money for a lower investment. If used by a competitor, it could also potentially cripple Microsoft by scaring off customers in future.


    I think Microsoft has a great deal of reason to be concerned, especially if they are continuing along the path of misappropriating other people's stuff.

  • Windows Filesystems (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The thing that I find heinous is that there are hundreds of lawyers employed by MS to probe IP licensing and patenting opportunities. Every time we license an MS OS we pour a large percentage of money into useless lawyers, advertising, packaging, princely facilites, yet very little money into legitimate R&D. What a crime.

    I'd heard rumblings that MS were trying to come up with an attack on non-MS OS implementation of vfat/NTFS (read Mac and Linux), fortunately there was a revelation that IBM might hav
  • Subject says it all, are Windows Mobile customers protected? after all handhelds and mobile gadgets are quite popular and a money spinner for many companies.

  • Behemoth company has Behemoth Lawyers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tezza ( 539307 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:45AM (#10777734)
    Okay, the first question I'd ask is:

    Was this backed by in-house council, or was it backed by an external Law Firm.

    If it is inhouse council, if the wheels fly off and there is a tide of litigation, Microsoft can only really fire the Council, David Kaefer and staff.

    If it is an external law firm it is different. There are apparently only a handful [64.233.183.104]. If they frig it up, microsoft can sue them for giving them the wrong legal advice. These law firms' worth may not add up to the same amount as Micorosfts liability, but it helps

    So I think the cream of the Intellectual Property lawyers have advised Microsoft what their exposure to any possible liability is. Law is hard and difficult, but there are a lot of very talented, very experienced lawyers out there, and they work for huge corporates, like M$. If they have mapped out every single current possible legal avenue, then taken into account some possible shifts in Case Law, and possible new laws from government, they could be fairly sure what the exposure could be.

    Actuaries do this for insurance all the time, and it makes insurance companies £££ x 10^£££.

  • With open-source there are NO such issues; if any infringing code is found, it is simply replaced.

    End of story.

    Way to confuse and complicate things for your clients, Microsoft.

    That's another reason why no one should run MS products, it's legally entangled.

  • This is the other prong of the SCO strategy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ch-chuck ( 9622 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:48AM (#10777761) Homepage
    I always like 'dual prong' strategies. Buy into SCO and get them to smear GNU/Linux with FUD and lawsuits,and then offer guarentees that Windows closed code doesn't have that problem. Kinda like the good cop/bad cop treatment.

    "Look, I'm trying to help you, but if you don't use our product I can't help what Guido here might do to your kneecaps".

  • The devils in the small print - LOOPHOLES (Score:5, Informative)

    by NZheretic ( 23872 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @11:53AM (#10777810) Homepage Journal
    Even Microsoft's 2004 May 27th changes which apply only to customers under enterprise licensing contracts, which Microsoft claims grants greater immunity, contains many loop holes which greatly negate Microsoft's liability.

    The section 6 clause contain exceptions:
    Our obligations will not apply to the extent that the claim or adverse final judgment is based on (i) specifications you provide to us for the service deliverables; (ii) code or materials provided by you as part of service deliverables; (iii) your running of the product, fix or service deliverables after we notify you to discontinue running due to such a claim; (iv) your combining the product, fix or service deliverables with a non-Microsoft product, data or business process; (v) damages attributable to the value of the use of a non-Microsoft product, data or business process; (vi) your altering the product, fix or service deliverables; (vii) your distribution of the product, fix or services deliverable to, or its use for the benefit of, any third party; (viii) your use of our trademark(s) without express written consent to do so; or (ix) for any trade secret claim, your acquiring a trade secret (a) through improper means; (b) under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (c) from a person (other than us or our affiliates) who owed to the party asserting the claim a duty to maintain the secrecy or limit the use of the trade secret. You will reimburse us for any costs or damages that result from these actions.

    Loophole #1 "(ii) code or materials provided by you as part of service deliverables" This would effectively still indemnify Microsoft against most of the Timeline Inc patent claims, as it is the developer/end user's code ( even visual basic code ) which would be in violation of Timeline's patent claims.

    Microsoft licensed Database/Datawarehouse technology from Timeline Inc, but unlike Oracle and other database vendors, Microsoft chose a license that did not grant Microsoft's customers the right to fully use that technology.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/20/sql_server _developers_face_huge/ [theregister.co.uk]
    Timeline has extended it's patent claims to cover many featured widely used by developers, both ISV and in house.
    http://www.winnetmag.com/Article/ArticleID/41479/4 1479.html [winnetmag.com]

    Timeline Inc has won a US Washington Court of Appeal judgment against Microsoft for the right to sue Microsoft's customers, and subsequently sued Cognos. On February 13, 2004, Cognos settled at cost to Cognos totaling $1.75 million.
    http://www.timeline.com/021304PR1.htm [timeline.com]

    Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers and users exposed to IP threats. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents
    http://web.archive.org/web/20020806173115/http://w ww.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/ [archive.org]

    "Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to software developers or third parties who use Microsoft toolkit, language, development or operating system products to provide GIF read/write and/or any other LZW capabilities in their own products(e.g., by way of DLLs and APIs)."

    Other Loopholes include (v) and (vii), but the killer is (iv), which disclaims any
    indemnity for users who wish to input any data. (ix)(a), also since literally it excludes trade secret liability for improper action on
    anyone's part, including MS.

    Does Microsoft's new agreement include such loopholes? Anyone have a link handy?

  • FUD, and /. bought it? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @12:04PM (#10777938) Homepage Journal

    This is just FUD, I think.

    Intellectual property falls into the following general areas. Infringement is completely different for each area:

    1. Patents
      Anyone using patented technology (even in a "device" they didn't make) can infringe. However, the idea that some patent holder would sue Microsoft customers for patent violation strains the imagination. I suppose as a business tactic someone might do it to hurt MS, but the negative feedback they would get would dwarf any harm done to MS. Maybe after they sue Microsoft first, but I can't imagine Microsoft a) letting it get that far and b) leaving the patented technology in place.
    2. Copyrights
      FUD. Unless you make copies and distribute them to others and harm the owner of the copyright in doing so, you don't infringe. I see no way a Microsoft customer can be liable for copyright infringement without also infringing against Microsoft.
    3. Trademarks
      FUD. If you just use Microsoft products, and don't display the products to others, I don't see how you can violate some hypothetical third party's trademark.
    4. Trade secrets
      FUD. The only person who violates a trade secret is the one who reveals it. The person who learns the secret is not liable for trade secret violation. They may be guilty of doing illegal things to
      get the secret, such as breaking and entering, but they aren't on the hook for trade secret violations.
    5. Contracts and licenses
      FUD. If you don't sign a contract or click through someone else's EULA to run a MS product, these don't affect you.
    6. (What The SCO Group Has)
      It's not known what this is, since it occupies a different reality from our own. OT: the Novell Board of Directors
      understood in 1995 [groklaw.net] that they retained the copyrights to UNIX after the sale of the UNIX business to the Santa Cruz Operation.

  • If this is Microsoft's strategy... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dragmorp ( 740278 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @12:14PM (#10778058)
    If this is Microsoft's strategy against open source, then I would say that are going to lose this battle.

    With this decision, Microsoft is making it clear that one of their main strategies against the onslaught of open source is to spread fear of lawsuits. They are setting themselves up to have the "better story" when it comes to the indemnification question.

    This makes the arms-length support of SCO (by licensing its "IP") make more sense. The more Microsoft can do to fund linux related lawsuits, especially those against end-users, the more effectively it can use fear to sell software.

    This may work for some time with very large accounts, but this strategy is a loser in the long run.

    People will view this whole indemnification business with a cynicism that will only grow with Linux's market share.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @12:25PM (#10778172)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Is it just me... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by suwain_2 ( 260792 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @12:29PM (#10778218) Journal
    The software world seems to think that, if I use Windows, and it turns out Microsoft stole code, I am personally liable.

    Maybe I missed a (hairbrained?) ruling somewhere that changed the precedent, but wouldn't it seem that I'm safe from lawsuits anyway over Microsoft's code theft?

  • My guess is it's only a smoke screen (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rfc1394 ( 155777 ) <Paul@paul-robinson.us> on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @12:58PM (#10778601) Homepage Journal
    To allow Microsoft to claim it grants indemnification whereas Linux does not, but it turns out instead of being a shield it's an umbrella with holes in it. More Public Relations shilling of empty promises.

    MS had to try to say something to make it look like what they have to offer is better than Linux in view of the clear and obvious language in Microsoft's EULAs that explicitly deny any liability or indemnification for any form of infringement for your use of their software.

    If someone who has a patent infringed by Windows 95/98/NT/ME/2000/XP and wanted to be nasty they could pull an RIAA style bulk lawsuit strategy against every retail and business user of the version or versions of Windows that carried some infringing technology that they could find. Most people would be unable to defend against such suits and might have to settle. And Microsoft wouldn't owe them a dime in compensation or be responsible at all for indeminfication.

    However, such a lawsuit would be a public relations disaster for Microsoft that they would probably make some sort of settlement to provide relief for end users in such a case or might intervene to defend against it. Maybe just buy the company that has the patent.

  • Note to Microsoft Legal Dept. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eyepeepackets ( 33477 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @03:09PM (#10780027)
    No, no, no -- you have it all wrong! What you should do is indemnify all the individual users and OEMs against your software: Seems the poor bastards are getting creamed in many numerous and expensive ways because of your crappy products. True justice would see a world-wide class action suit you (Microsoft) to cover all the loses individuals and businesses have suffered because of your slopware.

    The EULA? Can a person on the street walk up to another and say, "I'm not responsible for my actions!" and do whatever they like to the other and suffer no consequences? No, and neither is your EULA a license to act irresponsibly by saying up front, "We're not responsible for our products."

    Funny that the very marketing department which has made you, Microsoft, so successful is the noose around your collective necks: Microsoft marketing says, "Hey, buy our products, they are the best!" whilst the EULA says, "We're not responsible for our products!" whilst the customer says, "Hey, I'm getting screwed here because of this lousy product!"

    What do you call sky-high promises before the money changes hands followed by complete avoidance of responsibility when the promises turn out to be misleading _after_ the money changes hands? I think the legal term is fraud.

    *Waves to packs of hungry lawyers, points to Redmond* Sic 'em! There's gold in them thar shills!

  • Why this is important--and a good thing (Score:3, Informative)

    by John Murdoch ( 102085 ) on Wednesday November 10, 2004 @05:46PM (#10781882) Homepage Journal

    Hi!

    What is Microsoft doing?
    Microsoft is shifting more and more of their revenue stream to server products. There are only so many features you can stuff into Word, and let's face it, OpenOffice [openoffice.org] is perfectly suitable for most office workers. Microsoft is also pushing hard to have third-party software (and hardware) vendors embed Microsoft components in their software. We're in the Microsoft ISV program--and I have spent time with the corporate legal staff discussing whether or not Microsoft will indemnify us against any claim for IP infringement. This announcement clears the issue up--they will.

    What's the big deal?
    I work for a company [lutron.com] that makes lighting controls. We make the dimmer in your dining room--but we also make control systems for very large projects, such as Lincoln Financial Field [lincolnfin...lfield.com] (home of the Philadelphia Eagles). We provide Windows-based control software (among lots of other things)--it would be a serious issue if a vendor to Microsoft sued us for infringement based on Microsoft's code. That's exactly what SCO did to AutoZone [autozone.com]. SCO didn't contend that AutoZone intentionally infringed--they alleged that AutoZone was using an app developed by IBM that infringed. Nonetheless, AutoZone lands in court in an IP infringement case. Microsoft's indemnification effectively means that if somebody sues us on the same kind of claim, we don't have to worry. Microsoft will defend the case, bankrupt the attorneys, crush the plaintiffs, reduce their homes to rubble, enslave their children, and--and ruin their self-esteem!. We won't have to be involved at all. 8-)

    From our perspective, that's a good thing.

    But doesn't this portend an onslaught of Microsoft attorneys arrayed against the forces of Open Source? Isn't the battle of Armageddon nigh?
    No. This simply means that Microsoft is telling vendors that embed Microsoft products that they do not have to worry about getting caught up in an IP infringement case. That's all.

Slashdot Top Deals

Adding features does not necessarily increase functionality -- it just makes the manuals thicker.

Close