Linux companies sign Microsoft patent protection pacts (LinuxWorld)
So, while we now know there are at least 18 FAT LFN licensees, we still don't know which companies have signed such deals. This information is kept secret by Microsoft and these companies are well-aware of the open-source and legal backlash that could result from admitting to these patent deals. The most important reason why the specifics of these deals are under NDA is that any company doing a patent cross license without covering its downstream recipients, i.e. users, is a direct violation of GPLv2 section 7, and is even more explicitly a GPLv3 violation."
Posted Mar 5, 2009 18:42 UTC (Thu)
by zotz (guest, #26117)
[Link] (9 responses)
all the best,
drew
Posted Mar 5, 2009 19:15 UTC (Thu)
by ncm (guest, #165)
[Link] (3 responses)
In aggregate, the pacts might imply a pattern of MS encouraging, or even extorting, violations of the law.
Posted Mar 6, 2009 3:12 UTC (Fri)
by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link]
Posted Mar 6, 2009 17:26 UTC (Fri)
by MattPerry (guest, #46341)
[Link] (1 responses)
If the companies involved are not adhering to the terms of the GPL, then the terms of the GPL are void. Distributing the software then becomes copyright infringement which is illegal. Conspiracy appears to be the appropriate word to use here.
Posted Mar 6, 2009 20:50 UTC (Fri)
by proski (subscriber, #104)
[Link]
Posted Mar 5, 2009 20:45 UTC (Thu)
by wilreichert (guest, #17680)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Mar 5, 2009 21:47 UTC (Thu)
by pzb (guest, #656)
[Link] (3 responses)
Isn't that the idea behind patents? You have a monopoly on the invention and everyone else has to either not use it or license it from you?
Posted Mar 5, 2009 22:05 UTC (Thu)
by man_ls (guest, #15091)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 6, 2009 15:06 UTC (Fri)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
Well, I think we've come a long way from the motivation for patents to arrive at what we have now - only the lobbyists for patents can claim that it's still all the same and still keep a straight face. Patent cartels exist in various industries; it's all about joining a club and promising not to litigate against the other members (under normal circumstances), and then developing and promoting standards encumbered by patents which are usable within the cartel but unusable to anyone else unless they pay up, join in, and start stockpiling patents themselves. At which point a new member has an incentive to saddle the cartel's standards with as many of its own dubious claims as possible - a stake in the extortion, if you will. Take a look at the telecoms business for a blatant example of this kind of thing happening all the time.
Posted Mar 14, 2009 0:55 UTC (Sat)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
Offering to sell something is not extortion. Taking what is yours is not extortion. My landlord threatens every month to toss me out of my home if I don't hand over $1000, and it's not extortion.
Extortion is offering to sell something that you have a moral obligation to give for free.
I find people have an amazing capacity to invent obligations of others to them, which causes them to call almost anything extortion. I know lots of people feel a moral right to use anything that's been invented, in spite of the system of exclusion we've set up, so they tend to call patent enforcement extortion.
Posted Mar 5, 2009 20:34 UTC (Thu)
by sepreece (guest, #19270)
[Link]
Now, if they ARE Linux companies and they AREN'T licensing the right to pass along distribution rights, then it would be interesting to see what happens the first time Microsoft sues such a recipient and the recipient's defence is that the software came with a license that says it has the right to redistribute and if it in fact does not, it's going to sue the distributor for fraudulently misstating the rights it was passing along...
Posted Mar 6, 2009 19:21 UTC (Fri)
by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Mar 7, 2009 0:28 UTC (Sat)
by jd (guest, #26381)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Mar 12, 2009 10:38 UTC (Thu)
by gdt (subscriber, #6284)
[Link]
Conspiracy?
Conspiracy?
Look at the number of vendors selling some kind of an embedded system with Linux on it -- and they've only sold licenses to 18? If LWN had that fraction of people pay up, we'd all be reading Advogato or something.
Pretty small take-up rate
Conspiracy?
It may be necessary to prove that Microsoft knew that the software would be distributed in violation of its licensing terms. Otherwise, there is no second party for "collusion". IANAL.
Conspiracy?
Conspiracy?
Conspiracy?
I'm voting for extortion. Looks an an aweful lot like 'buy a cross patent or we sue you'
For patents yes, but not for cross-licensing agreements. In one of these Microsoft promises not to sue a (Linux) distributor with its vast array of (nonsensical) patents, and in return said distributor promises not to sue Microsoft with its corresponding array of (triffle) patents. No one delves into the merits of any patent much, and it serves to give legitimacy to both sides. I would say it is the opposite of the idea behind patents, where the inventor discloses an idea and is paid back good money by those profiting from it.
Conspiracy?
Conspiracy?
I would say it is the opposite of the idea behind patents, where the inventor discloses an idea and is paid back good money by those profiting from it.
A cross-licensing agreement isn't a promise not to sue. It's an actual set of patent licenses, in both directions. In contrast, the Microsoft/Novell deal ostensibly involved a covenant not to sue and no patent licenses. In the present story, the article says there are actual explicit patent licenses.
Conspiracy?
Linux companies sign Microsoft patent protection pacts (LinuxWorld)
Linux companies sign Microsoft patent protection pacts (LinuxWorld)
Linux companies sign Microsoft patent protection pacts (LinuxWorld)
Linux companies sign Microsoft patent protection pacts (LinuxWorld)