

Microsoft milks Casio for using Linux - jvc26
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/20/signs_deal_with_casio_for_undisclosed_sum/

======
rbanffy
I really fear the day when Microsoft, without any valuable products, becomes
nothing more than a patent troll...

An NPE with Microsoft's patent portfolio is something very, very dangerous.

~~~
bergie
Cringely thinks that will happen unless Windows 8 flies:

 _We’ll start with Microsoft and Windows 8, which I’ll argue are going to be
formidable competitors in the tablet space, primarily because it’s that or
start spending all that cash on diversified investments to turn Microsoft into
a Berkshire Hathaway. This is probably Ballmer’s last stand as a high tech
CEO._

<http://www.cringely.com/2011/09/ballmers-last-stand/>

~~~
sliverstorm
Last stand? That implies a track record of failure, and last I checked Windows
7 was very successful.

~~~
rbanffy
Define "very successful".

~~~
sliverstorm
Widely adopted? Not causing a mass Windows Exodus? Almost entirely supplanting
XP? Sure, it didn't get the press coverage that OSX gets every time it adds a
forgettable feature, but look around. If it's not a Mac and it's not a server,
the smart money is betting it's Windows 7.

FWIW I am typing this in Firefox on Redhat.

~~~
rbanffy
> Almost entirely supplanting XP?

Can people still buy computers capable of running XP without extensive
tweaking? Last time I saw someone installing XP on a modern, post-Vista, PC
the process included downloading stuff into usb drives so that the PC could
use the network.

Windows 7 sells because Dell, HP and Acer sell and the machines that were in
service running XP had to break some day. Normal people use whatever their
computers come with and almost nobody buys boxed Windows. Vista was an
exception - it was so bad people preferred using XP, even if installing it
took a whole day of boots and downloads. When OEMs start to integrate 8 into
their boxes you'll see 8's adoption match OEM shipments very closely.
Microsoft even declared Vista was very successful based on that kind of
number.

> FWIW I am typing this in Firefox on Redhat.

I don't see what effect this has on your reasoning. You won't be "more right"
because you don't use Windows.

~~~
maratd
> Can people still buy computers capable of running XP without extensive
> tweaking?

That has nothing to do with current hardware. I had to do that back in the day
too. You people have been spoiled with Vista and Windows 7.

~~~
rbanffy
So, if you are perfectly happy with XP and don't want Win7, I assume it's
really easy to buy a new computer and install XP on it, right?

~~~
maratd
> I assume it's really easy to buy a new computer and install XP on it, right?

Why would you want to? It won't be any faster. If you need XP compatibility
for something, use regular virtualization or XP Mode.

~~~
rbanffy
Just to point out that, maybe, it's not Windows 7 that's successful, but
Intel's Core i-something family of processors you can't buy computers with
unless they are bundled with Windows 7.

Someplace else I pointed out Microsoft has only 5 clients they really care
about: Dell, Lenovo, Acer, HP and Asus.

~~~
hammerdr
4 clients..

------
majika
Microsoft profiting from Linux by extorting companies who use it is just plain
wrong. But then, show me a patent system that wouldn't permit this kind of
behaviour.

Software patents need to go. Microsoft is a prime example of why.

~~~
WildUtah
__show me a patent system that wouldn't permit this kind of behaviour. __

There are about 40 first world countries, all with patent systems. Ridiculous
software patent abuses seem to be limited to the USA.

~~~
guelo
Also 90%[1] of software innovation come from the USA.

[1] Wild ass guess.

~~~
guelo
To the down-voters, I tried to Google some data and the best I could come up
with is that 63% of the top 100 software companies are in the US [1]. That
isn't 90%, but I said it was a wild ass guess, and there's no denying that the
US is by far the biggest software producer.

[1] [http://www.softwaretop100.org/global-software-
top-100-editio...](http://www.softwaretop100.org/global-software-
top-100-edition-2011-the-highlights)

------
brainless
If Linux powers such large chunks of the Internet and many other systems, is
this not an issue that would ultimately affect every human using such
technology? All those companies who have signed, including Amazon, are paying
an extra amount, no matter how small, and ultimately it affects how the end
user is charged, right?

Or am I reading this all wrong?

~~~
fleitz
Maybe... Amazon doesn't sell a lot of commodities and non-commodity goods are
usually priced by consumer surplus, rather than cost. (eg. You're paying $5.00
for a latte because of the convenience rather than the cost of the coffee +
overhead)

Also, whatever tech they are licensing could reduce costs for the consumer.
(eg. it's cheaper to license tech from MSFT than to re-implement major
portions of the linux kernel)

The issue is muddy enough that you can make a good case either way.

~~~
beagle3
The first paragraph is golden, but this:

> Also, whatever tech they are licensing could reduce costs for the consumer.
> (eg. it's cheaper to license tech from MSFT than to re-implement major
> portions of the linux kernel)

Makes no sense. "license" from MS does not reduce the cost of implementation.
The cases discussed in the article refer to paying MS to use Linux. There is
NO WAY that this reduces costs for the consumer. They did not get anything
from Microsoft except the promise not to sue.

~~~
fleitz
Last time I checked lawsuits cost lots of money, this saves the consumer the
expense of paying for the lawsuit. Whether the law should or shouldn't be this
way is a matter for another discussion. The current reality is that getting
sued for patent infringement can be VERY costly.

Assuming Amazon is a reasonably rational economic agent they would probably
choose the lawsuit if it had a lower expected cost compared to licensing the
patent portfolio, or reimplementing the infringing code in a non-infringing
manner.

Thus licensing a patent portfolio reduces costs for the consumer, of course it
could be argued that with out patents Amazon wouldn't have to pay, but the
current situation is that we have patents.

~~~
rjbond3rd
> Thus licensing a patent portfolio reduces costs for the consumer...

Maybe if you consider just one company, but in aggregate, isn't it just a tax
passed on to the consumer?

------
billybob
I wonder whether patent trolling like this isn't just driving businesses to
move to countries with weak IP law.

~~~
rbanffy
For that to happen, countries with weak (as in "sane") IP law must also
provide an environment companies can operate in.

~~~
pmjordan
I don't think it helps to be located outside the problematic jurisdiction - as
soon as you sell your products there, you are once again subject to the laws
you're trying to avoid. Avoiding the United States as a market is probably
more costly than just putting up with the "patent tax".

~~~
rbanffy
> as soon as you sell your products there,

It's not possible with hard goods, but with services, it looks like the way to
go.

If my company and my servers are based on someplace sane, it's not that I am
exporting it to you, who lives in a crazy place, but it's you who are
importing it from me.

~~~
pmjordan
I don't think it's quite so clear-cut. If you're selling downloadable apps
(like mobile or desktop apps) you're almost certainly liable. What about the
JavaScript code you're "exporting" to your users? That runs in their
jurisdiction.

------
yason
Soon they can start giving Windows for free because they can charge patent
royalties for using anything else.

------
niels_olson
Can someone explain what the technical basis for Microsoft's claims against
Linux companies is?

------
jsmcgd
Surely some organization at some point is going to have to start paying
licencing deals for using Microsoft products which violate some other
organization's patents (I'm looking at you Google).

~~~
m0nastic
One of the things customers of Microsoft products "benefit from" is being
covered by their IP indemnity policy‡.

For large enterprises deploying stuff with Microsoft kit, that's a pretty big
benefit.

‡
[http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/D/0/9D0A6265-A509-4...](http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/D/0/9D0A6265-A509-416C-80AE-
BB6C0A9D1B99/IP%20Indemnification%20Policy.docx) (link downloads a DOC file,
sorry, couldn't find it online)

~~~
0x12
That's shades of SCO and I don't like it one bit.

~~~
m0nastic
I think indemnifying your customers from IP lawsuits when they use your
product/technology isn't a bad thing.

It's the carrot at the end of the FUD. "If you buy our stuff, you'll be safe
from someone suing."

"What's that, still going to use Unix? Well you'd better at least buy from
Novell, as they've signed an agreement protecting you from being sued."

It's not "shades of SCO", it's the other side of the same coin.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Has there been any instance of this patent protection actually coming into
effect? I would have thought this would just have led to multiple trolls
targetting Microseft customers to access Microsoft's deep pockets.

Since I've not heard of this happening I'm inclined to believe this is a
hollow offer.

~~~
m0nastic
I don't know of any (although I confess to not following this stuff that
closely).

Conspiracy-theorists could probably find something interesting in the fact
that in general Microsoft seems to be mostly left alone by patent trolls.

~~~
cornedpig
What about <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eolas> ?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
And <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I4i>

------
ineedtosleep
Are all these MS threads going to be trolled now with people incessantly
spurting out visions of MS's doom?

HN, you're turning into Reddit, except Reddit gives me a hide button and a
collapse thread button.

------
dramaticus3
> While Linux is supposed to be open source

What an extraordinary statement.

~~~
dmoney
It's not a statement, it's a clause.

------
pointyhat
Don't the Mafia use tactics like this? It's a protection racket!

