Casio Paying Microsoft To Use Linux 262
theodp writes "Will Tux be a rainmaker for Microsoft? GeekWire reports that Microsoft has struck a deal with Casio to provide Casio's customers with coverage for their use of Linux in Casio devices. The agreement, which calls for Microsoft to receive payments of an undisclosed amount, is an implicit acknowledgment of Microsoft's longstanding claims that Linux violates its patents, an assertion that members of the open-source community have long disputed."
A good sign (Score:5, Insightful)
i translates to:
we dont use linux because its free of cost but because we believe it does a better job in the areas not protected by microsoft patents than microsoft os and believe a little overpaying in these areas is good for our customers.
Re:A good sign (Score:4, Insightful)
Ha ha, good point.
Does not change the fact that Microsoft is running an arguably illegal protection racket.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and I do not doubt that Linux does a better job in all areas, including areas "protected" by Microsoft patents[1].
---
[1] According to Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is implying that it will sue and extorting money to protect against that possibility.
"Hey Johnny... You wanna do business on this block, just remember that windows get broken from time to time by... well.. let's just say people. Pay us and we'll make sure you personally don't have a rock thrown through your window."
Pretend I did a mobster impression.
The expected behavior of a patent holder (Score:2)
Microsoft is implying that it will sue and extorting money to protect against that possibility.
Which differs from the expected behavior of the lawful owner of an exclusive right in what way? What you call "extortion" they call "selling a license".
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's the lawful owner part that's in question.
Re: (Score:2)
So why hasn't MS gone to court about any of it?
Microsoft v. TomTom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But nothing was proven either way - Tom Tom settled. A pity because the vfat patents are weak and will no doubt be ruled invalid, both through previous art and non-inventiveness. MS could have (and still could) sue anyone using FAT but they pick their victims carefully so there is less likelihood of an actual trial. Extortion works best behind closed doors.
Re: (Score:2)
So which ones are they then? And exactly where is the infringement?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you an idiot? I gave you two examples.
It's not idiocy to consider more than the shallow (Score:2)
The other factor is that MS is historically a low cost implementer instead of a cutting edge (and expensive) innovator. There is very little in any product they have that does not have obvious proir art elsewhere. That greatly weakens any patent claim.
Re: (Score:3)
One: since when is it a patent violation to come up with something that can read and write FAT and NTFS, as long as your implementation does so in a different way?
The claims of the VFAT patent appear broad enough to cover any method that successfully decodes the format used by VFAT directory entries.
Two: are those even protectable anymore?
The essential VFAT patents [wikipedia.org] have been reinstated after reexamination and won't expire until at least 2016.
Re: (Score:2)
Since forever, where have you been?
Re: (Score:2)
That depends entirely on the patent. Some patents simply have no other way to do something.
Re:A good sign (Score:5, Insightful)
Because MS refuses to name any patent that is violated, but will only mumble that there are (may be) a few. They then demand money to make sure nothing bad (like attack of the lawyers) happens to you.
Unlike legitimate insurance, if anything were to "happen", it would be deliberate on MSs part.
How is it NOT like a protection racket?
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you trying to pretend that the law is a bright line dividing right from wrong?
Just because it might be technically legal doesn't mean it isn't extortion.
The problem, of course is that the courts have gotten to be such a mess that you lose before the trial even begins. The only question remaining is if you will be the big loser or a lesser loser. The more money you can throw at the problem up front, the less likely you are to be the big loser.
Re: (Score:2)
The definition of "legal" is pliable. I'm sure MS doesn't think that what they're doing is illegal, and they probably wouldn't call it extortion but a judge or jury might think otherwise after hearing evidence and weighing contextual factors.
That's kinda the problem. If you can simply last long enough in a court room to see someone actually come to a judgement about it, then you might be in the right and MS is in the wrong. Trouble is, most individuals or even corpor
Re: (Score:3)
Once we develop the ability to think in the abstract, we realize that law, morals, and ethics are much more fluid than a few words in a book. Even the simplest of codes such as the Ten Commandments are subject to centuries of debate.
According to the World English Dictionary:
2. to obtain by importunate demands: the children extorted a promise of a trip to the zoo
3. to overcharge for (something, esp interest on a loan)
It doesn't appear there that all instances of extortion are necessarily illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
"illegal" is also a legal term.
Not that I don't agree with your general point.
Re: (Score:2)
The threatened action does not have to be illegal per se for the the threat of it to constitute extortion or blackmail.
For example, it would be perfectly legal for me to inform your wife about the affair you're having with your secretary. It wouldn't be legal for me to demand payment to keep quiet about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if he accidentally breaks them, and then fails to pay for them in accordance with the wishes of the proprietor....
You see where this is going, I take it.
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand, MS sues you. They will certainly lose, but only after 3 years, millions in legal costs, and crazy injunctions in large markets.
On the other, a quarter million in protection money.
Assuming you can afford either, which do you choose?
Re: (Score:3)
Most licensors are quite open about exactly what it is that must be licensed. That is the part MS is avoiding. They may or may not have told Casio, but they most certainly haven't allowed that information to become public.
Re: (Score:2)
Ha ha, good point.
Does not change the fact that Microsoft is running an arguably illegal protection racket.
I just had a mental image of Clippy popping up on my desktop. "It appears you haven't paid for protection this month. Would you like to: A) Pay up now B) Have someone sent round to break your kneecaps".
Re: (Score:2)
Almost anything to do with patents these days is a protection racket.
Re: (Score:3)
Look up "extortion" sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
What I've been expecting for some time is reading of this behavior from a company that turns out to have no registered patents (or copyrights) at all. They just go to various profitable companies, making the claim that those companies are infringing their unspecified IP, and offering to make a deal not to sue for $X per month. If they are exposed, they just close up shop, and the officers form a new company to continue the "business."
It's not clear how this would differ from Microsoft's behavior. True
Re: (Score:2)
Except what they are doing is not unlawful. Nice try, though, little freetard.
There's no way to say whether it is or it isn't unlawful without a long and expensive court case. But that doesn't mean it's not unlawful - it just means the court case would cost more than paying off the standover man.
Re: (Score:2)
How is this any different from a thug standing in your business entry way saying, "It would be a terrible shame if something were to happen to this nice business you have here. If you pay me a small monthly fee, I'll do my best to make sure nothing happens. Otherwise, hey, it's a rough neighborhood. You never know what might happen."
The effect is the same, is it not? The thugs get money for nothing: just the promise of "protection". If MS at least outlined to Casio exactly what patents they wouldn't su
Re: (Score:2)
Start here [wikipedia.org].
While there is no implied threat of violence, there is the implied threat of severe fiscal damage, which to a company is just as damaging as an arson job on one of their factories would be.
(...and it's shit like this where I would love to see a "loser pays" system apply to any corporation that sues *anybody* else.)
Re: (Score:3)
i translates to:
we dont use linux because its free of cost but because we believe it does a better job in the areas not protected by microsoft patents than microsoft os and believe a little overpaying in these areas is good for our customers.
But it's bad because every deal like this strengthens the perceived validity of Microsoft's patent trolling efforts, which may hurt anyone not willing to pay a Microsoft tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, these companies might not be as stupid as Slashtards would want to believe and have vetted these patents and have come to the conclusion that they are valid? No, that couldn't possibly be it.
Just out of curiosity, what's a Slashtard? It couldn't possibly mean someone who posts on Slashdot, could it? Microsoft is a patent troll and should not be accommodated in their abuses regardless of the what the USPTO has said since the patents which are claimed to apply to software like Linux should never have been granted in the first place. In addition, no court has decided that any Microsoft patent applies to Linux, though Microsoft has sued a number of companies claiming that. This, like much use of pa
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft is a patent troll and should not be accommodated in their abuses regardless of the what the USPTO has said since the patents which are claimed to apply to software like Linux should never have been granted in the first place.
Based on what exactly? Your word?
My opinions are influenced by those of many smarter and more knowledgeable than I am. If you're not aware of the reasons software patents are harmful, you may have been living under a rock. Here's [endsoftpatents.org] a good place to start in that case. Though it's not specific to software patents, This American Life [thisamericanlife.org] has an excellent program about the current patent mess that is accessible to anyone.
In addition, no court has decided that any Microsoft patent applies to Linux, though Microsoft has sued a number of companies claiming that.
Great, I never claimed any court has made such a decision. The point is that these companies aren't just stupidly licensing these patents without having their lawyers look into it. Like I posted above, HTC isn't one that shies away from patent fights so if even they are licensing them it gives lots of credence to the fact that they are most likely valid. Or how else do you explain how they are more than willing to take Apple on in patent suits yet they licensed the ones from Microsoft without any fight?
I won't pretend to know what any of those companies should do to maximize profits in the short term. The fact that Casio, HTC and
Re: (Score:2)
He wasn't asking you why patents are bad. He was asking you to back up your claim that MS is patent troll.
Patent trolls are companies that exist only to file patent lawsuits. They don't invent anything themselves and have filed none of their own patents.
Clearly, by no stretch of the imagination or any definition of "patent troll" is MS one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Notice how MS won't say exactly which patents, or what violations without an NDA? They tried the same stunt on Barnes & Noble re: their Nook e-book reader. Barnes & Noble told them to fsck off. Which they did, eventually. After all, if MS was so sure about their case, they would have no problem proclaiming everything right out in the open. By not allowing any possible recourse, they are limiting the possible damages they could collect (in the US at least) by the principle of estoppel.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming Microsoft is seeking monetary damages. They would likely just want injunctive relief. Stop selling the product.
Fact is, Microsoft is confused over it's patent strategy. On the one hand, they've spent a lot of money patenting things, buying patents, trading for patents, etc.. and they want to make some money off it. On the other, they hate patents and are constantly getting sued themselves because it's pretty much impossible to write much of any software without violating someones patent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not such a stretch - B&N would lose face amongst the geek community if they settled a patent deal with an NDA with Microsoft. The geek community buys ebook devices, and is known for expressing their beliefs with their purchasing power, refusing to buy from the likes of Sony. Therefore they would be less likely to buy Nook devices and services from B&N. Therefore B&N would be at an actual disadvantage from harmed consumer reputation and reduced sales if they were to sign such an agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
It says very little good actually. Casio undoubtedly has a lot of sunk cost in using Linux, therefore there is nothing to say that they wouldn't have chosen Windows from the start if they knew they'd do this. It also could mean casio agreed to pay some pittance to give MS some ammunition in exchange for some other consideration. In other words, there is no unambiguous endorsement of Linux as 'better' to be had.
However, it does say that through legal intimidation large companies can bully their way into r
Misread (Score:2)
The subject line read to me that microsft employees were being paid to use Linux.
I was wondering where I could sign up for the same deal.
Re: (Score:2)
The subject line read to me that microsft employees were being paid to use Linux.
Some do, like the guys who write that kernel module for Hyper-V.
I was wondering where I could sign up for the same deal.
Any place that develops commercial Linux software - say, RedHat?
Re: (Score:2)
I've often times thought that Microsoft ought to pay people to use Microsoft products. Like recently when my MBR went bad and I had to spend several hours figuring out how to fix the damage that came because MS won't allow you to set the drive letter without booting into the same Windows install or using their stupid utility.
Jumping to conclusions (Score:5, Interesting)
That is, I will grant you, possible. However, it's equally possible that Casio's signing is nothing of the kind, and rather is an acknowledgement that Microsoft's lawyers would be willing to drag a case out for long enough that it's simply cheaper to sign on the dotted line, and have the class bully go pick on somebody else.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that Casio just wanted to keep their relationship with M$ cosy whilst utilising the full range of technology available to them.
Re:Jumping to conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds exactly like extortion to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft has to do something to make money, considering the increasing losses from their world class search engine business. And by "world class", I mean losing $400 Million a quarter: http://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-microsofts-bingmsn-results-truly-horrifying-quarterly-loss-balloons-to-713-million-2010-4 [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:3)
The GPL does not prohibit you charging to distribute software [gnu.org], it explicitly permits you to do so. What it prohibits is preventing you from distributing further copies, and distribution of binaries without source (or the offer of source).
Shameful and anti-competitive (Score:5, Informative)
They have been a barrier to innovation, blocking so many new technologies they've set humanity back decades. They should be split up and forced to compete on merits
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Microsoft are a disgusting, disgraceful and unethical company.
In other words... they're a company?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In terms of technology companies, Microsoft have been pure evil since the 80's. Apple have been wanna-be evil (ie evil at heart but not big enough to flaunt it) since the 90's. Now that they have reached mega-corp status they have indeed revealed themselves to be every bit as evil as Microsoft.
Boycott them both.
Re: (Score:2)
Day-for-day, the HP TouchPad from launch to announced discontinuation, had the same lifespan as the Kin.
Now that SCO's gone (Score:5, Insightful)
I see that Microsoft has stepped up and started doing their own Linux license shakedown.
I see a strong uptick in "$699 Linux License" trollage on this forum, except with "Microsoft" instead of "SCO" in the text.
Among other things (Score:5, Insightful)
The article starts:
Microsoft Corp. and Casio Computer Co. Ltd. have entered into a broad, multiyear patent cross-licensing agreement that, among other things, will provide Casio’s customers with patent coverage for their use of Linux in certain Casio devices.
(emphasis mine). I would not mind betting the "other things" are actually the ones that were worth paying for, and that Microsoft slipped the "Linux patents" into the mix because Casio is using Linux. It costs Microsoft nothing but they get "precedent" with which to argue they hold valid patents affecting Linux.
In related news ... (Score:2)
I'm confused how this works... (Score:2)
I don't really understand how Microsoft can claim something like this to scare people but not disclose what, if anything, Linux is infringing on. Shouldn't they be required to disclose this sort of information if they're going to threaten people with lawsuits?
Or will it require some sort of lawsuit to get it out of them?
My guess is that Microsoft is just going to keep accepting the money people are willingly giving them and won't actually attack anyone who uses Linux.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm confused how this works... (Score:4, Informative)
This may answer your question. From geekwire.
"Among the statements by Barnes & Noble are details of meetings between the companies "
At the meeting, Microsoft alleged that the Nook infringed six patents purportedly owned by Microsoft. Microsoft had prepared claim charts purportedly detailing the alleged infringement but insisted that it would only share the detailed claim charts if Barnes & Noble agreed to sign a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) that would cover the claim charts as well as all other aspects of the parties’ discussions. Noting that the patents were public and that the infringement allegations pertained to Barnes & Noble’s public product, Barnes & Noble refused to sign an NDA.
Insisting that an NDA was necessary, Microsoft discussed the alleged infringement on a high level basis only. Microsoft nevertheless maintained that it possessed patents sufficient to dominate and entirely preclude the use of the Android Operating System by the Nook. Microsoft demanded an exorbitant royalty (on a per device basis) for a license to its patent portfolio for the Nook device and at the end of the meeting Microsoft stated that it would demand an even higher per device royalty for any device that acted “more like a computer” as opposed to an eReader.
After sending the proposed license agreement, Microsoft confirmed the shockingly high licensing fees Microsoft was demanding, reiterating its exorbitant per device royalty for Nook, and for the first time demanding a royalty for Nook Color which was more than double the per device royalty Microsoft was demanding for Nook. On information and belief, the license fees demanded by Microsoft are higher than what Microsoft charges for a license to its entire operating system designed for mobile devices, Windows Phone 7.
This pretty much sums up what they are doing. They are approaching companies producing devices with Linux and threating them under NDA to sign a per-device license fee or Microsoft will sue them out of business. Thereby shutting them down.
A scenario:
Microsoft walks into a business
Microsoft: what a nice open source business you have here but this is a dangerous neighborhood, you need some protection.
Store owner: Protection? from who?
Microsoft: well from us really. If you don't pay us to use open source and Linux in particular we will sue you out of the marketplace
Microsoft: Oh and sign this NDA. You cannot talk about this to anyone... get it?
Its really sleazy egregious mobster-like behavior on the part of Microsoft. Unless the Linux developers and greater community start lobbying the government, open source and Linux as we know it is screwed.
Re: (Score:2)
If Microsoft is doing it, then there is a lot going on like this in the business world that we're not aware of. There will be no change unless businesses demand the change. They aren't demanding it. They are embracing the current status-quo.
It's probably been like this in some form or another since the beginning. Expecting better and thinking you can change things is probably somewhat of a folly. It's just business. If you don't like it, you stay out of business. Capitalism is more than a monetary sy
The Simpsons (Score:2)
Gates: OK boys, buy him out.
Re: (Score:3)
"shockingly high licensing fees Microsoft was demanding" and "exorbitant per device royalty" are right from the filed Barnes & Noble complaint response [groklaw.net]. The wording is somewhat inflammatory, but those are exactly the terms the used when responding to the court.
This is not what the agreement states (Score:3)
Casio is not acknowledging the validity of claims with this deal. They are acknowleding Microsoft owns numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
It wouldn't surprise me at all if... (Score:2)
MS gets a token payment from Casio in exchange for discounts and freebies on MS products. It wouldn't be the first time a company offered $2 of free stuff for a $1 "purchase" of a patent license. As I recall, SCO was bundling Linux "licenses" into a variety of unrelated contract matters and calling it a "sale".
Given the unwillingness of MS to identify (much less litigate) these mysterious patents, the salesmanship must be very creative.
Right and wrong do not matter (Score:2)
it also says they prefer Linux to Windows and will (Score:3)
And the income from the Linux licensing deals is still in the noise level compared to the losses of say BING, Windows Phone, and even XBox.
LoB
All your code are belong to us. (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
I'm missing something here: What the hell does Casio still make that would require Microsoft tech?
Last time I checked, a six dollar digital watch doesn't really use anything that Microsoft makes. Or does it?
Is Casio planning to fail in the smartphone business or something?
Re: (Score:3)
Er, well never mind that they're not paying to use MS tech, they're paying MS not to sue them over vague IP claims, but Casio makes vast quantities of things besides digital watches — cameras, digital pianos, printers, electronic dictionaries, lots of specialized business electronics (cash registers, that kind of thing), and, yes, smart phones (running android) [casio.jp]...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course I know that. Every Casio product I ever owned was a POS.
The interesting question (Score:2)
The interesting question is, how much is MS paying Casio to pay them and create news about it? Is it a deal like, Casio pays X, and gets 2X discount on whatever MS licenses they actually need?
Sex (Score:4, Funny)
Surprise! (Score:2)
Despite popular believe, Microsoft loves Linux and would not do anything to hurt it. If it makes them money.
Certain devices? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
as long as they don't get chicks for free.
It'll be hard for them to prove so long after the fact - yes, there may be parts of device drivers that have been illegally reverse engineered, but Linux itself has stood the test of time, I think. If it really WAS infringing, the lawsuits should have been flying left and right a decade or more ago.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Even if they are infringing, there's no point in revealing them, because the second they do that it's possible to work something out to go around them. It's better not to go with a lawsuit and milk some money year after year...
Re: (Score:3)
If it really WAS infringing, the lawsuits should have been flying left and right a decade or more ago.
They seem to turn a blind eye to desktop use of Linux and go after commercial implementations embedded in devices. They also do not have a policy of using the courts first, but rather they attempt to negotiate deals like this Casio one.
My guess is that Casio wants to use long file names using FAT32 [microsoft.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we need to be brothers in arms against this or we'll end up in dire straits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...yes, there may be parts of device drivers that have been illegally reverse engineered...
Even if complete device drivers are stolen and used in Linux, what that has to do with Microsoft?! That would be a problem of device manufacturers.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Short version of your argument seems to be: If the bad guys has some BS patent guns, we need to have some too. There are 3 major problems with that:
1. If you use the tactics of the force you oppose, you become identical to the force you oppose. If everybody starts charging for Linux, instead of a free software ecosystem where everyone is freely giving stuff away, you have a system which, just like the proprietary world, is pay-to-play. Plus there will be endless infighting about who actually gets to own the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that in violation of the GPL ? Linux should sue Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
SO! lesson learned if your going to start a hissy with someone while posting as AC, be sure to log out first
You learned the wrong lesson.
Re: (Score:2)
MS: "We own FAT! Pay up or else!"
Linux: "No, you own VFAT, not FAT itself. VFAT is an optional extension to FAT."
USPO: "MS's VFAT patent applies broadly to all use of long filenames on a limited filesystem."
Linux: "That's BULLSHIT."
VFAT turned on out of the box (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Get out much?
Re: (Score:2)
I get out fine. Haven't seen a casio product in years.
Re: (Score:2)
The pirate bay founders felt the same way...
Never underestimate the reach of big money and multinationals.
(Yes, I know TPB "violated" copyright, not patent laws, but as both are "intellectual property" of the real movers and shakers of the modern world--the multinationals-- the distinction becomes grey at best, and moot at worst. If your project causes them consternation, they will reach out and touch you. Touch you like an angry TSA agent with dermatitis. We are talking full, repeated cavity search here.)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get this either you are in the US and they can get you (you don't sound coherent enough to hold a Diplomatic Passport or something).
Or you are outside it and you really should not care as they have no legal standing were your live. Patients are only good for the country you have them in or Australia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, under specs, it has listed "Bing Search/Bing Maps", which makes me think that is really what these licensing fees are about. Running Bing apps on an Android device.
http://www.casiogzone.com/commando/
http://www.casiogzone.com/commando/gpl/Procedure.txt
Re: (Score:3)