Microsoft Convinces Yet Another Company to Cough Up 'Protection' Money
from the you-wouldn't-want-something-bad-to-happen,-would-you? dept
Neppe alerts us to the news that Microsoft has claimed yet another victory in its war on the Linux Operating System. According to multiple reports, including Thinq_, the Register and others, Casio has coughed up an undisclosed amount of money to "license" the Linux operating system from Microsoft.Microsoft has been claiming since 2007 that Linux infringes on 235 patents. If you go back to 2004, it was just 228. Despite the lack of any public list of these patents, Microsoft has been able to use them quite skillfully in convincing a number of software and hardware vendors to pay licensing fees. Microsoft claims that such licensing deals are for the benefit of the companies who pay up.
So just what are the benefits of paying Microsoft a licensing fee for free software, especially when said software was not developed by Microsoft? If these quiet settlements are any indication, the sole benefit would be to avoid being dragged through the courts by one of the largest software developers in the world. Seriously, what other benefit is there? Is there a collection of patent trolls jumping at the chance to sue companies using Linux that have yet to surface thanks to Microsoft's cradling licensing deals? Not that I have read about. The only patent holder jumping at the chance to sue over Linux is Microsoft itself.
What this really looks like to me is an old school protection racket in which the resident mob enters the new business or residence and demands protection money in order to protect said establishment from some malevolent threat.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Amazing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's assume that Linux is infringing on the patents and Microsoft do have the right to go to court over it.
Why are Linux users paying money to Microsoft then? How can Microsoft take them to court?
What if, in the Apple v Samsung battle currently going on, Apple sued purchasers of the Samsung Galaxy? Isn't this suing a third party?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
why assume the incorrect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Headline
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: why assume the incorrect?
Alas, we'll probably never find the truth since Microsoft can easily tie up the courts for years before they're even forced to name their evidence - again, look at the SCO fiasco for an example of this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FAT Strikes back
Unfortunately there is no way around this
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patents on other things?
It is probable that Casio had to get a license for some other thing, and Microsoft threw in a license for Linux-related patents as a "bonus".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FAT Strikes back
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FAT Strikes back
exFAT (which is required by SDXC) is more of a problem.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I run Casio. Microsoft has a grievance with me saying I owe them money because a free OS I use uses some of their patents. they say pay us licensing fees or something bad (IE we go to court and spend more money on defense than they wanted to sell me licenses for) will happen. I say ok and we sign paperwork saying such with no law deciding right or wrong. I spent money on something that brings us no added value.
Why is the top situation illegal and the bottom not.
Maybe we should outlaw patent settlements, force them to be decided in court. That may stop the extortion from the likes of microsoft and apple who probably wouldn't do well in court. The possibility of high legal fees as opposed to cheaper settlements is the deciding factor here. That environment will allow the extortion to run rampant. Force them to be decided in court and watch the frivolous stuff go away.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: FAT Strikes back
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: why assume the incorrect?
They didn't develop TCP/IP, but they bought the patents in the 90s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: why assume the incorrect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Simpler solution - get rid of patents!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FAT Strikes back
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: why assume the incorrect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Well duh! They are obviously different in that the first one bypasses the "legal system" and prevents lawyers & politicians from getting their cut, and puts lawyers and judges (mostly former lawyers) out of work. THINK OF THE LAWYERS!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
actually it pisses me off. sorry
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"We claim to own 235 patents on Linux, but you're a sucker if you think we're going to reveal them to you!"
So, the FUD is working overtime here. The fear, uncertainty and doubt of potential lawsuits is HUGE. If you don't buy protection from M$, they "might" come after you. "We don't want to sue a linux customer who could potentially be a Windows customer, too!" Well, isn't that fucking special.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'd just like to interject.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Microsoft Troll
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: why assume the incorrect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Company X: Is that a threat? We haven't done anything wrong.
Microsoft: Yous been usin' dat other guyses stuff insteads of ourses.
Company X: So what? We don't like your stuff. It's expensive and doesn't suit our needs.
Microsoft: Listens... Yous is gonna use our stuff or we're gonna call in Johnny Two-Patents and Jimmy The Troll! Den yous is gonna be sorries.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: why assume the incorrect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: FAT Strikes back
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Linux-developers-want-to-circumvent-VFATs-patent- problem-742253.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: why assume the incorrect?
Perhaps you could provide a reference to this nebulous patent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
So free things are worth paying for...
1) that the free software is worth something...
2) MS recognises this worth and chooses to monetise this using any means foul or fair, as the developers have opted not to...
Clearly unfair, but that is business without moral standards. We sponsor these practices, as we use MS products.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: FAT Strikes back
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_file_systems
The problem lies with the U.S. Patent Office.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hi
-Athan
how to stop a cough
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]