IO Data Licenses Microsoft's "Linux Patents" 197
Posted
by
kdawson
from the bigger-than-we-are dept.
from the bigger-than-we-are dept.
eldavojohn writes "The Japanese computer manuracturer IO Data is the latest in line to license Microsoft's so-called 'Linux patents,' following the likes of Novell, Samsung, and Amazon. Yes, even the press releases use the word 'Linux' to describe these patents. From the press release: 'Specifically, the patent covenants apply to I-O Data's network-attached storage devices and its routers, which run Linux. Although the details of the agreement have not been disclosed, the parties indicated that Microsoft is being compensated by I-O Data.'"
It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors (Score:3, Informative)
So basically, they are licensing Windows stuff. Nothing to see here. Also, while Novell did a patent deal wit Microsoft, it did NOT do a deal wrt linux, as there's no Microsoft code in linux (and most of us are smart enough to remove the potentially-encumbered mono-base from opensuse).
Re:North Korea (Score:4, Informative)
From looking at their website, you would be led to believe that all they do is sell hard drives to consumers and set top boxes to cable companies. So, if you refuse to buy external hard drives with the model numbers:
HDC-UXW250, HDC-UXW320, HDC-UXW400, HDC-UXW500, HDL-GXW250, HDL-GXW320, HDL-GXW400, HDL-GXW500
That should allow you to reward them appropriately.
Is there anything else they sell? From reading their presidents statement, they seem to go in and out of the business of making X over and over again and partner up with a series of corporate boyfriends because they don't have the talent to make things in house. Not someone whose institution I'd want to fund...
Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It's t use Windows 7 API on sensors (Score:5, Informative)
Only Microsoft claimed that the deal covered Microsoft-patented junk in linux. It was a cross-licensing deal that Microsoft paid Novell almost half a billion dollars - in other words, it was pretty much Microsoft who needed patent coverage of certain Novell technologies.
Re:Soprano style (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Soprano style (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft may or may not be entitled to the money. If they hold the patents, and are NOT enforcing the patents nor disclosing the infringing products, even though it has all the evidence it needs (source code to all things OSS), then it is "Extorting" because it is NOT entitled to the money.
It would be, if it disclosed what products were in fact infringing, and took remedial action. Because it hasn't it is only making veiled threats.
IO Data has gotten into trouble before (Score:5, Informative)
IO Data is a big name in Japan. They sell a lot of Computer and AV devices. In the US they aren't that big anymore. IO data was a pioneer in the Network Equipped Up-Converting DVD player. Not only could it play UPnP file sources, it could output them up to 1080i.
That's when they ran into trouble. Their HD player had nice Analog Component outputs to upconvert DVDs. That got them in trouble with license holders for DVD. Which wouldn't have happened except they started expanding in US, and then the guys at the MPAA started taking interest. I think they are a bit gun shy after that. So I can understand folding to Microsoft.
Re:Microsoft is... (Score:3, Informative)
No, then amazon would have risked their bogus one-click patent.
Re:Soprano style (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft, however, owns the patents and is entitled to the money, so when it says "pay me or I'll tell the courts you're using my patents", it's perfectly legal, provided the amount they demand is reasonably fair.
Maybe. That's the part that makes it extortion. They haven't disclosed which patents or how they believe Linux might infringe. If they lay the patents on the table and say it infringes here, here, and here and they are correct then they are making a licensing deal (whatever we may think about patents it is legal). By keeping things secret, they are actively preventing a cure to the infringement. Arguably they should be estopped from any enforcement action as a result.
When someone infringes your property, you're not allowed to keep quiet about it until they reach a point where it's more expensive to cure the problem than to pay you.
Re:FFS! What patents !!!! (Score:3, Informative)
Each and every company who gets involved in such a licensing deal knows full well what they are getting into and exactly what they are licensing...
Of course they know exactly what the agreement is. But you're assuming that the agreement is a license for specific patents that Microsoft alleges Linux infringes. Despite being called a "license agreement", the actual contract the two parties are signing need not exclusively involve such patents.
The agreement probably includes some patent licensing, but the part about Linux is most likely in the form of an agreement by Microsoft not to sue IO Data over patent infringement in Linux. They can make such an agreement without specifying which patents might hypothetically be involved; it would be a blanket agreement.
If you have a list of patents you hold and know that a competitor is violating, you sue that competitor. Not threaten random customers of that competitor. When Intel has a patent issue with AMD, they go after AMD, not HP and Dell and all of AMD's customers.
Which do you think is more effective at harming a competitor:
1) The hypothetical threat of liability for customers of the competitor, who can clearly see you taking no action against the allegedly infringing competitor itself?
2) The hypothetical threat of liability for customers of the competitor, who can see that you are taking legal action against the infringing competitor?
3) Getting court-ordered injunction against the competitor shipping their product to ANY of their customer, THEN going to the customers and striking a deal about their hypothetical liability?
Hmmmmmm.
So how do I know that Microsoft's list of patents is in fact imaginary, and that the contract agreement with IO Data does not specify which patents Linux violates?
Because none of the Linux distros have been sued. If this list was real, and thus the possibility of a patent violation suit was real, it would be a devastatingly effective weapon against Linux. Yeah, yeah, the kernel developers et al could work around the patents. In the intervening months Red Hat, Canonical, kernel.org et. al. would be legally barred from distributing their product. You think Linux customers might jump ship?
Why rely on FUD when you can have the certainty of patent infringement dangers?
Oh the other reason I know their list is imaginary is that their statements about Linux infringement come from mis-quoting a study done by someone else about patent infringements in Linux and other software. The study said Linux potentially violates 200-some patents, and MS used this to say that Linux violated 200-some Microsoft patents. Which was a lie.
Re:Microsoft is... (Score:2, Informative)