IO Data Licenses Microsoft's "Linux Patents"

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.'"

FFS! What patents !!!!

[yossarianuk]

Again they still do not actually say what specific patents !

This should be criminal, the Linux foundations should sue for libel damage.

Fuck it, maybe we all contact companies and ask for money for breaking our imaginary patents.

Also this company is out the USA, do they have crazy software patent laws too.

Thank god for the EU (I never thought i'd say those words)

Any word on what patents?

[JSBiff]

I love how none of these articles include any info on which patents were licensed. If Microsoft has patents which cover algorithms in Linux, then there should be a list of patents numbers they can point to to say which patents are being covered in these License Agreements.

You know, back when Microsoft sued Tom-Tom, it came out that the patents in question covered certain features of the VFAT filesystem. I don't think that patent would affect Network Attached Storage. After all, if you're using Samba NFS, FTP or HTTP to access the files, it doesn't matter what filesystem is used on the NAS device. One would presume such a device would be using Ext3, Ext4, or maybe XFS or something.

Which makes me wonder, is Microsoft asserting patents which cover Samba, perhaps? The Linux kernel itself, even if you don't compile VFAT support into the kernel (or use the patched version which supposedly avoids the MS VFAT patents by removing some functionality)?

Sure seems that this is all a marketing driven FUD campaign, since no one is talking about what patents are in play here. If they have patents, they should come out and tell the Linux developers and the world which patents supposedly are infringing. If they won't tell anyone, then the courts should just put a stop to this crap - it's my understanding that there is a principle of law in many countries, including the U.S., where if you know someone is infringing your patent or copyright, and you don't take action to prevent further damages, you can't get the court to award you those damages. That is, you aren't allowed to 'run up the bill' by continuing to allow infringement to happen, just so you can sue for more money later?

When the Supreme Court invalidates software patent

[kawabago]

When the Supreme Court invalidates software patents all these companies can go back to Microsoft and demand their money back. That should be fun to watch!

Re:Soprano style

[pooh666]

Sounds cute, but straight to jail for extortion. The threat with a weapon, that you may or may not have wouldn't change that it is still a physical threat, not legal in Canada at least. However, we are just people, not super entities like corporations that now even get their own say legally in the US. It seems they can do the above with no issues.

Re:Microsoft is...

[ravenscar]

I agree. We haven't seen just what compensation was involved. If it was slight, buying off MSFT was surely less expensive than fighting off an army of their attorneys. MSFT's strategy here seems interesting. They realize getting other companies to license their Linux patents is likely to strengthen their claim to the patents. Knowing this they pushed in that direction. They were able to get some of the early licensees to do so by offering what seemed like mutually beneficial terms (like patent sharing). My guess is that as more the terms will be similar for a while - giving MSFT a large group of patent licensees. Getting a license will then become more costly. the first group that MSFT doesn't like that also refuses to license the patents will be taken to court. MSFT will then flaunt all of the other licensees before the jury stating "Amazon, and others all recognized our patent. What makes [variable] so special?"

I hope this wasn't because of the VFAT issue

[apexwm]

As Linux has been fixed to not offend Microsoft's FAT32/VFAT patent. If these companies think that they are voilating this patent, they should do their own research or fix it so that they don't have to pay royalties to Microsoft.

Re:Why is the Linux community so quiet?

[alexborges]

Its an appeal for decition already taken in the bilsky case and nobody in the legal "community" (can lawyers actually be construed as members of any community?) has come up with good arguments for it except the ones appealing.... but, it may be just that I get my news from all the wrong places.

MS's plans to overtake Linux

[HalAtWork]

So, MS doesn't actually plan to overtake Linux, it just plans to make money off of other peoples' work. How long before they turn around and sue the developers of Linux?

Re:Soprano style

[Bigjeff5]

How the hell do you know Microsoft hasn't disclosed the patents to the hardware manufacturers? Depending on what the patents cover, that's perfectly reasonable. They don't need to disclose them to YOU, YOU don't manufacture hardware and use software that potentially infringes on their patents. Since they are hammering out licensing terms, it seems infinitely more likely that they have disclosed the patents to IO Data, else why would IO Data bother? "Prove it or get out of my face" works extremely well in patent cases, MS could have the best lawyers in the world but even I (not a lawyer) could adequately defend myself if they don't even bother to disclose the patents.

The assumption that MS did not disclose the patent does not seem logical, and there is no proof to back it up. The natural assumption should be that if IO Data and MS are working on a licensing agreement, the IO Data knows exactly which patents they are licensing.

It also implies that IO Data believes Microsoft's patents are valid, and they are a hell of a lot closer to the situation than any armchair patent "experts" here on /. are.

Why dont microsoft come up with their IP ?

[unity100]

i can think of only one reason, if they came up with what they claim to be their own 'ip', and it was proven, the code would outright get removed from linux, leaving microsoft with nothing to harrass with. they would also lack the weapon to coerce and subdue the i.t. world at the time when linux becomes established for good worldwide.

in any case, the community should look into this, and discover them, and remove them.

chances are high that they have claimed rights to some basic logic routine or procedure, thanks to the beyond shitty patent system in u.s., and are now waiting for acta to make their claim in u.s. globally valid. you know, since the places like europe werent so stupid enough to let such stupidity like being able to 'own' logical routines and constructs for anyone.

with all undue respect, american system has gone beyond failure, if it has (and it really has) come to the point of letting private people and organizations own logic and thought.