Microsoft on indemnification
According to Stephen Graham, group vice president of Global Software Business Strategies at IDC, "Recent media focus on industry intellectual property disputes has brought the issue of indemnification to the forefront, and all signs point to this issue continuing to grow in significance. End users would be well advised to carefully review all software contracts to assess potential exposure, including the extent of coverage provided by vendors for legal costs and damages and the specific criteria for engaging this protection.""
Posted Feb 10, 2005 22:59 UTC (Thu)
by s_cargo (guest, #10473)
[Link]
Posted Feb 11, 2005 0:02 UTC (Fri)
by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link]
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires:
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England:
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more, methinks, would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
Posted Feb 11, 2005 1:27 UTC (Fri)
by neoprene (guest, #8520)
[Link] (1 responses)
Here are some more strong words from a strong IT professional:
"The strong IP protection means that Microsoft will stand behind the products if we should ever find ourselves embroiled in a third-party lawsuit -- something absent with open source vendors."
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/Staff_Advisory_Commit...
Can it get any lamer than this?
Posted Feb 13, 2005 6:03 UTC (Sun)
by djabsolut (guest, #12799)
[Link]
Posted Feb 11, 2005 6:36 UTC (Fri)
by eru (subscriber, #2753)
[Link]
Created largely by Microsoft itself: Funding the SCO lawsuits, Balmer's
not so veiled warnings to Asian governements foolish enough to consider
Linux...
A nice protection racket.
Posted Feb 11, 2005 13:41 UTC (Fri)
by vmole (guest, #111)
[Link] (2 responses)
My googlefoo isn't sufficient to track down a link right now, but wasn't there a case a few years ago where MS licensed a patent for SQL SDK, but didn't license the rights for users of the that SDK? Thus, people developing third part MS SQL apps were in violation, and MS said, oh, that's too bad...
Posted Feb 11, 2005 15:50 UTC (Fri)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Timeline.
Posted Feb 12, 2005 7:12 UTC (Sat)
by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link]
Microsoft on indemnification
strong intellectual property protection customers receive from Microsoft
Unless you own the copyright on CP/M.
I think William Shakespeare had a few choice words for anyone who would drop Linux because of this kind of thing.Microsoft on indemnification
"...provides customers with strong protection from patent and other intellectual property disputes. .."Microsoft on indemnification
sure... apparently "proprietary, locked-in Windows is more interoperable than open, standards-oriented Linux"
Microsoft on indemnification
"Recent media focus on industry intellectual property disputes ..."
Recent media focus
Microsoft on indemnification
Microsoft on indemnification
The case was in early 2003. On the one hand, this is before MSFT changed its i13n policy to the current one, but on the other hand, the current policy still doesn't cover the combination of the covered software with a non-Microsoft product, data or business process. -- so if you use MSFT web tools to put up a "One-Click" order form, even their new i13n doesn't seem to help.
Microsoft on indemnification