Lawsuit indemnification

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Peter, Sep 2, 2004.

  1. Peter

    Peter Guest

    See:
    http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf...256F030011EA4F?OpenDocument&pub=Computerworld

    Particularly note:

    "Finally, Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of
    indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group
    against DaimlerChrysler, IBM, Novell and others over parts of the
    Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on its rights over
    Unix."

    And where, pray tell, Steve, does the standard Microsoft EULA provide
    for indemnity against lawsuits against end users by outfits claiming
    that they are using Microsoft products which have violated patents,
    copyrights, etc.

    Methinks that Steve Balmer is talking through a hole in his hat.
    Peter, Sep 2, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter

    Chris Hope Guest

    Peter wrote:

    > See:
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/0/1A24A7F6423DE392CC256F030011EA4F?
    > OpenDocument&pub=Computerworld
    >
    > Particularly note:
    >
    > "Finally, Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of
    > indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group
    > against DaimlerChrysler, IBM, Novell and others over parts of the
    > Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on its rights over
    > Unix."
    >
    > And where, pray tell, Steve, does the standard Microsoft EULA provide
    > for indemnity against lawsuits against end users by outfits claiming
    > that they are using Microsoft products which have violated patents,
    > copyrights, etc.
    >
    > Methinks that Steve Balmer is talking through a hole in his hat.


    IIRC correctly the EULA specifically releases them from any such
    indemnification. And if you buy licenses with companies such as RedHat and
    SuSE/Novell I'm pretty sure they are now offering indemnification as a
    result of the SCO Group suit.
    Chris Hope, Sep 2, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > See:
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf...256F030011EA4F?OpenDocument&pub=Computerworld
    >
    > Particularly note:
    >
    > "Finally, Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of
    > indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group
    > against DaimlerChrysler, IBM, Novell and others over parts of the
    > Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on its rights over
    > Unix."
    >
    > And where, pray tell, Steve, does the standard Microsoft EULA provide
    > for indemnity against lawsuits against end users by outfits claiming
    > that they are using Microsoft products which have violated patents,
    > copyrights, etc.
    >
    > Methinks that Steve Balmer is talking through a hole in his hat.
    >


    IANAL but methinks you might not understand where indemnity is important. In
    real life, low-volume users (e.g. an Office 2003 for Students and Teachers
    purchaser or somebody with a single copy of Small Business Server) don't
    need indemnity from being sued for intellectual property violations because
    they won't be sued due to cost and complexity. Indeminity is *very*
    important however for larger organisations and so we offer it via our volume
    licensing and enterprise agreements. To cut to the chase, Microsoft offers
    indemnity against copyright claims and patent claims and will pay any legal
    fees a corporate customer may incur as a result of associated legal action.
    The primary reasons we can do this are (a) we know where our code came from
    and (b) who owns it. Indeminity offerings around Linux from Novell, RedHat
    and HP are either capped $-wise (ours aren't) or limited (for example, HP's
    is limited to SCO claims only). This is a subject that is coming up more and
    more in conversations with larger organisations especially at a CEO and
    legal counsel level.

    Brett Roberts
    Microsoft NZ
    Brett Roberts, Sep 2, 2004
    #3
  4. Peter

    Peter Guest

    On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:54:57 +1200, "Brett Roberts"
    <> wrote:


    >IANAL but methinks you might not understand where indemnity is important.

    I think I can understand exactly whereMS is coming from.

    >In
    >real life, low-volume users (e.g. an Office 2003 for Students and Teachers
    >purchaser or somebody with a single copy of Small Business Server) don't
    >need indemnity from being sued for intellectual property violations because
    >they won't be sued due to cost and complexity.

    If this is the case then why does Microsoft not put its money where
    its mouth is and indemnify anyway? This is especially as such users
    pay far more for MS products than large users. If users pay a premium
    price for MS product, then surely they are entitled to just as much if
    not more 'service' than a low price high volume purchaser, including
    as much indemnity as the big boys get.
    Peter, Sep 3, 2004
    #4
  5. Peter

    steve Guest

    Peter wrote:

    > See:
    > http://computerworld.co.nz

    news.nsf/0/1A24A7F6423DE392CC256F030011EA4F?OpenDocument&pub=Computerworld
    >
    > Particularly note:
    >
    > "Finally, Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of
    > indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group
    > against DaimlerChrysler, IBM, Novell and others over parts of the
    > Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on its rights over
    > Unix."
    >
    > And where, pray tell, Steve, does the standard Microsoft EULA provide
    > for indemnity against lawsuits against end users by outfits claiming
    > that they are using Microsoft products which have violated patents,
    > copyrights, etc.
    >
    > Methinks that Steve Balmer is talking through a hole in his hat.


    Which one.
    steve, Sep 3, 2004
    #5
  6. Peter

    steve Guest

    Chris Hope wrote:

    > IIRC correctly the EULA specifically releases them from any such
    > indemnification. And if you buy licenses with companies such as RedHat and
    > SuSE/Novell I'm pretty sure they are now offering indemnification as a
    > result of the SCO Group suit.


    They are.

    ....and SCO has been having such bad time in the courts the risk is now
    vanishingly small even for those who didn't know know from Day One SCO's
    claims were bogus.

    I have Caldera (now SCO) Linux software here. They sold "Caldera OpenLinux"
    for several years - including the source code.

    It says so right on the t-shirt! :)
    steve, Sep 3, 2004
    #6
  7. Peter

    steve Guest

    Brett Roberts wrote:

    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> See:
    >> http://computerworld.co.nz

    news.nsf/0/1A24A7F6423DE392CC256F030011EA4F?OpenDocument&pub=Computerworld
    >>
    >> Particularly note:
    >>
    >> "Finally, Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of
    >> indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group
    >> against DaimlerChrysler, IBM, Novell and others over parts of the
    >> Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on its rights over
    >> Unix."
    >>
    >> And where, pray tell, Steve, does the standard Microsoft EULA provide
    >> for indemnity against lawsuits against end users by outfits claiming
    >> that they are using Microsoft products which have violated patents,
    >> copyrights, etc.
    >>
    >> Methinks that Steve Balmer is talking through a hole in his hat.
    >>

    >
    > IANAL but methinks you might not understand where indemnity is important.
    > In real life, low-volume users (e.g. an Office 2003 for Students and
    > Teachers purchaser or somebody with a single copy of Small Business
    > Server) don't need indemnity from being sued for intellectual property
    > violations because they won't be sued due to cost and complexity.


    Unless you're the RIAA.

    > Indeminity is *very* important however for larger organisations and so we
    > offer it via our volume licensing and enterprise agreements. To cut to the
    > chase, Microsoft offers indemnity against copyright claims and patent
    > claims and will pay any legal fees a corporate customer may incur as a
    > result of associated legal action. The primary reasons we can do this are
    > (a) we know where our code came from and (b) who owns it. Indeminity
    > offerings around Linux from Novell, RedHat and HP are either capped $-wise
    > (ours aren't) or limited (for example, HP's is limited to SCO claims
    > only). This is a subject that is coming up more and more in conversations
    > with larger organisations especially at a CEO and legal counsel level.


    Legal counsel can be relied upon to highlight all sorts of spurious "risk"
    to justify their fees.

    I used to call it fear-mongering for money.
    steve, Sep 3, 2004
    #7
  8. "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:54:57 +1200, "Brett Roberts"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>IANAL but methinks you might not understand where indemnity is important.

    > I think I can understand exactly whereMS is coming from.
    >
    >>In
    >>real life, low-volume users (e.g. an Office 2003 for Students and Teachers
    >>purchaser or somebody with a single copy of Small Business Server) don't
    >>need indemnity from being sued for intellectual property violations
    >>because
    >>they won't be sued due to cost and complexity.

    > If this is the case then why does Microsoft not put its money where
    > its mouth is and indemnify anyway? This is especially as such users
    > pay far more for MS products than large users. If users pay a premium
    > price for MS product, then surely they are entitled to just as much if
    > not more 'service' than a low price high volume purchaser, including
    > as much indemnity as the big boys get.
    >


    So, to make sure I understand this correctly, you're saying Microsoft should
    indemnify smaller customers even though real-life experience and common
    sense would indicate that there is no real benefit to them or us in doing
    so. If that synopsis is correct then my answer would be that spending large
    sums of money on things which are never going to be needed is generally
    frowned on by management and shareholders. We might as well insure them
    against being hit by meteorites (yes, I know a few people have been hit by
    meteorites, it's an analogy... work with me here)

    Your "premium" comment is interesting, do small-volume purchasers pay a
    premium or do high-volume purchasers get a discount ? I guess it depends on
    your perspective.
    Brett Roberts, Sep 3, 2004
    #8
  9. Peter

    Roger_Nickel Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > See:
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf...256F030011EA4F?OpenDocument&pub=Computerworld
    >
    > Particularly note:
    >
    > "Finally, Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of
    > indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group
    > against DaimlerChrysler, IBM, Novell and others over parts of the
    > Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on its rights over
    > Unix."
    >
    > And where, pray tell, Steve, does the standard Microsoft EULA provide
    > for indemnity against lawsuits against end users by outfits claiming
    > that they are using Microsoft products which have violated patents,
    > copyrights, etc.
    >
    > Methinks that Steve Balmer is talking through a hole in his hat.
    >

    IBM does not offer indemnity but they don't hesitate to go in to bat on
    behalf of their users. IBM seems to be doing OK against SCO at the
    moment, probably better than would a third party insurance company which
    would likely lean toward a negotiated settlement and to hell with the
    users of OSS. The Microsoft attempt to get their version of Sender ID
    accepted as an internet standard seems to have failed on grounds that
    users were not prepared to accept the License Suspended When Patent
    Litigation Starts clause in the EULA. Ironically a similar clause is one
    of the foundations of the GPL. This leaves IBM and HP, the companies
    with the resources to fight MS on the patent litigation front, free to
    conterattack MS if necessary. IBM in particular has much more experience
    in this area and possibly enough patents to put MS out of business if
    they chose to enforce them rigorously.

    http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/portfolio.shtml

    "For each of the past 11 years (1993 - 2003), IBM has been granted more
    U.S. patents than any other company. During that period IBM has received
    25,772 US patents. In 2003, IBM received 3,415 U.S. patents, breaking
    the record it set previously for the most US patents received in a
    single year."
    Roger_Nickel, Sep 3, 2004
    #9
  10. Peter

    Roger Nickel Guest

    Peter wrote:
    > See:
    > http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf...256F030011EA4F?OpenDocument&pub=Computerworld
    >
    >
    > Particularly note:
    >
    > "Finally, Ballmer argued that companies should be wary of the lack of
    > indemnity from lawsuits, such as the suit filed by The SCO Group
    > against DaimlerChrysler, IBM, Novell and others over parts of the
    > Linux operating system that SCO claims infringe on its rights over
    > Unix."
    >
    > And where, pray tell, Steve, does the standard Microsoft EULA provide
    > for indemnity against lawsuits against end users by outfits claiming
    > that they are using Microsoft products which have violated patents,
    > copyrights, etc.
    >
    > Methinks that Steve Balmer is talking through a hole in his hat.
    >

    IBM does not offer indemnity but they don't hesitate to go in to bat on
    behalf of their users. IBM seems to be doing OK against SCO at the
    moment, probably better than would a third party insurance company which
    would likely lean toward a negotiated settlement and to hell with the
    users of OSS. The Microsoft attempt to get their version of Sender ID
    accepted as an internet standard seems to have failed on grounds that
    users were not prepared to accept the License Suspended When Patent
    Litigation Starts clause in the EULA. Ironically a similar clause is one
    of the foundations of the GPL. This leaves IBM and HP, the companies
    with the resources to fight MS on the patent litigation front, free to
    conterattack MS if necessary. IBM in particular has much more experience
    in this area and possibly enough patents to put MS out of business if
    they chose to enforce them rigorously.

    http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/portfolio.shtml

    "For each of the past 11 years (1993 - 2003), IBM has been granted more
    U.S. patents than any other company. During that period IBM has received
    25,772 US patents. In 2003, IBM received 3,415 U.S. patents, breaking
    the record it set previously for the most US patents received in a
    single year."
    Roger Nickel, Sep 3, 2004
    #10
  11. Peter

    Peter Guest

    On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:37:31 +1200, "Brett Roberts"
    <> wrote:


    >So, to make sure I understand this correctly, you're saying Microsoft should
    >indemnify smaller customers even though real-life experience and common
    >sense would indicate that there is no real benefit to them or us in doing
    >so. If that synopsis is correct then my answer would be that spending large
    >sums of money on things which are never going to be needed is generally
    >frowned on by management and shareholders.

    What cost? If your previous reasoning is correct i.e. small customers
    are very unlikely to be sued, then the cost of indemnifying small
    customers would be miniscule and whatever this cost is would be offset
    by enhanced goodwill.

    Moreover if MS is so sure of the pedigree of its code, the cost of
    indemnifying all customers would be miniscule anyway.
    Peter, Sep 3, 2004
    #11
  12. "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 12:37:31 +1200, "Brett Roberts"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>So, to make sure I understand this correctly, you're saying Microsoft
    >>should
    >>indemnify smaller customers even though real-life experience and common
    >>sense would indicate that there is no real benefit to them or us in doing
    >>so. If that synopsis is correct then my answer would be that spending
    >>large
    >>sums of money on things which are never going to be needed is generally
    >>frowned on by management and shareholders.

    > What cost? If your previous reasoning is correct i.e. small customers
    > are very unlikely to be sued, then the cost of indemnifying small
    > customers would be miniscule and whatever this cost is would be offset
    > by enhanced goodwill.
    >
    > Moreover if MS is so sure of the pedigree of its code, the cost of
    > indemnifying all customers would be miniscule anyway.
    >


    For starters there's the cost of investigating the options and
    implementation (the options you might make available to a consumer or small
    business are probably substantially different to those you'd put in front of
    a large company), the cost of determining how they fit in with local laws in
    the <insert large number here> of countries Microsoft does business in, the
    cost of communicating the options to customers, the cost of changing
    existing products. Bottom line: there's minimal actual return (if not zero)
    for a substantial investment. Dividing zero by any number looks bad on an
    ROI analysis.

    BTW, we are very sure of the pedigree of our code and my guess is that this
    type of assurance will prove to be of ever-increasing value to our larger
    customers going forward.

    Brett Roberts
    Microsoft NZ
    Brett Roberts, Sep 3, 2004
    #12
  13. Peter

    Peter Guest

    On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:00:40 +1200, "Brett Roberts"
    <> wrote:

    >> What cost? If your previous reasoning is correct i.e. small customers
    >> are very unlikely to be sued, then the cost of indemnifying small
    >> customers would be miniscule and whatever this cost is would be offset
    >> by enhanced goodwill.
    >>
    >> Moreover if MS is so sure of the pedigree of its code, the cost of
    >> indemnifying all customers would be miniscule anyway.
    >>

    >
    >For starters there's the cost of investigating the options and
    >implementation (the options you might make available to a consumer or small
    >business are probably substantially different to those you'd put in front of
    >a large company),


    This has become very interesting. when I drafted my previous comment,
    I changed 'customers' to 'consumers' as this more accurately reflects
    what utility companies, insurance companies, etc think of their small
    customers , but being the reasonable sort of chap I am, I thought
    better of it and changed it back to 'customers'.

    Brett's response indeed shows that my judgement is lacking in this
    regard. He refers to small customers as 'consumers'. Touché!
    Peter, Sep 3, 2004
    #13
  14. Peter wrote:
    > Brett's response indeed shows that my judgement is lacking in this
    > regard. He refers to small customers as 'consumers'. Touché!


    heh, I work at a hospital, and I refer to patients as customers... is
    that wrong?

    --
    Dave Hall
    http://www.dave.net.nz
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Sep 3, 2004
    #14
  15. "Peter" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 16:00:40 +1200, "Brett Roberts"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>> What cost? If your previous reasoning is correct i.e. small customers
    >>> are very unlikely to be sued, then the cost of indemnifying small
    >>> customers would be miniscule and whatever this cost is would be offset
    >>> by enhanced goodwill.
    >>>
    >>> Moreover if MS is so sure of the pedigree of its code, the cost of
    >>> indemnifying all customers would be miniscule anyway.
    >>>

    >>
    >>For starters there's the cost of investigating the options and
    >>implementation (the options you might make available to a consumer or
    >>small
    >>business are probably substantially different to those you'd put in front
    >>of
    >>a large company),

    >
    > This has become very interesting. when I drafted my previous comment,
    > I changed 'customers' to 'consumers' as this more accurately reflects
    > what utility companies, insurance companies, etc think of their small
    > customers , but being the reasonable sort of chap I am, I thought
    > better of it and changed it back to 'customers'.
    >
    > Brett's response indeed shows that my judgement is lacking in this
    > regard. He refers to small customers as 'consumers'. Touché!
    >


    FWIW, Microsoft segments its customer base into a variety of separate
    groups such as:

    - consumers (home users)
    - small businesses (2 to 50 PC's)
    - medium businesses (51 to 499 PC's)
    - enterprises (500+ PC's)
    - academic (universities, schools etc)

    There are obviously many sub-categories within each of the above but I won't
    bore you with the details. The bottom line is that one size does not fit all
    :)
    Brett Roberts, Sep 3, 2004
    #15
  16. Peter

    thing Guest

    Brett Roberts wrote:
    > "Peter" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:54:57 +1200, "Brett Roberts"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>IANAL but methinks you might not understand where indemnity is important.

    >>
    >>I think I can understand exactly whereMS is coming from.
    >>
    >>
    >>>In
    >>>real life, low-volume users (e.g. an Office 2003 for Students and Teachers
    >>>purchaser or somebody with a single copy of Small Business Server) don't
    >>>need indemnity from being sued for intellectual property violations
    >>>because
    >>>they won't be sued due to cost and complexity.

    >>
    >>If this is the case then why does Microsoft not put its money where
    >>its mouth is and indemnify anyway? This is especially as such users
    >>pay far more for MS products than large users. If users pay a premium
    >>price for MS product, then surely they are entitled to just as much if
    >>not more 'service' than a low price high volume purchaser, including
    >>as much indemnity as the big boys get.
    >>

    >
    >
    > So, to make sure I understand this correctly, you're saying Microsoft should
    > indemnify smaller customers even though real-life experience and common
    > sense would indicate that there is no real benefit to them or us in doing
    > so.


    In which case why not offer it as a PR exercise?, from what your saying
    it will not be taken up. Of course what often happens is holders of
    patents start by sueing small companies, establish case law and go for
    bigger.


    If that synopsis is correct then my answer would be that spending large
    > sums of money on things which are never going to be needed is generally
    > frowned on by management and shareholders.


    If it isnt going to be needed, what are you spending lareg sums on?

    We might as well insure them
    > against being hit by meteorites (yes, I know a few people have been hit by
    > meteorites, it's an analogy... work with me here)
    >
    > Your "premium" comment is interesting, do small-volume purchasers pay a
    > premium or do high-volume purchasers get a discount ? I guess it depends on
    > your perspective.


    regards

    Thing
    thing, Sep 3, 2004
    #16
  17. Peter

    thing Guest

    Brett Roberts wrote:

    8><----

    > The primary reasons we can do this are (a) we know where our code came from
    > and (b) who owns it. Indeminity offerings around Linux from Novell, RedHat
    > and HP are either capped $-wise (ours aren't) or limited (for example, HP's
    > is limited to SCO claims only). This is a subject that is coming up more and
    > more in conversations with larger organisations especially at a CEO and
    > legal counsel level.
    >
    > Brett Roberts
    > Microsoft NZ
    >


    Conversations you raise? or the clinet raises? all I can say is bring it
    on (FUD) any CEO/CIO who is so incompetant as to believe your speal at
    face value deserves all he gets.

    In reality SCO's litigation is worthless, OS such as Linux has 13 years
    of open development which is available on line for anyone to see. Each
    and every iteration can be inspected at any time for infringement, SCO
    is spending upwarsd of & million a 1/4 on legal fees, several people at
    MIT etc have gone through the Linux code comparing it with Minix and
    SCO, and nothing has turned up. Imn the same period just how many times
    has MS ended up in court or legal negoitiations over copyright, patents
    and dodgy business practices?

    So here you are trying to claim MS is clean and can stay clean.

    regards

    Thing
    thing, Sep 3, 2004
    #17
  18. Peter

    Peter Guest

    On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 16:52:30 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
    <dave@no_spam_here_dave.net.nz> wrote:

    >Peter wrote:
    >> Brett's response indeed shows that my judgement is lacking in this
    >> regard. He refers to small customers as 'consumers'. Touché!

    >
    >heh, I work at a hospital, and I refer to patients as customers... is
    >that wrong?
    >

    Fine, if that is your attitude, I will be around like a shot if I need
    an op.
    Peter, Sep 3, 2004
    #18
  19. "thing" <> wrote in message
    news:UGTZc.1911$...
    > Brett Roberts wrote:
    >> "Peter" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>
    >>>On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 09:54:57 +1200, "Brett Roberts"
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>IANAL but methinks you might not understand where indemnity is
    >>>>important.
    >>>
    >>>I think I can understand exactly whereMS is coming from.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>In
    >>>>real life, low-volume users (e.g. an Office 2003 for Students and
    >>>>Teachers
    >>>>purchaser or somebody with a single copy of Small Business Server) don't
    >>>>need indemnity from being sued for intellectual property violations
    >>>>because
    >>>>they won't be sued due to cost and complexity.
    >>>
    >>>If this is the case then why does Microsoft not put its money where
    >>>its mouth is and indemnify anyway? This is especially as such users
    >>>pay far more for MS products than large users. If users pay a premium
    >>>price for MS product, then surely they are entitled to just as much if
    >>>not more 'service' than a low price high volume purchaser, including
    >>>as much indemnity as the big boys get.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> So, to make sure I understand this correctly, you're saying Microsoft
    >> should indemnify smaller customers even though real-life experience and
    >> common sense would indicate that there is no real benefit to them or us
    >> in doing so.

    >
    > In which case why not offer it as a PR exercise?, from what your saying it
    > will not be taken up. Of course what often happens is holders of patents
    > start by sueing small companies, establish case law and go for bigger.
    >
    >
    > If that synopsis is correct then my answer would be that spending large
    >> sums of money on things which are never going to be needed is generally
    >> frowned on by management and shareholders.

    >
    > If it isnt going to be needed, what are you spending lareg sums on?
    >
    > We might as well insure them
    >> against being hit by meteorites (yes, I know a few people have been hit
    >> by meteorites, it's an analogy... work with me here)
    >>
    >> Your "premium" comment is interesting, do small-volume purchasers pay a
    >> premium or do high-volume purchasers get a discount ? I guess it depends
    >> on your perspective.

    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >
    >
    >
    >


    I guess one could argue that it might be easier for Microsoft to do that
    than for IBM, RedHat, Novell and HP to step up and offer 100%, uncapped
    indemnification for Linux (but that would be stirring) :)
    Brett Roberts, Sep 3, 2004
    #19
  20. "thing" <> wrote in message
    news:SMTZc.1912$...
    > Brett Roberts wrote:
    >
    > 8><----
    >
    >> The primary reasons we can do this are (a) we know where our code came
    >> from and (b) who owns it. Indeminity offerings around Linux from Novell,
    >> RedHat and HP are either capped $-wise (ours aren't) or limited (for
    >> example, HP's is limited to SCO claims only). This is a subject that is
    >> coming up more and more in conversations with larger organisations
    >> especially at a CEO and legal counsel level.
    >>
    >> Brett Roberts
    >> Microsoft NZ

    >
    > Conversations you raise? or the clinet raises? all I can say is bring it
    > on (FUD) any CEO/CIO who is so incompetant as to believe your speal at
    > face value deserves all he gets.
    >
    > In reality SCO's litigation is worthless, OS such as Linux has 13 years of
    > open development which is available on line for anyone to see. Each and
    > every iteration can be inspected at any time for infringement, SCO is
    > spending upwarsd of & million a 1/4 on legal fees, several people at MIT
    > etc have gone through the Linux code comparing it with Minix and SCO, and
    > nothing has turned up. Imn the same period just how many times has MS
    > ended up in court or legal negoitiations over copyright, patents and dodgy
    > business practices?
    >
    > So here you are trying to claim MS is clean and can stay clean.
    >
    > regards
    >
    > Thing
    >
    >


    Fascinating stuff but I don't see too much thinking from you on the points I
    made. If the Linux codebase is so squeaky clean where's the 100% indemnity
    offers from IBM, HP, RedHat, Novell, Mandrakesoft (or "several people at
    MIT" for that matter) ? Perhaps their legal people know something about the
    process and implications of indemnification that you don't. While all that
    happens, Microsoft's legal people are happy to offer full indemnity to our
    customers (btw, we started down this path in the mid-90's)

    Brett Roberts
    Microsoft NZ
    Brett Roberts, Sep 3, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. TechNews
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    666
    Duane Arnold
    Jun 16, 2004
  2. Tech
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    495
  3. olympussuit

    Olympus class action lawsuit

    olympussuit, Aug 27, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    660
    Chuck Gadd
    Aug 30, 2003
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,548
  5. Mark Gold

    Lawsuit over fake widescreen

    Mark Gold, Jan 7, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    1,007
    Brian \Demolition Man\ Little
    Jan 11, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page