Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents Microsoft Government The Courts The Almighty Buck News

Microsoft Helps Makers Defend Against IP Suits 115

Posted by Zonk from the can-you-pay-for-some-gum-too? dept.
TinBromide writes "Microsoft will pick up IP lawsuit defense costs for companies that make windows devices. In light of all the IP suits flying around, it would appear as though Microsoft is picking sides and it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David." From the article: "Microsoft lifted caps on the amount of legal fees it would reimburse to makers of embedded devices that are sued for intellectual property infringement as a result of licensing Microsoft code. The amount had previously been capped based on Microsoft's volume of business with a device maker that licensed its embedded operating systems. Microsoft also said it would indemnify device makers against trade-secrets lawsuits, in addition to patent, copyright, and trademark suits."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Helps Makers Defend Against IP Suits More

Microsoft Helps Makers Defend Against IP Suits

Comments Filter:

  • Microsoft the white knight? Not so fast... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TripMaster Monkey ( 862126 ) * on Friday February 10, 2006 @12:45PM (#14688726)

    Unless you're a patent holder or an attorney, chances are you're getting pretty sick of all the IP lawsuits lately. Given this, it's easy to applaud Microsoft for throwing their considerable weight behind device makers that run Windows, but we have to remember that Microsoft is a company, and companies simply do not engage in altruism for its own sake. Microsoft has a motive for this decision, and the following passage from TFA sums it up beautifully:
    Microsoft's expanded indemnity for device makers also positions Windows more favorably in the market against Linux and other embedded operating systems, Kaefer [Microsoft's director of business development for IP and licensing] says.
    So we'll get some relief from the patent nazis, but we'll pay for that relief with Linux being a reduced presence in the embedded OS market. It's a trade-off I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with.
    • I doubt this will influence many developers away from Linux, to be honest. With luck, it will deter far more frivolous IP suits than it does Linux apps.

      They're doing a good thing and protecting their interests at the same time. Just be happy that corporate interests can overlap with the greater good...then we all win.

    • Re:Microsoft the white knight? Not so fast... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kfg ( 145172 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @01:01PM (#14688876)
      Indeed, but don't forget what this really means.

      MS is being pushed hard enough to push back; and being pushed hard enough that it must push back by delivering some actual value to the customer for doing business with them.

      So they're selling a service rather than the software.

      Sound like a familiar model?

      KFG
    • There is another angle. Microsoft is gaming the system to give
      legitimacy to "software patents". They will setup a situation
      later where all parties involved in the lawsuit are really under
      control of Microsoft, and one party will 'lose', and MS will
      bail them out. MS does not care how much money they lose on
      such a bogus lawsuit, as long as they can set a legal precedent.

      Remember, "software patents" is the only weapon that MS has that
      they can use to attack GNU/Linux.
      • Absolutely. Do a search trhough uspto software patents. Programmers with graduate degrees and 10 years of experience will realize swiftly that most of the granted patents are for code that they could have written, representing not ingenuity but "a necessity for a particular task".

        The patent library is filling up with code that is a "necessary" for various highly particular tasks.

        It's very rare these days to see a truly creative work enter the patent office.

        Microsoft gives legitimacy and money to the paten
    • FTA: "Microsoft chairman Bill Gates is scheduled to speak at a computer security conference in San Jose, Calif., next week."

      Computer security and M$ is truly an oxymoron. I don't think that this will hurt Linux as much as Kaefer would like to think. M$ may be able to BS the average home user, but the embedded world may turn out to be a different story. Security and dependability are critical to embedded systems and M$ doesn't come to most peoples' minds when they think of security, not to mention depend
      • Actually M$ code can be quite secure. Once you rip out all the crap (mostly UI based) the kernal its self isn't too bad. NT3.51 was excellent from a security perspective.
        -nB
    • It may reduce it for a time... but after a bit you can just cite legal precidence. All the hard work will be done for you :)
    • Since patent litigation tends to have positive externalities it is underproduced. Sounds weird I know, stay with me.

      Positive Externalities: Clarity (at least more so) for other patent holders, if the patent is declared invalid (46% of them are) it benefits anyone wanting to use it not just the litigator, 95+% of patents have no commercial applications so they aren't litigated, litigation is expensive only 6% of litigation goes to trial (the rest settle).

      So actually we ought to encourage litigation. Its a
    • In response to your first paragraph, "Thank you, Captain Obvious."

      In reply to your second paragraph, I don't see any relief from abusive patents just because Microsoft says they will indemnify the device manufacturer for costs if the code they licensed from Microsoft is accused of be infringing.
    • So we'll get some relief from the patent nazis, but we'll pay for that relief with Linux being a reduced presence in the embedded OS market. It's a trade-off I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with.

      On the one hand, they strenghten their monopoly, and on the other hand they squeeze out Linux.

      Why did the US DOJ decide to stop pursuing the monopoly suit again?
      • On the one hand, they strenghten their monopoly, and on the other hand they squeeze out Linux.

        This won't really strengthen the MS monopoly, unless most vendors want free and limitless legal protection. (Then again...)

        Why did the US DOJ decide to stop pursuing the monopoly suit again?

        I don't even recall why. But last Fall the Bush admin just smacked (foreign) Samsung with the second-largest penalty ever for "monopoly" behavior (price-fixing). The AG pronounced it as "proof" that the Bush admin is serious abo
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • This isn't really news. This is just an extension of what Microsoft said when the SCO V Linux suit was sparking up & they said the same thing about users running thier OS.
    • If this is anything like their other indemnificaiton program, it gives them the right to tell you to use an 'upgrade' that deletes the infringing technology -- at the most expensive they can give you your money back and tell you to burn uninstall the program and burn the installation CD. In other words, the worst that they're likely to be forced to cover you for is the cost of your software.

      Now the can go a more expensive route to support you, but they have no requirement to, unless it jives with their

    • "So we'll get some relief from the patent nazis, but we'll pay for that relief with Linux being a reduced presence in the embedded OS market. It's a trade-off I'm not sure I'm entirely comfortable with."

      This most likely has a lot more to do with Blackberry than Linux. They want to sell their software, and they don't want the PDA market killed by frivolous lawsuits.
    • I'm surprised they hadn't agreed to pick up the tab earlier. People have frequently cited indemnification as a reason to pick up Windows rather than Linux or BSD. However, the occasional case has shown that such indemnification is illusory, and if you get caught with, say, an IP-violating Win2K printer driver, you're SOL.

      On the other hand, notice that it isn't full indemnification they're offering, merely legal costs. If it is ruled that the windows device does violate IP law, it is on the client to pay
  • Those people better be prepared to start paying out their rears now.
  • Does this cover any IP lawsuits against anybody who HAPPENS to make MS embedded devices?
    Does it only cover IP lawsuits related to the making of those devices?
    Does it only cover IP lawsuits related to MS technology in those devices?
    • I'm going to venture a guess that it's closest to #2.

      It would be in Microsoft's best interest to help protect people not only when it's MS's technology, but applications developed that make use of that technology.
    • From the article: "Microsoft lifted caps on the amount of legal fees it would reimburse to makers of embedded devices that are sued for intellectual property infringement as a result of licensing Microsoft code. . . ."

      Does that answer your question?

  • IP retards innovation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @12:54PM (#14688811)
    I think the reality is that Microsoft can't do this without also acknowledging that copyrights and patents retard innovation.

  • Where's the money? (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by dtfinch ( 661405 ) *
    Their indemnification is a worthless gesture until I see a company sued for using Microsoft software, and Microsoft indemnifies themm, as opposed to Microsoft being the plaintiff.
    • Their indemnification is a worthless gesture until I see a company sued for using Microsoft software, and Microsoft indemnifies themm, as opposed to Microsoft being the plaintiff.

      Thats like saying life insurance is worthless until your dead. While true (and why I don't have much), many people still find plenty of value in the comfort that they are protected "just in case".

      Seperatly about your reference "opposed to Microsoft being the plaintiff", I always hear stuff like that here but only ever hear abou

      • Thats like saying life insurance is worthless until your dead.

        Since becoming dead is a certainty and not a possibility, and since death is actually quite common, and since premature death has been recorded to have occurred many times... I don't think that's a good analogy at all.

        Just how much life insurance do you suppose would be sold if nobody had died in the past 20 years? Life insurance as protection against financial loss due to death is only valuable if people die. Indemnification against laws

        • Just how much life insurance do you suppose would be sold if nobody had died in the past 20 years? Life insurance as protection against financial loss due to death is only valuable if people die. Indemnification against lawsuits from 3rd parties is only valuable if these lawsuits have occured or are likely to occur.

          Thats exactly why I think this will have value to many people. It seems like every day you open the paper you read about another company is being sued for some type of IP infringement. Now i
        • Since becoming dead is a certainty and not a possibility...

          Bzzzt...wrong!!! You actually have a 50% chance of being immortal. In the history of modern civilization, there have been about 12 billion people. 6 billion of them have never died...

          If you want to find out which half you are in for sure, please list me as a benificiary. It won't make a difference if you're immortal, but it will help me out if you're not.
        • Just how much life insurance do you suppose would be sold if nobody had died in the past 20 years? Life insurance as protection against financial loss due to death is only valuable if people die. Indemnification against lawsuits from 3rd parties is only valuable if these lawsuits have occured or are likely to occur.

          So now the only things that are inevitable are death, taxes and IP lawsuits. Sounds about right, the way things are going :-)

      • Thats like saying life insurance is worthless until your dead. While true (and why I don't have much), many people still find plenty of value in the comfort that they are protected "just in case".

        Strictly speaking, it's life assurance, not life insurance. Insurance is for something that might happen, assurance is for something that will happen.
      • Thats like saying life insurance is worthless until your dead

        No, its like offering to insure you, a Ford driver, against being sued because your Ford contains patent infringing technology. You don't need any indemnity- you are not liable anyway.

        The situation with Linux is different - since all Linux users could, in principle, pass Linux to someone else, they might distribute patent infringing code even though they did not put it in Linux trhemselves. However, such a case being successfull relies on the J

    • How about this scenario?

      "Microsoft said Thursday it would expand the protections against intellectual property lawsuits it offers to manufacturers who make devices that run Windows."

      ...and (at the very bottom)...

      "In other news Thursday, Microsoft said it acquired FutureSoft Inc.'s DynaComm i:filter product for blocking employees' access to Web sites that contain pornography, gambling, and spyware from corporate PCs."

      so, what if funbags.com, losemyshirt.net, and icu.biz all develop their own PDA for

    • Atroturfing in action. It looks like I'm underrated flamebait. Even in the worst case, you can bet that Microsoft will spend 100x more marketing their indemnification than they will spend on the indemnification itself.
  • Might not be the best term. Anyone that actually knows the story would realize the folly in siding with Goliath.
    • Anyone that actually knows the story would realize the folly in siding with Goliath.

      Well, you could side with Ajax instead.

      KFG
    • If your a religious asshat, then you have a valid point.

      Those of us who make decisions logically know that in the real world, Goliath wins 99.9% of the time. Especially against the crap lawsuits that David is wielding.

      I suppose you could always pray for protection from litigation.
      • Your anti-religious asshattery ruins your point.

        Read the story. Call it a fable, if it makes you feel better. David wins, with a single blow.

        But, by all means, continue your bigotry if it makes you feel more enlightened.
        • I was looking for a +1 Funny modifier, One can only look to the slashdot moderators for an explanation of my comment being Interesting or Insightful.

          That being said, Your obviously an asshat too.
    • It's a fine line between metaphors that make sense.

  • Goliath had rocks in his head (Score:5, Funny)

    by revery ( 456516 ) <[charles] [at] [cac2.net]> on Friday February 10, 2006 @01:19PM (#14689031) Homepage
    it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David.

    Maybe I'm forgetting something about the Bible story (involving, I'm sure, the poor aerodynamic quality of patent attorneys and their unwillingness to sit still in the sling), but shouldn't this sentence read: "it might be better to side with Goliath when facing anyone but David"
  • 1. Say you'll indemnify people being sued because of your code.
    2. Secretly fund people to sue people using competitors code ( open source or not).
    3. throw chair
    4. PROFIT!!!
    5. There is no step 5

  • This could actually blow up in their face.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Indian ( 17922 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @01:38PM (#14689162)
    This might actually work the other way than expected. With Microsoft standing behind, the "product-less" IP companies would love to sue for millions/billions of $$.

    I won't be surprised if this actually ends up increasing the number of lawsuits.
    • I think most suits are brought under the assumption an agreement will be made, and a hefty sum of money paid, to avoid even more expensive legal costs.

      Likely Microsoft's idea here, is that by standing behind these people, no one will even try to sue them in the first place.

      Most lawyers are aware of how hard it would be to beat Microsoft in court, and most companies don't have that kind of capital to spend trying.
    • "This might actually work the other way than expected. With Microsoft standing behind, the "product-less" IP companies would love to sue for millions/billions of $$.

      I won't be surprised if this actually ends up increasing the number of lawsuits."

      Microsoft doesn't care about the lawsuits. They just want to sell their software. They've already been sued by the DOJ and EU. They're very experienced at dealing with this kind of stuff.

  • This is not that big of a deal for MS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Edmund Blackadder ( 559735 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @01:41PM (#14689171)
    If you read the article it says that Microsoft will reimburse legal costs for any infringement that results from use of microsoft software. So essentially they will reimburse when their software infringes.

    The key is this -- a patent holder will always sue the party with the deep pockets. And when MS software infringes MS is liable as well as the embedded device maker that licenced the code. And lets face it, Microsoft has deeper pockets than any embedded device maker out there. Thus, it is 99% certain that whoever sues an embedded device maker for patent infringement of their software code will also sue microsoft. Now since Microsoft will have to pay to defend themselves anyway, they would not incur much additional costs in taking over the defense of their client as well.

    Now, even if the patent holder sues only the embedded device maker and not Microsoft, MS would still have a big stake in the case, because if the patent holder wins that will make it easier for them to win against Microsoft in the future. Thus, MS would probably prefer to join the defense of that case as well.

    Thus, this policy does not really cost microsot much in addition to what they would have to incur for patent defense even if the policy was not there.

    But it still does provide embedded device makers with some help. Note also that if the embedded device maker loses the case, MS does not agree to reimburse the judgements, or the costs of injunctions and that is what may kill RIM, not the legal fees.

    • Re:This is not that big of a deal for MS (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, what typically happens is that a company goes after some relatively small targets and says either:

      1. We think you are infringing on our code, so pay us, or...

      2. We'll sue you and tie you up in court until either we win and establish a precedent so that we can go after others or we lose in which case, no harm no foul.

      Small companies often choose option (1) because they can't afford option (2). What Microsoft is saying is that they should always choose option (2) becuase MS has deep enough pockets a
  • Would be a shame if someone sued you over it.
  • From the article: "Microsoft lifted caps on the amount of legal fees it would reimburse to makers of embedded devices that are sued for intellectual property infringement as a result of licensing Microsoft code. . . ."

    IANAL, but wouldn't this mean that if an IP lawsuit would actually be filed against a device maker, the lawsuit would be invalid? For it is Microsoft infriging the patent, and not the device maker? Since the devicemaker just bought a product for which he should be able to assume there are n
    • No, let me give an example of what they mean:

      1. AssHat Inc. Makes a cell phone using Windows CE
      2. Miser LLC. Makes a very similar cell phone using Windows CE
      3. AssHat Inc. Sues Miser LLC. for copying their Windows CE use case.
      4. Microsft Inc. comes to the rescue and stomps all over the AssHats.
      5. Profit!

      The idea here is certain device manufacturers were afraid to make windows ce devices for fear of infringing on existing devices. Now they don't have to worry. Microsoft is essentially trying to rem
    • No, this is useful. Let's say that there is a library that infringes on a patent, and that the library is more or less freely redistributable, and that many third party developers distribute the library with their software, and that many users use the library in the course of running software.

      Patent suits can be brought against not only the library developer, but the third parties that have been making copies of it, and the end users that have been using it. As a practical matter, the patent holder will ten
  • So if MS covers windows developers... and IBM (Or was it Novell?) Covers Linux developers... does this mean Apple has to be next? Where is all this silliness heading?

  • Then, of course, there's timeline. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stephen Samuel ( 106962 ) <samuel AT bcgreen DOT com> on Friday February 10, 2006 @01:53PM (#14689246) Homepage Journal
    Then, of course there's Microsoft's dealings with Timeline [bcgreen.com], where they (for a substantial discount), signed a license with the company for a data warehousing technology that was almost guaranteed Not to cover customers and developers, because it didn't cover the case where the customer included any code of their own.

    When Microsoft's lawsuit (which pretty much echoed SCO's charge against Novell for the rights to UNIX of "We must have gotten those rights -- why would we pay so much for a contract that gives us so little"?) failed, their response to Timeline was. 'If you don't like it, then sue our customers.'

    Their software indemnity policy [microsoft.com] specifically does not seem to cover the kind of situation that they created with Timeline (where there is any sort of custom programming involved -- whether by the customer or Microsoft).
    (IANAL)

    Hmm... And almost immediately after a judge told Microsoft that they had this indemnity exposure for their customers, SCOg gets this 'idea' to create a big (fake) kerfluffel about how Linux has an indemnity exposure ... along with a $BIG 'license purchase' from Microsoft.

  • It must be Bad Metaphors Week (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DiamondGeezer ( 872237 ) on Friday February 10, 2006 @02:18PM (#14689396) Homepage
    In light of all the IP suits flying around, it would appear as though Microsoft is picking sides and it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David.

    Erm, does anyone realise that David defeated Goliath, rather than the other way around?
  • "it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David"

    Has the bible taught us Nothing?
    what's that you say? No?
  • Well Microsoft would have to wouldn't they. I mean how many times now have they been sued over the past 10 years? The "suers" must be running out of claims directly against Billy and now will soon turn their attention to the 2nd/3rd party code writers. Cause after all those folks have been using the same code Microsoft has gotten sued for. Frankly I think indemnification is a bunch of bullocks but when you deal with a company that has been sued left and right.... I guess it's a needed thing.
  • Who's going pay the Spacing Guild to go all the way to Arrakis to sue a sandworm over IP violations?

    Aside from the RIAA?

  • it might be better to side with Goliath when facing a patent wielding David."

    The way I remember the story of David v Goliath is that a little stone flung between the eyes of giant Goliath caused immediate death. What happened next? David used Goliath's own sword to cut off the giant's head then went and killed his brothers.

    Me thinks it might be better to side with David, but that's just me. Or, the author picked the wrong analogy.

    Thanks,
    Leabre

Slashdot Top Deals

Been Transferred Lately?

Close