| |||||||||||
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw)MS and Indemnification (Groklaw)Posted Nov 12, 2004 15:35 UTC (Fri) by Ken (guest, #14505)In reply to: MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) by Ken Parent article: MS and Indemnification (Groklaw)
Darn, can't edit. I understated the complexity of this by several orders of magnitude. Please go read the article before drawing conclusions.
(Log in to post comments)
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 15:58 UTC (Fri) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] In the SCO case we see SCO needs to have access to IBM's code base, all versions of the last 25 years, to be conclusive about copyright infringment.If I read the Groklaw analysis of the MS indemnification, I see there is no real indemnification at all. Just consider the case where you use MS software that infinges IP rights of others and have sold about 1 million cell phones containing this software. MS will deliver you a version without infringment and funcionality, or will pay you back what you have paid them. I don't see how this will help you against external claims. Please remember SCO did sue end-users and did receive financial help for that from MS.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 17:05 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Use of Linux was completely incidental to SCO's lawsuits. SCO sued people for various things related to their contracts with SCO, not for using Linux. Of course, they claimed in the press that Linux was somehow related, but Linux use wasn't a claim in the court filings.
The only company whose end users have gotten sued over the company's IP infringement is still Microsoft (who did, in fact, take over the case and, IIRC, end up licensing the IP involved).
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 17:26 UTC (Fri) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] I must be living in an alternate universe, because it seems to me, thatI recall back in March of this year, SCO filed suites against (end users) Autozone and Daimler Chrysler BECAUSE of alledged copyright violation by those companies in their use of Linux.
So, I don't think "The only company whose end users have gotten sued over the company's IP infringement is still Microsoft" at all.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 18:15 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] The alledged copyright violation was of SCO's shared libraries, which the companies had gotten as SCO customers, and which they were alledgedly using with Linux (but, of course, were not). The cases did not alledge that the Linux suppliers used by either Autozone or DC were infringing anything in what they supplied. End users have been sued over their own alledged copyright violation while using products from many companies, but the only case in which the legal liability has come from a supplier is still Microsoft's.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 19:50 UTC (Fri) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] Thanks for that clarification.
MS and Indemnification (Groklaw) Posted Nov 12, 2004 17:13 UTC (Fri) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] The indemnification excludes embedded devices such as cell phones.
|
|||||||||||