Microsoft Continues To Get Companies To Pay It For Non-Microsoft Software

from the this-is-not-a-good-thing dept

Wed, Jul 25th 2012 12:22pm — Mike Masnick

We've discussed in the past just how ridiculous it is that Microsoft has a "licensing program" for Android -- someone else's technology. And, of course, for many years, Microsoft has been running around insisting that Linux infringes on hundreds of its patents, though it gets pretty shy when asked to identify them. Every so often, Microsoft convinces some company to cough up some protection money for being Linux users -- though usually it's for companies selling Linux-based hardware.

Now Microsoft has convinced Amdocs to fork over some cash for running a Linux-based service. While (of course!) details are sparse, Microsoft made sure in the press release that it was clear that the license was for "Amdocs' use of Linux-based servers in its data centers."

This really does seem somewhat offensive. Microsoft is getting other companies to pay it for software that it had absolutely nothing to do with (and which many people use, in part, because it keeps them away from having to pay Microsoft).

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

Filed Under: fud, linux, patents
Companies: amdocs, microsoft

59 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

DannyB (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:26pm

This is what Microsoft was trying to do through a proxy (SCO) nearly a decade ago. (March 2003)

I guess they got it right the 2nd time figuring that patents were the way to go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:27pm
  
  Re:
  With patents, you can be very vague. With copyrights, you had to show that something was actually copied, it had to amount to something of value, and you had to (gasp!) prove you owned what was copied from.
  
  Patents, you just do hand waving and some mumbo-jumbo and sue in East Texas.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Prisoner 201, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    "Patents, you just do hand waving and some mumbo-jumbo and sue in East Texas."
    
    Where is the "sad but true" button when you need it?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oblate (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:27pm

MS missing the bigger market...
How much would we have to pay to get Microsoft to just stop making software? I think there's huge potential here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeremy2020 (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:06pm
  
  Re: MS missing the bigger market...
  How much did Windows Vista and Windows 8 cost to develop?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rallen, 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:10pm
    
    Re: Re: MS missing the bigger market...
    Not enough.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Josef Anvil (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 1:49am
    
    Re: Re: MS missing the bigger market...
    Vista and Win 8 are being subsidized through Android and Linux.
    
    So basically the development was free and may even turn a profit soon.
    
    TYVM
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 6:29am
    
    Re: Re: MS missing the bigger market...
    > How much did Windows Vista and Windows 8 cost to develop?
    
    I don't know about Windows 8.
    
    Vista, six years and $9 Billion. That's more money than some country's space program.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:27pm

so, instead of keep coughing up money to these robbing arse holes, why dont they get together, share costs and take Micosuck to court? they have never been the flavour of the month with courts and i doubt if they would be in this instance either. if no one takes them on, they will just continue ripping companies and individuals off til the year dot!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re:
  If Microsoft makes its license cheap enough, no individual victim is inclined to take the risk of going to court.
  
  Sooner or later, someone will. Like when SCO unwisely picked IBM to sue as its first victim. (Facepalm!) It would have been very cheap for IBM to just settle or even outright buy SCO. Some other company might very well have done so.
  
  I guess it didn't help that SCO wanted $5 Billion. If Microsoft is being cheap enough on its license, it may be considered just a cost of doing business. Disgusting, I know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 3:10pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, this is an often overlooked point. Microsoft learned a lot from its involvement in the SCO fiasco, and the main thing it learned is that if you want to get away with extortion, you have to be careful not ask for too much money in one whack.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - DannyB (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 6:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Another thing Microsoft learned from the fiaSCO is to be careful who you try to extort.
      
      Make the extortion seem mutually beneficial. With some bigger companies, for example, the announcements talk about a patent cross licensing. This can actually be good for the company paying extortion to Microsoft for, say, Android.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:28pm

It's the mafia shaking down local shops for protection money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:44pm

Why isn't the Justice Department investigating Microsoft for fraud & extortion over this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tunnen (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:21pm
  
  Re:
  Likely has something to do with the large sacks labelled with a large $.
  
  =P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 7:35pm
  
  Re:
  1. Government/Do(i)J* goes after microsoft for fraud and extortion.
  2. Ruling suddenly makes this sort of shakedown illegal.
  3. A lot of useless companies suddenly find their favorite(and sometimes only) source of income cut off.
  4. Government/Do(i)J: 'Holy crap where did our kickbacks go, reverse that ruling!'
  
  *Department of (in)Justice, for those that were wondering about the extra letter. Seemed time to update the name to reflect reality.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - gnudist, 26 Jul 2012 @ 5:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    New from Apple: the iJustice.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:46pm

There's a part of me thinking that if the IT guys at Amdocs are dumb enough to think that MS has any licensing rights to Linux - one of the most recognized pieces of free open-source software - they deserved to get swindled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris-Mouse (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:08pm
  
  Re:
  It's more likely the lawyers looked at the numbers.
  
  - Pay a small percentage of your income, and it all goes away.
  
  - Tell Microsoft to forget it, and risk a lawsuit. With a lawsuit, you'd have to pay your legal bills up front, possibly costing millions. If you win, there's a good chance you'll still be stuck with paying your legal bills. If you lose, you pay your legal bills, millions in fines, and possibly even have to pay Microsoft's legal bills.
  Win or lose, it's going to tie up most of your attention and energy for the next several years at least.
  
  Looked at it that way, it's not hard to figure out why such a shakedown racket works.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Shmerl, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The problem is, racketeers never go away. The only way to break free is to fight them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 3:11am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Or shoot them in the head. But seeing as corporations are people in the US...
      
      How exactly does one murder an imaginary person?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ltlw0lf (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 5:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How exactly does one murder an imaginary person?
        
        Is it murder or self-defense? In this case, a company is using a potentially lethal weapon against you in what amounts to an assault (though, unfortunately at this time, a legal one.) In most cases, that would be grounds for self-defense.
        
        If they take you for everything you own, how are you going to eat? Hence the lethal part.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 9:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There is, technically, a way to do this. It even used to be common, in the olden days.
        
        Corporations exist through a charter with the state the corporation operates in. The charter is like a contract, and comes with terms the corporation must abide by.
        
        If it doesn't, the charter can be revoked -- which is the corporate equivalent of a death sentence.
        
        This is still possible to do today, but it rarely happens (although it does happen occasionally). The reason it rarely happens is the same as why all kinds of other things have gone badly: corruption.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tunnen (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:19pm
    
    Re: Re:
    That's a nice server farm you have there... It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it... =P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 3:11pm
  
  Re:
  I can guarantee that the IT guys had exactly no say in this issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 12:41am
  
  Re:
  "the IT guys at Amdocs"
  
  From my experience, they would probably have been the last guys to be consulted about this kind of thing other than to check if they were actually using Linux. This is more of a legal/management CYA move, and probably happened despite opposition from IT staff. I doubt anyone technically minded was in the decision making role.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:47pm

There's a part of me thinking that if the IT guys at Amdocs are dumb enough to think that MS has any licensing rights to Linux - one of the most recognized pieces of free open-source software - they deserved to get swindled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tunnen (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:18pm
  
  Re:
  A fool and his money are soon parted? =P
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:47pm

There's a part of me thinking that if the IT guys at Amdocs are dumb enough to think that MS has any licensing rights to Linux - one of the most recognized pieces of free open-source software - they deserved to get swindled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:49pm
  
  Re:
  Blech - obvious browser barf. Sorry for the trip post.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:47pm

How the hell can you say this:

You're an MS troll, vgrig?
I mean, your posting here without any facts.

But here's a fact - they didn't disclose what patents linux infringing on TO YOU.

What you're claiming is that MS just walked in and said "you're infringing on our patents", with Amdoc's resonse as "We are? Well just sell me a license, and we'll call it a day over lunch!"

What scenerio do you think is more accurate?

-William Farrel

With a serious face?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gnudist, 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:47pm

You know, I could feel something for the little artist who has a hard time making a go of it even if I don't agree they have a moral right to a state monopoly.

But Microsoft is just extorting money for othr's hard work.

Fucking scumbags
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AzureSky (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 12:53pm

this is capitalism at its best, making money from other peoples work with very little effort of your own....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gnudist, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:47pm
  
  Re:
  What microsoft is doing is a twisted mockery of capitalism.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 6:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, that describes most capitalism. Just look at the average banker...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes. What Microsoft is doing is capitalism unchained, a degraded form of capitalism -- and the most prevalent kind in the US today.
    
    This is what Adam Smith warned about in The Wealth of Nations: capitalism is good, so long as it is properly regulated. Unregulated capitalism degrades, becomes harmful and abusive, and ultimately becomes monopoly.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - gnudist, 27 Jul 2012 @ 2:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      LOL what? this is only possible BECAUSE OF goverment regulation.(patent monopolies)
      
      Capitalism unchained would mean the death of this particular brand of bullshit. It'd also mean the birth of other bullshit but that's a whole nother discussion.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Charles (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:09pm

If you want to research Microsoft...
go to www.groklaw.net and check out the links to documents at the top, especially http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720190018

I have been using linux since the early days of the SCO saga. I knew about linux before, but Pamela Jones' excellent articles convinced me to convert to linux.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
backlord, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:17pm

ss
not much has changed.classic windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DaveL (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:37pm

Jealous?
I think you're just jealous Mike...

You just need to figure out how to get the Slashdot guys to pay YOU every time someone visits their site.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:43pm
  
  Re: Jealous?
  +1
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:44pm
    
    Re: Re: Jealous?
    mod parent up
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:45pm

I've mod points blah blah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:45pm

latest meme goes here
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gnudist, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:50pm
  
  Re:
  EVERYTHING'S COMING UP MILHOUSE!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 3:14am
    
    Re: Re:
    Milhouse is not a meme, dammit!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 1:48pm

Seriously. that's all that would happen.
Or an endless off-topic flame war on Obama/Romney , K&R vs Allman brace style or fanboi/fandroid nonsense,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gnudist, 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:29pm
  
  Re:
  *iSheep versus fandroid
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:32pm

Many who pay up fall to the FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt)it's clear that a more educational approach is required when dealing with Microsoft.
If you create a FOSS (Free and Open-Source Software)system you need to have a chat with the people involved with GNU/Linux so that you are not paying money to uncle Bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jacob Blaustein, 25 Jul 2012 @ 2:44pm

Why doesn't Google sue Microsoft for false representation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 3:16pm
  
  Re:
  I believe that Google has no standing to do any such thing. It's very telling, though, that Microsoft doesn't sue Google directly, but rather extorts from third parties in a way that Google cannot weigh in on at all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - lucidrenegade (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 6:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Exactly. Both Microsoft and Apple know that Google has the financial and legal muscle to fight them for as long as it takes. Neither one has the balls for that, so they pick on HTC, Samsung, etc.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Jul 2012 @ 3:10pm

Now I think Microsoft needs to pay me for every time I've had to use their software. Fair is fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 25 Jul 2012 @ 3:21pm
  
  Re:
  It's a huge hassle, but you can get Microsoft to pay you if you purchase a computer with Windows preinstalled, if you wipe the hard drive and install a different OS on it without ever booting up the Windows installation.
  
  Microsoft makes the process as difficult as possible, and there's a few gotchas, and the payoff isn't big (it's the OEM price the computer manufacturer paid, not the retail price, that's reimbursed) -- but it can be satisfying nonetheless, if you enjoy symbolic victories.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
alternatives(), 25 Jul 2012 @ 8:02pm

simple solution - stop using Linux
Just swap it out for FreeBSD.

Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 26 Jul 2012 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: simple solution - stop using Linux
  That's not really a solution. The only reason that BSD isn't subject to the same abuse is that it has only a fraction of the adoption rate that Linux has. If everyone started using BSD instead of Linux, then we'd see the same issues with BSD.
  
  The problem isn't with Linux or BSD specifically. The problem is that the major software players don't own those things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Antalya, 17 Dec 2012 @ 7:46am

Re:
It would have been very cheap for IBM to just settle or even outright buy SCO. Some other company might very well have done so. Corporations exist through a charter with the state the corporation operates in. The charter is like a contract, and comes with terms the corporation must abide by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
side, 30 Mar 2013 @ 3:26pm

Re: Re:
Corporations exist through a charter with the state the corporation operates in. The charter is like a contract, and comes with terms the corporation must abide by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BlackBad, 2 Aug 2016 @ 2:00pm

Re: Re:
I'm also not agree to the user exactly Antalya
I can say that in general the right
[ link to this | view in chronology ]