Microsoft/Samsung Ink Patent Deal 131
An anonymous reader wrote with an article at ZDNet, discussing further implications of their patent cross-licensing initiative. With options already in place with Fuji Xerox, the company is now signed up with Samsung as well. From Samsung's perspective, it is simple: these deals ensure it can sell products using Linux without facing a suit from the Redmond-based corporation. "The notion that customers and businesses need Microsoft's legal go-ahead to run Linux has been controversial for some time, with the issue rising to the surface last November after Microsoft reached an accord with Linux vendor Novell. Novell has since taken issue with Microsoft's assertion that the deal represents an acknowledgment that Linux infringes on Microsoft patents."
I'm going to start a business (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm going to start a business (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, MS can argue in court that your acceptance of the prior deal was basically an admission that you wouldn't have been allowed to distribute Linux without their blessing. So as soon as you sign the deal, you are forever controlled by MS (at least with regard to Linux distribution). Why would a company purposefully agree to have one of their business plans depend upon the whims of another company?
I typically don't like conspiracy theories, but it is almost as if Microsoft is creating these deals (using shady behind-the-scenes payoffs?) in order to create a climate where they can, eventually, either crush Linux through patents, or at least make money off of every Linux sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I guess my point was that it may not cost much right now, but you're basically locking yourself into paying these fees, and have no control over how big those fees might be in the future (it's not like you can buy this "patent protection" from a competitor at a lower price). Being at the mercy of another company seems unsafe.
As to the "very good risk of being sued", I guess that's the very core of the debate. It's really unclear whether Microsoft could win
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's very debatable. I can't think of a single occasion where Microsoft has sued anyone for violating software patents, and in the case of Linux they haven't even identified any patents they allege it violates. All they've said is basically "something that good must violate our patents, and if we ever work out how we might possibly sue someone".
The time to start getting worried is when Microsoft actually points to a specific pate
Re: (Score:2)
If prior art is no longer a reasonable defense for Linux distributors/users to fend off anti-competitive patent claims... well then that's all probably going to change a lot sooner than some competitors would like to admit. [slashdot.org]
Give you 3 guesses who.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dont you know how Mafia works ??
BOSS : Pay me the money, I will give you protection (from myself)
Shop owner : Here 100 $ per month
Next month ....
BOSS : Pay me the money ......
You're not going to start a business that way (Score:3, Informative)
After all, MS can argue in court that your acceptance of the prior deal was basically an admission that you wouldn't have been allowed to distribute Linux without their blessing. So as soon as you sign the deal, you are forever controlled by MS...
Sounds reasonable at first, but no court will even consider that argument. The problem ( from the court's point of view ) is that if company A makes a deal with MS and the court rules that company A's actions constitute an interpretation of the law, then that sets a precedent for company B. ( and C, D, etc )
In other words, if such things were admitted, MS could hire a shill company to do something stupid, and the stupidity becomes precedent which is binding on everybody who does business with MS. This
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*Ahem*SCO*cough*Novell
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It'd be interesting to see Microsoft try and sue anyone without actually citing an infringing patent, on the basis of "you must have thought you were infringing or you wouldn't have signed that contract". I suspect that the courts require more specific evidence than that.
If Microsoft isn't actually suing anyone over Linux, it's prob
Re: (Score:2)
Otherwise known as "doing the SCO."
MS will have their Windows Embedded all primed (Score:2)
Don't worry, MS will make sure that Samsung has software for use in their products.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If that is suicidal, then Microsoft is suicidal as well. Remember, the Microsoft-Novell deal is symmetrical (I am less sure about the Microsoft-Samsung deal) - the covenant i
Re: (Score:2)
Customers are asking OEMs for Linux systems but the OEMs are REALLY getting nervous about selling Linux based systems because of what Microsoft would do to their existing/future contracts and marketing $$$ related to Microsoft Windows. We all know that Microsoft has told its sales force to tell OEMs they can support Linux but must not "lead with Linux". This means OEM's can't promote Linux and therefore they can't compete with others by marke
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, I already have a patent on that... but if you still want to proceed, I will gladly collect royalties
tm
Re: (Score:2)
and it seems that only rich companies can legally get away with extortion.
Gotta love it when the US govt stands back and allows organized crime behavior from corperations.
Re: (Score:1)
USA has been zealously hitting Samsung (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Lawyers do it (Score:2)
Lawyers do it. RIAA does it. Nothing new here. Move along.
I think there is "prior art" here (Score:2)
There is something familiar with these "cross-licensing" contracts MS has been aggressively pursuing recently. To me, it signals a move by MS towards a business model conceived in Sicily and perfected some years later in Chicago.
Hmmm...what was the code name for the project at MS to develop Win95 again? I sense that such a move has been in the cards at MS for quite some time now...
Got Permission? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Got Permission? (Score:5, Funny)
Do I need to check with them before I use my electric toothbrush, as well?
That depends.
Does it run Linux?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Got Permission? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh well that's OK because so does Microsoft!
2020: MS' business plan (Score:2)
-Push for MS-Favorable patent laws
-Cross-license patents as ONE revenu stream
-Sue into oblivion companies that create real products, as the other revenu stream.
FYI: MS bought out NTP to avoid a patent suit in 2010 and fired all their programers and support people in 2016.
Re: (Score:1)
-Push for MS-Favorable patent laws
-Cross-license patents as ONE revenu[e] stream
-Sue into oblivion companies that create real products, as the other revenu[e] stream.
Re: (Score:1)
1) Find the most ridiculous and common aspects of computer programming to sneak past the US patent office.
2) Sue Microsoft into oblivion.
Microsoft/Samsung Ink Patent Deal (Score:5, Funny)
I call shenanigans, it was invented years ago. There is, quite literally, prior art!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, they have a plan for this, too (Score:1)
Novel, pioneering the fututre (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Novel, pioneering the fututre (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody who uses Linux or likes linux should make a promise right now to never buy or use another MS product again. Not even a mouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Patent Monopoly/Cartels (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been part of some negotiations to sell some new applications that include GPL software to some established service providers to be deployed in their networks. They're all freaked out about "patent indemnity": how will a little company offer patent indemnity along with the apps they deliver? When the little company tells them "we abide by the GPL, so we're safe from license problems, and we wrote the new code ourselves", that's not good enough. The big companies now love to say "what if something happens to you like how Verizon is shutting down Vonage on patents, how will we cope with losing your services?" Even though Vonage has deep pockets, and there's nothing GPL about their conflict with Verizon.
Not only are the patents monopolizing innovations, and way too broadly. The entire racket has big, risk-averse companies avoiding business with the source of most innovation and economic growth: little companies. We are heading for a total freezeup of real innovation and growth. And these bogus patents, used like a weapon, are killing it.
Re: (Score:2)
How else would they be used? There's no such thing as a defensive-only patent. Just holding a patent is enough to cause damage to others, you don't even have to actively go around suing to be using it as a weapon. This sort of cross-licensing economy should not be making that more obvious. The only true defense against patents that the law provides is publication, and unfortunately its not balanced, sort of like leather armor in the days of gunpowder. An
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, and it never has been. The patent indemnity agreements formed recently have not changed anything - except perhaps to raise the general awareness of this problem.
Patents are patents (Score:1)
Regarding of whether the patent system is messed up, needs reform, etc, etc, there are still patents. Microsoft should be afforded the same right to protect their patents just like any other company. Now what exact patents that Linux might be infringing on remains to be seen.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it doesn't "remain to be seen". Microsoft and any other proprietary software house has had since 1992 to view the Linux source and determine if any of their "IP" was incorporated.
Microsoft claimed as long as TWO YEARS ago that Linux IS violating one or more of its "IP". IF that is true then they have a responsibility to INFORM the Linux kernel crew of the EXACT violations in order to mitigate the damages. They are not allowe
remember SCO? (Score:2)
I've heard that there are indeed legitmate Linux-related IP claims, and that they're based on IP MS has "borrowed". I think it's time to look into this.
Dance with the Devil (Score:1, Troll)
Cross-licensing good enough for now. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm waiting for the day when in a last-ditch effort Microsoft Open Sources Windows to remain relevant
Re: (Score:1)
fight fire with fire (Score:3, Insightful)
That is where I think most open source licenses suffer. If the license gave everyone standing to sue on the open software's behalf, then it would pay to sue M$ and others for infringing on open source. Then M$ can try to shake someone down for protection money and the person can respond by shaking down M$ for protection money. Currently, M$ holds all the guns.
Re: (Score:2)
The annoying this is that the situation is not symmetric. With copyright, the FLOSS camp use the GPL to protect their interests. This allows them to put pressure on (or sue) people who break the GPL.
But with patents, there is no reciprocity of control between proprietary and open-source groups. The proprietary guys patent everything they can think of, and then they agree not to sue each other. But no one in the open-source softwa
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmmmm. OK (Score:2)
outsmart Microsoft lawyers? Novell added to list (Score:5, Interesting)
LoB
RMS (Score:1)
summary from Groklaw (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft and Samsung Electronics have agreed to a broad, cross-licensing patent agreement that apparently includes a controversial clause that protects against any legal claims Microsoft may have on technology used in Linux....
Within the joint press release announcing the deal, however, the companies said, "Samsung and its distributors and customers may utilize Microsoft's patents in Samsung's products with proprietary software, and Samsung will also obtain coverage from Microsoft for its customers' use of certain Linux-based products
Re: (Score:2)
To me a "Linux-based product" sounds more like some gizmo with Linux embedded. Given that Samsung is in the business of making gizmos rather than distributing software, this seems the more likely interpretation.
Ridiculous (Score:1, Redundant)
Come on. They are simiply trying to minimize business risk, not trying to bash/crush/destroy Linux. Nothing else.
Yes, this is Slashdot, so anybody who does anything with Microsoft will be evil. Oh. I see. Never mind.
(btw, I believe that both parties would be interested in
Re: (Score:2)
Don't panic - Linux etc. not dead yet. (Score:2, Informative)
But following links in TFA, and back beyond them:
1. The M$ Balmer FUD bullshit:
"...and because open-source Linux does not come from a company -- Linux comes from the community -- the fact that that product uses our patented intellectual property is a problem for our shareholders..."
i.e. we can't threaten to sue *everyone*, so we picked-off the weakest member of the flock...
"But to the degree
Re: (Score:2)
Ahem: "FUD" was coined by Gene Amdahl to describe the tactics that IBM deployed against his company.
Fill overwhly broad stupid patents (Score:2)
How about something along the lines of "using 1's and 0's in order to do automated tasks and/or store data via branching and/or decoding processes." Of course that's ANY digital device (CPU, GPU, software, hardware, etc). But inflate that simple sentence into the usual 500-pages patent application, keeping it as broad and inclusive as possible, then send the news everywhere that you've just been able to
Re: (Score:1)
GPL? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, isn't what MicroSCOft doing in essence sublicensing the Program? And it appears to me (not being a Lawyer or subspecies thereof) that they have just lost there rights under this license.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be irrelevant soon when GPLv3 comes out, MS/Novell will certainly be in violation of that and Novell will have no choice but to somehow get out of this deal, or stick with only GPLv2 software (which will be not a lot). I assume this all applies to Samsung too, though I haven
This sounds really familiar... where have I heard (Score:1)
See what they're doing? (Score:1)
The Linux "patent pool" (Score:3, Interesting)
This, of course, is so infuriating that it makes most of us want to commit actual acts of homicide against the people pushing it.
MS has set up a Toll Bridge on Linux itself (Score:2)
Then when Samsung's contract runs out, MS will have a Windows Embedded fitted especially for Samsung's most lucrative products... and suddenly Linux marketshare starts plummeting even among large vendors.
So how much did Microsoft pay Samsung? (Score:2)
To bad... (Score:2)
gimmicks (Score:2)
Microsoft is trying to create the false impression that there is a significant patent risk when there actually isn't: first of all, any patent infringement that Microsoft were to sue over would be removed immediately, and secondly, the damage from such
A win for MS, bad for Samsung Novell Fuji et al (Score:2)
Yeah, but what's the upside? First, there's no evidence that MS has any property in Linux, so this changes nothing for Samsung, they could have easily sold products using Linux before (so did others, such as the Cowon A2, or the Tivo DVR, and MS never complained... I bet they'd love to have a few bucks any time someone used a Tivo, especially since it co
united front (Score:1)
Rather than allowing Microsoft to pick off Open Source co
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think that software should be patentable. So any software patent agreement with any company (including Microsoft) is a step on to the slippery slope.
I think the most desirable solution is that companies just ignore this kind of threat, for that's what it is. As others have said, if there were an ounce of truth in any claims that Linux violated any patents then Microsoft (in
Re: (Score:2)
2.Open Source will not sue Microsoft or any Microsoft customer over software patents.
3. No money will change hands in either direction.
a sort of 3 laws rewrite of this could be
1 Open Source Software (and related hardware devices) shall be considered a patent DMZ (patents do not exist inside the FLOSS community)
2 No Patent lawsuit shall be allowed that singles out any member of the "Software Community" (if you get
Patent enforcement through the BSA (Score:1)
Part of our motivation was the BSA. If for some reason they ever showed up at OUR door with their Government enforcers we'd easily waive our Linux systems in their face and be done with it.
Perhaps... not anymore.
The problem now is that the BSA could still, in theory, come to our business an
Re: (Score:2)
You still have two huge advantages against the BSA:
First, you have no legal relationship with any of their clients. That means they have no good excuse to knock on your door at all.
Second, you have a Linux distributor who will have to help defend you - if you can be targeted by patent crap, then any of their users can be targeted, and that's not good for their business. This doesn't apply if you're using an unknown/completely non-commercial distro - but even for Ubuntu there's Canonical to help you.
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably fine just having a single Ubuntu system. Canonical will probably back you against any patent claim. If you want to be more sure, you'd probably be ok installing just one RHEL system.
A Modest Proposal (Score:2)
As you are aware, Microsoft is selling a dubious protection racket to certain organizations -- notably, Novell and Samsung. Without actually claiming any infringement or offering even the barest shred of evidence of wrongdoing, Microsoft is selling patent indemnity to these companies. Microsoft "promises" not to sue them should patent violations in GPL software come to light.
This "service" is highly dubious, as there is little if any case law suggesting that, if unlicense
Re: (Score:2)
Since microsoft and others have closed sources, they very may well have violated the GPL by utilizing GPL'd source code in their closed source offering. It doesn't matter if it was on purpose or if it was done inadvertently.
If they have violated the GPL, then they are in violation of the copyright laws and "Intellectual Property" of the copyright holders in question. How would this copyright violation affect Microsoft customers?
Imagine if MSVCRT.DLL or some other 'redistributable'
Prior art (Score:2)
I've been using it for decades, and my grandfather used it for decades before that. So I don't see how they can possibly get a valid ink patent.
I've been using and recommending Samsung (Score:2)
Isn't it time for a ..... (Score:2)
Where are the open source legal forces? EFF??
Microsoft tax now shifted to Linux? (Score:2)
Sigh...
Thank you MS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(It works quite well with Linux too).
If I knew they were subscribing to this protection racket it may have influenced my decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Patent Reform (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Much of the law is based on precedent, which means that prior decisions in similar court cases influence or completely decide the outcome of current cases. The biggest problem with this kind of corporate behavior is that it sets a precedent. Microsoft can now demonstrate based on these two *HUGE* deals, that these companies acknowledge that Linux infringes on Microsoft's paten
Re: (Score:1)
Here's the catch, because you obviously don't know much about law, particularly when it comes to patent, trademark and copyright law.
Much of the law is based on precedent, which means that prior decisions in similar court cases influence or completely decide the outcome of current cases. The biggest problem with this kind of corporate behavior is that it sets a precedent. Microsoft can now demonstrate based on these two *HUGE* deals, that these companies acknowledge that Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents. Whether it *actually* does or not is not the issue. The precedent is now set. Novell and Samsung, with their assumed vast and knowledgeable legal team has gone over these agreements, and SIGNED them, affirming that without these agreements, they would be subject to expensive and lengthy legal battles.
From the corporate perspective, I can see why they've done it. Nobody wants another IBM vs. SCO battle, which is what this would be if they were to refuse these agreements. Except that this kind of case you wouldn't be dealing with a relatively small corporation like SCO, you would be facing off against a MULTI-BILLION dollar corporation with one of the best legal teams in the world that money can buy. From that perspective, the obvious answer is "Sign the agreement and be done with it".
I don't condone this behavior, I'm a firm believer that if your producing an honest product, you should be safe from big corporations threatening legal action against you. I think Microsoft should have some kind of basis for making the claims that they make. If Linux infringes their patents, come now, out with it. Show us your evidence, patent numbers, specific code. These corporations have obviously been given a quiet ultimatum... sign... or fight us.
Thats my 2 cents worth anyways.
And how does this hurt Samsung? It seems to be a careful move on their part.
It sure is a mystery why they don't ask Slashdot before making legal decisions.
Prisoner's Dilemma (Score:2)
That is the middle option.
Their best option is to ignore MS and, should MS choose to sue over something, win. The costs of doing this could be more than the middle option, but it would leave them in a good position for the future.
Their worst option is to ignore MS and, should MS choose to sue over something, lose. The costs of doing this are the
Re: (Score:2)
1) Samsung has just admitted that it is distributing products which infringe on MS patents.
2) This agreement is for a limited time.
Once this agreement runs out MS will be able to sue Samsung and it will have an ironclad case because samsung has admitted that it is violating MS patents.
You're using the term "precedent" rather loosely (Score:2)
Fortunately, that's not how it works. Only prior court decisions form a precedent, and then only if the prior cases have signific
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Shareholders might sue if they
You're going to have to do better than that. (Score:1)
When these companies sign such covenants, they believe that it's the ticket to the ground floor of the Next Big Thing. It's likely that Samsung sees that as a movement towards multi-function ultra-portable devices with embedded Linux. (currently their products are primarily WinCE... I still love the ironic resemblance of that name!)
Samsung isn't so much indemnifying themselves with MSFT, but rather making a compromise with an important business partner. They would rather sign a minor deal to avoid future p
Re: (Score:2)
You are kidding right? Microsoft may be after the almighty profit but they know that they have millions of dollars per minute flowing into their banks because of Windows and because of Windows they are able to control and protect that money stream. There is NO WAY IN HELL Microsoft is attempting to get profits from these deals. It is all about protecting the Windows monopoly and its cash flow.
You
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has been at this game far