PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft Patent Deal With JVC May Cover Linux Use



Dragonbite
January 17th, 2008, 07:36 PM
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205801061&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All (http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=205801061&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All)

Previously, Microsoft has reached Linux accords with Samsung, Novell, LG Electronics, and Linux distributor Xandros.

By Paul McDougall
InformationWeek
January 16, 2008 12:27 PM

Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) said Tuesday that it struck a patent cross-licensing deal with Japanese electronics manufacturer JVC that includes net payments from JVC to Microsoft.

Under the deal, both companies will exchange patent information related to the development and manufacturing of consumer products. More specific terms of the agreement were not disclosed.

Microsoft, however, did say that the deal's balance of payments tilts in its direction. "Microsoft is being compensated by JVC," Microsoft said in a statement.

The statement has raised speculation that Microsoft may be charging JVC for its use of the Linux operating system in some of its products. Among other things, JVC uses Linux in its streaming video networking gear.

Microsoft claims that Linux, an open source software project that's used alike by home PC enthusiasts and multinational corporations, infringes on 42 of its patents. Of late, the company has launched an enforcement campaign under which it's been attempting to collect royalties from vendors that use Linux commercially.

So far, Microsoft has reached Linux accords with Samsung, Novell, LG Electronics, and Linux distributor Xandros -- among others.

Last year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said his company also expects payment from computer users who run a version of Linux distributed by Red Hat.

"People [who] use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to eventually compensate us," Ballmer said at a company event in London in October.

Microsoft isn't the only company that's sought to claim ownership over parts of Linux. The SCO Group has claimed that Linux violates copyrights relating to the Unix operating system. Last year, a judge ruled that SCO has no ownership stake in Unix -- making the bankrupt vendor's claim largely moot.

For its part, the Linux camp has fiercely denied that the operating system violates any commercial patents or copyrights. Microsoft, to date, has refused to specify exactly which patents it believes Linux violates.

Boy, after this part
Last year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said his company also expects payment from computer users who run a version of Linux distributed by Red Hat.

"People [who] use Red Hat, at least with respect to our intellectual property, in a sense have an obligation to eventually compensate us," Ballmer said at a company event in London in October. I started thinking about installing as much Red Hat stuff I can (Fedora, CentOS) and see how much of a bill I can wrack up!!

fatality_uk
January 17th, 2008, 07:44 PM
As far as I know, MS has not publicly stated which patents are suposedly being infringed! Am I right in thinkig this?

PriceChild
January 17th, 2008, 07:46 PM
As far as I know, MS has not publicly stated which patents are suposedly being infringed! Am I right in thinkig this?Yes. The above article states this.

Æniad
January 17th, 2008, 07:52 PM
Last year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer said his company also expects payment from computer users who run a version of Linux distributed by Red Hat.


Their business policy never ceases to amaze me.

Presto123
January 17th, 2008, 08:09 PM
"They stole something! We won't tell you what...BUT THEY STOLE SOMETHING!"

Next thing you know someone will sue because they had a patent on the idea of a hard drive...

KiwiNZ
January 17th, 2008, 08:09 PM
Their business policy never ceases to amaze me.

Why? patent law requires them to defend it or lose it.
If others are infringing on intellectual property and making revenue from that infringing then they should compensate

p_quarles
January 17th, 2008, 08:18 PM
Why? patent law requires them to defend it or lose it.
If others are infringing on intellectual property and making revenue from that infringing then they should compensate
That's not what they're doing, though. The slimy part is the fact that Ballmer is making public accusations of patent infringement, and thus spreading FUD, rather than going through the proper legal channels. They should either sue Red Hat for compensation or keep quiet about it.

In many situations, making a public accusation of wrongdoing without taking legal action against the offender is considered libel. So, it's not just unethical -- what Ballmer is doing is in a legally murky area. IANAL.

KiwiNZ
January 17th, 2008, 08:22 PM
That's not what they're doing, though. The slimy part is the fact that Ballmer is making public accusations of patent infringement, and thus spreading FUD, rather than going through the proper legal channels. They should either sue Red Hat for compensation or keep quiet about it.

In many situations, making a public accusation of wrongdoing without taking legal action against the offender is considered libel. So, it's not just unethical -- what Ballmer is doing is in a legally murky area. IANAL.

Agreed
But remember what is in the press and on the www is not always fact.

smartboyathome
January 17th, 2008, 08:25 PM
I hope Canonical doesn't fall to Microsoft.

And about Microsoft sueing Red Hat: I don't think it will happen. Microsoft has infringed patents from Linux and Mac, and the patent holders for Linux, as well as Mac, could sue Microsoft for those patents.

ExpatPaul
January 17th, 2008, 08:48 PM
That's not what they're doing, though. The slimy part is the fact that Ballmer is making public accusations of patent infringement, and thus spreading FUD, rather than going through the proper legal channels. They should either sue Red Hat for compensation or keep quiet about it..

I can't see Microsoft seriously trying to take on Red Hat over this. For a start, they aren't naming the patents that they claim are being infringed which suggests that they are on much weaker legal ground than they are claiming.

It's also worth bearing in mind that IBM are quite heavily involved with red Hat (RHEL runs on IBM mainframes (http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21513.wss)) and the last people who tried to sue IBM without a case was SCO (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071227092646478).

Granted, Microsoft is a much bigger company than SCO - and has a viable business model - but they will also be aware that if they get into a real legal dispute with IBM then no-one will win but the lawyers.

Microsoft are simply trying to spread a little FUD to scare people into staying on their platform.

Cavalryman
January 18th, 2008, 12:18 AM
Next thing you know someone will sue because they had a patent on the idea of a hard drive...

Interestingly, the converse of that has already occurred. When waterbeds became popular, one manufacturer tried to corner the market by taking out a patent on the waterbed. Other manufacturers argued successfully that author Robert A. Heinlein had described the waterbed in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land sufficiently that anyone with basic construction skills could make one. The U.S. Patent Office ruled that the patent rights to the waterbed belonged to Heinlein if he chose to exercise them. He did not so choose and the waterbed remained in the "public domain."

DeadSuperHero
January 18th, 2008, 01:37 AM
All I have to say is "What the hell?"
First off, how much code has Microsoft EVER contributed to Linux? Zero. How many non-US counties alone develop Linux, and are not governed by ridiculous patent laws? LOTS.
It's just ridiculous how dumb Ballmer and Co. are. I sure hope they get a smarter CEO, maybe one that appreciates Open Source.

PriceChild
January 18th, 2008, 04:00 PM
All I have to say is "What the hell?"
First off, how much code has Microsoft EVER contributed to Linux? Zero. How many non-US counties alone develop Linux, and are not governed by ridiculous patent laws? LOTS.
It's just ridiculous how dumb Ballmer and Co. are. I sure hope they get a smarter CEO, maybe one that appreciates Open Source.I believe you're getting confused between copyright and patents.

You needn't write a single line of code to own a software patent on it.

DeadSuperHero
January 18th, 2008, 05:54 PM
You needn't write a single line of code to own a software patent on it.

Weird, I thought they went hand in hand...
So, technically I could sue Microsoft, because their OS resembles a piece of glass that is precisely the perfect color of Aurora?
BRILLIANT!

On the other hand, Linux doesn't technically violate any patents, it's all designed and written from scratch, isn't it?

PriceChild
January 18th, 2008, 09:50 PM
You still don't understand the difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent should help you understand.

happysmileman
January 18th, 2008, 10:12 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent should help you understand.

He was correct however when he said that many other countries don't have to put up with these ridiculous laws, software patents don't exist in the European Union, so everyone there is safe.

mips
January 18th, 2008, 10:32 PM
software patents don't exist in the European Union, so everyone there is safe.

For now ;) You know how Brussels works, they keep on pushing new laws, fail, push, fail, push until they succeed. This I heard from the horses mouth on TV.

johndc
January 18th, 2008, 10:53 PM
For now ;) You know how Brussels works, they keep on pushing new laws, fail, push, fail, push until they succeed. This I heard from the horses mouth on TV.

What are the patent laws like in the Isle of Man (home of Canonical)?

shad0w_walker
January 18th, 2008, 10:59 PM
You have to love the way Microsoft has at last realized it can't go head on with Linux and come out on top. SCO proved that very nicely. So they resort to underhanded dealing and vague threats. It's the digital equivalent of a protection racket except no one knows what exactly they are being protected from. Microsoft would have to give away their hand if they sue anyone over the 'infringing' patent so that isn't gonna happen.

mips
January 18th, 2008, 11:42 PM
What are the patent laws like in the Isle of Man (home of Canonical)?

The Isle of man is a tricky one, kinda like a square peg in a round hole. Being a Crown Dependancy I suspect their patent laws to be similair to those of Britain. I'm not a lawyer/attorney/barrister so don't take what I just said as factual.

I do not think canonical would have gone and settled in a country with software patent laws just from common sense.

Edit:
Britain being part of the UK does not have patent laws for software.
Software patents seem to be only a thing you get in the USA & Japan at this stage.