Microsoft Warns Asian Governments of Linux Lawsuits

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Mutlley, Nov 18, 2004.

  1. Mutlley

    Mutlley Guest

    Mutlley, Nov 18, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mutlley wrote:
    > "SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. warned Asian governments on
    > Thursday they could face patent lawsuits for using the Linux (news -
    > web sites) operating system instead of its Windows software.


    well it is partially true... although they may also face patent lawsuits
    if they use Windows too.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Nov 18, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mutlley

    Alex Axolotl Guest

    Mutlley wrote:

    > Doesn't Microshit ever give up on this stuff.
    >
    > "SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. warned Asian governments on
    > Thursday they could face patent lawsuits for using the Linux (news -
    > web sites) operating system instead of its Windows software.
    >
    > Link.
    >
    > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&e=9&u=/nm/20041118

    tc_nm/asia_tech_microsoft_dc

    This would be the same patent lawsuits that have been so successful in the
    US and the EU ?
     
    Alex Axolotl, Nov 18, 2004
    #3
  4. Mutlley

    Chris Hope Guest

    Dave - Dave.net.nz wrote:

    > Mutlley wrote:
    >> "SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. warned Asian governments on
    >> Thursday they could face patent lawsuits for using the Linux (news -
    >> web sites) operating system instead of its Windows software.

    >
    > well it is partially true... although they may also face patent lawsuits
    > if they use Windows too.


    Actually Microsoft has been claiming recently that they will indemnify *all*
    customers now in the event of a breach of someone else's patent.

    What I find funny about MS spreading all this FUD about Linux is that it's
    giving great press to Linux and OSS. If they just learned to shut their
    mouths and go about their business far fewer people would have even heard
    about Linux.

    --
    Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/
     
    Chris Hope, Nov 18, 2004
    #4
  5. Chris Hope wrote:
    >>>"SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. warned Asian governments on
    >>>Thursday they could face patent lawsuits for using the Linux (news -
    >>>web sites) operating system instead of its Windows software.


    >>well it is partially true... although they may also face patent lawsuits
    >>if they use Windows too.


    > Actually Microsoft has been claiming recently that they will indemnify *all*
    > customers now in the event of a breach of someone else's patent.


    must have missed that one.

    > What I find funny about MS spreading all this FUD about Linux is that it's
    > giving great press to Linux and OSS. If they just learned to shut their
    > mouths and go about their business far fewer people would have even heard
    > about Linux.


    heh, like most things that are a non-issue, they only become an issue
    when someone yells it from atop their soap box.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Nov 18, 2004
    #5
  6. Mutlley

    thing Guest

    Alex Axolotl wrote:
    > Mutlley wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Doesn't Microshit ever give up on this stuff.
    >>
    >>"SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. warned Asian governments on
    >>Thursday they could face patent lawsuits for using the Linux (news -
    >>web sites) operating system instead of its Windows software.
    >>
    >>Link.
    >>
    >>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&e=9&u=/nm/20041118

    >
    > tc_nm/asia_tech_microsoft_dc
    >
    > This would be the same patent lawsuits that have been so successful in the
    > US and the EU ?


    No, MS has as yet not launched any patent law suits against Linux/OSS.
    To do so at present would be foolish IMHO...

    The US is trying to get US style software patents approved in the EU,
    nasty tactics like this would likely backfire on this process. If EU
    politicians saw MS sueing its competition over dodgy patents only valid
    in the US, what would be the chances of similar legislation passing in
    the EU? about zilch....

    The WTO link is interesting, a way of getting US IP laws into foreign
    countries by the backdoor.

    IMHO, this is a silly tactic by Ballmer because,

    1) It shows his/MS's arrogance, and badly, you just do not threaten
    Heads of State with being sued when they use alternative software to MS.
    2) It raises warning signals in the Head's of State to make sure WTO
    negoitiations do not allow this.
    3) It shows how worried MS is about Linux and Linux in Asia. Asia will
    be the world's biggest market, the US and even the EU will be chicken
    feed by comparison.

    With MS's first world pricing and stamping out of piracy in Asia (and
    quite rightly) most Asian businesses are not going to go MS software,
    they cannot economically afford it, they can afford linux though. Even
    if SB is right and labour is a significant part of the TCO, and Windows
    beats Linux at this point and I do not believe so, the Asian market is
    different. In Asia, labour is dirt cheap and they are turnng out huge
    quantities of Computer Science graduates, all earning a fraction of what
    a first world sys admin earns. So with Green filed sites, cheap and
    plentiful labour and free OSS, MS just cannot compete.

    In this scenario MS can but lose, hence its legal threats, it has no
    other weapons.

    I think it shows MS up in a bad light.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Nov 18, 2004
    #6
  7. Mutlley

    Chris Hope Guest

    thing wrote:

    > Alex Axolotl wrote:
    >> Mutlley wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Doesn't Microshit ever give up on this stuff.
    >>>
    >>>"SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. warned Asian governments on
    >>>Thursday they could face patent lawsuits for using the Linux (news -
    >>>web sites) operating system instead of its Windows software.
    >>>
    >>>Link.
    >>>
    >>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&e=9&u=/nm/20041118

    >>
    >> tc_nm/asia_tech_microsoft_dc
    >>
    >> This would be the same patent lawsuits that have been so successful in
    >> the US and the EU ?

    >
    > No, MS has as yet not launched any patent law suits against Linux/OSS.
    > To do so at present would be foolish IMHO...
    >
    > The US is trying to get US style software patents approved in the EU,
    > nasty tactics like this would likely backfire on this process. If EU
    > politicians saw MS sueing its competition over dodgy patents only valid
    > in the US, what would be the chances of similar legislation passing in
    > the EU? about zilch....
    >
    > The WTO link is interesting, a way of getting US IP laws into foreign
    > countries by the backdoor.
    >
    > IMHO, this is a silly tactic by Ballmer because,
    >
    > 1) It shows his/MS's arrogance, and badly, you just do not threaten
    > Heads of State with being sued when they use alternative software to MS.
    > 2) It raises warning signals in the Head's of State to make sure WTO
    > negoitiations do not allow this.
    > 3) It shows how worried MS is about Linux and Linux in Asia. Asia will
    > be the world's biggest market, the US and even the EU will be chicken
    > feed by comparison.
    >
    > With MS's first world pricing and stamping out of piracy in Asia (and
    > quite rightly) most Asian businesses are not going to go MS software,
    > they cannot economically afford it, they can afford linux though. Even
    > if SB is right and labour is a significant part of the TCO, and Windows
    > beats Linux at this point and I do not believe so, the Asian market is
    > different. In Asia, labour is dirt cheap and they are turnng out huge
    > quantities of Computer Science graduates, all earning a fraction of what
    > a first world sys admin earns. So with Green filed sites, cheap and
    > plentiful labour and free OSS, MS just cannot compete.


    I've read a lot of anecdotal evidence from sysadmins that indicates it is
    far easier to admin large Linux/Unix based networks than it is to admin
    large Windows based networks.

    Often the Linux/Unix admins are paid more than the MS ones*, but you need
    less of them because there isn't so much work to do. So in this respect the
    longer term TCO should be lower for Linux over Windows, assuming the
    anecdotal evidence is correct.

    *I'm guessing this is probably the case because in a lot of respects Windows
    is easier to admin than Linux because of its pretty point and click
    interface so you don't actually have to *know* as much to admin a Windows
    box.

    --
    Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/
     
    Chris Hope, Nov 18, 2004
    #7
  8. Mutlley

    Matthias Guest

    thing wrote:

    > No, MS has as yet not launched any patent law suits against Linux/OSS.
    > To do so at present would be foolish IMHO...


    Especially since that would effectively put Microsoft up against IBM
    and--with their enormous patent portfolio--IBM are probably the last
    company you would want to be facing in a patent dispute.

    -- Matthias
     
    Matthias, Nov 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Mutlley

    thing Guest

    Chris Hope wrote:

    8><----
    >
    > I've read a lot of anecdotal evidence from sysadmins that indicates it is
    > far easier to admin large Linux/Unix based networks than it is to admin
    > large Windows based networks.
    >
    > Often the Linux/Unix admins are paid more than the MS ones*, but you need
    > less of them because there isn't so much work to do. So in this respect the
    > longer term TCO should be lower for Linux over Windows, assuming the
    > anecdotal evidence is correct.
    >
    > *I'm guessing this is probably the case because in a lot of respects Windows
    > is easier to admin than Linux because of its pretty point and click
    > interface so you don't actually have to *know* as much to admin a Windows
    > box.


    In small networks, the simple guis/wizards of Windows might well be a
    help, ie if you have an office worker who is the part time sys admin,
    then yes I think there is a strong argument that Windows is cheaper day
    to day, because an external Linux guru is not needed for small jobs so
    no hefty hourly bill, and the office workers IT time is hidden.

    When we look at large upgrades even in a small environment then a
    "consulatant" is called in, at this point I dont see the cost of a
    Windows Guru, or a Linux guru being significantly different.

    For large Enterprises,

    Well you just have to see what the charges are to upgrade Exchange from
    2000 to 2003....and how long it takes....

    However getting Sun/HP in to upgrade a risc server....waaaaaaaa!!!!

    My experience with my fellow NT sys admins (we run Unix/Linux & NT on
    site with a team split/overlap) is that they are as skilled and
    knowledgeable as us unix people. They are good and I think anybody who
    is good will see a similar pay scale when you look at the years of
    experience.

    I have also been keeping an eye on the Unix/Linux job ads, I have seen
    some requirements for a Linux sys admins that has a salary less than a
    desktop support guy for more years experience. So the claim that Linux
    sys admins cost more lacks any meaningful shread of evidence IMHO.

    Generally a Unix sys admin is paid considerably better than a Linux one,
    hence I do Unix as well as Linux as well as MS (in descending order).

    For workloads, yes I believe Linux has a lower man time requirement per
    box for the same duty and load than MS. However most MS sites have a
    heavy user interface component (read dumb) lacking in most Linux setups,
    so the Windows file/print space is actually more complex on average I
    believe than most Linux deployments, hence more NT sys admins are needed.

    As Linux moves more and more into similar spaces as Windows, then we
    might see enough data to compare, but at present, all bets are off IMHO.

    The TCO studies I have seen have lacked major components,

    1) They usually do not include the upgrade cost from one version of
    Windows software to another.

    2) They do not make allowances for anti-virus software costs and virus
    outbreak costs/repairs, both are a significant drain on an NT system.

    3) What they often lose sight of is the delivery of the required end
    result ie,

    they assume a "normal" thick client/server model, when you look at a
    thin client MS model the savings do not add up due to licencing, but
    looking at a Linux thin client model and the savings are substantial,
    both in licencing terms and admin terms.

    So what we should be looking at is the TCO comparison to meet the
    clients requirements and not the TCO between 2 similar platforms that
    might well not be the cheapset overall concept that does the job.

    regards

    Thing
     
    thing, Nov 18, 2004
    #9
  10. Mutlley

    Chris Hope Guest

    thing wrote:

    > Chris Hope wrote:
    >
    > 8><----
    >>
    >> I've read a lot of anecdotal evidence from sysadmins that indicates it is
    >> far easier to admin large Linux/Unix based networks than it is to admin
    >> large Windows based networks.
    >>
    >> Often the Linux/Unix admins are paid more than the MS ones*, but you need
    >> less of them because there isn't so much work to do. So in this respect
    >> the longer term TCO should be lower for Linux over Windows, assuming the
    >> anecdotal evidence is correct.
    >>
    >> *I'm guessing this is probably the case because in a lot of respects
    >> Windows is easier to admin than Linux because of its pretty point and
    >> click interface so you don't actually have to *know* as much to admin a
    >> Windows box.

    >
    > In small networks, the simple guis/wizards of Windows might well be a
    > help, ie if you have an office worker who is the part time sys admin,
    > then yes I think there is a strong argument that Windows is cheaper day
    > to day, because an external Linux guru is not needed for small jobs so
    > no hefty hourly bill, and the office workers IT time is hidden.


    I totally agree. I'm no Windows fan but it's excellent in this respect
    because it's *really* easy to admin when it comes to the simple stuff.

    > When we look at large upgrades even in a small environment then a
    > "consulatant" is called in, at this point I dont see the cost of a
    > Windows Guru, or a Linux guru being significantly different.
    >
    > For large Enterprises,
    >
    > Well you just have to see what the charges are to upgrade Exchange from
    > 2000 to 2003....and how long it takes....


    Yeah - I was working at a large direct marketing agency when they switched
    from 2000 to 2003 and also to active directory. For the week after changing
    to active directory it took about 5 minutes to log into your computer and
    could take quite a while just to save files on the network. They sorted it
    out in the end but my morning routine was start up computer, enter login
    and password then go get coffee while waiting for it to log in. And all
    manner of things screwed up when they moved to exchange 2003.

    > However getting Sun/HP in to upgrade a risc server....waaaaaaaa!!!!
    >
    > My experience with my fellow NT sys admins (we run Unix/Linux & NT on
    > site with a team split/overlap) is that they are as skilled and
    > knowledgeable as us unix people. They are good and I think anybody who
    > is good will see a similar pay scale when you look at the years of
    > experience.
    >
    > I have also been keeping an eye on the Unix/Linux job ads, I have seen
    > some requirements for a Linux sys admins that has a salary less than a
    > desktop support guy for more years experience. So the claim that Linux
    > sys admins cost more lacks any meaningful shread of evidence IMHO.
    >
    > Generally a Unix sys admin is paid considerably better than a Linux one,
    > hence I do Unix as well as Linux as well as MS (in descending order).
    >
    > For workloads, yes I believe Linux has a lower man time requirement per
    > box for the same duty and load than MS. However most MS sites have a
    > heavy user interface component (read dumb) lacking in most Linux setups,
    > so the Windows file/print space is actually more complex on average I
    > believe than most Linux deployments, hence more NT sys admins are needed.
    >
    > As Linux moves more and more into similar spaces as Windows, then we
    > might see enough data to compare, but at present, all bets are off IMHO.


    Interesting. Thanks for sharing your experience.

    > The TCO studies I have seen have lacked major components,
    >
    > 1) They usually do not include the upgrade cost from one version of
    > Windows software to another.
    >
    > 2) They do not make allowances for anti-virus software costs and virus
    > outbreak costs/repairs, both are a significant drain on an NT system.
    >
    > 3) What they often lose sight of is the delivery of the required end
    > result ie,
    >
    > they assume a "normal" thick client/server model, when you look at a
    > thin client MS model the savings do not add up due to licencing, but
    > looking at a Linux thin client model and the savings are substantial,
    > both in licencing terms and admin terms.
    >
    > So what we should be looking at is the TCO comparison to meet the
    > clients requirements and not the TCO between 2 similar platforms that
    > might well not be the cheapset overall concept that does the job.


    I always read TCO studies with a level of scepticism, and you're right that
    they're only really useful on a customer by customer basis. The generic
    publicised ones are almost always geared to make one system out to be
    better than another. That one of Microsoft's which compared NT on a
    standard server with Linux on a mainframe was just a joke. I'm sure there
    are equally crappy TCOs the other way round which favour Linux, Sun, HP
    etc.

    --
    Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/
     
    Chris Hope, Nov 18, 2004
    #10
  11. thing wrote:
    sniped a heap of very valid points.
    > The TCO studies I have seen have lacked major components,


    > 2) They do not make allowances for anti-virus software costs and virus
    > outbreak costs/repairs, both are a significant drain on an NT system.


    This is not a major problem *if* the systems are kept up to date etc.

    > So what we should be looking at is the TCO comparison to meet the
    > clients requirements and not the TCO between 2 similar platforms that
    > might well not be the cheapset overall concept that does the job.


    indeed.
     
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Nov 18, 2004
    #11
  12. Mutlley

    William Bell Guest

    On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:32:28 +1300, thing <> wrote:

    >Alex Axolotl wrote:
    >> Mutlley wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Doesn't Microshit ever give up on this stuff.
    >>>
    >>>"SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. warned Asian governments on
    >>>Thursday they could face patent lawsuits for using the Linux (news -
    >>>web sites) operating system instead of its Windows software.
    >>>
    >>>Link.
    >>>
    >>>http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&e=9&u=/nm/20041118

    >>


    >I think it shows MS up in a bad light.
    >
    >regards
    >
    >Thing




    Na just shows that all Yanks are crooks, its history show that..
     
    William Bell, Nov 18, 2004
    #12
  13. Mutlley

    steve Guest

    Mutlley wrote:

    > Doesn't Microshit ever give up on this stuff.
    >
    > "SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. warned Asian governments on
    > Thursday they could face patent lawsuits for using the Linux (news -
    > web sites) operating system instead of its Windows software.
    >
    > Link.
    >
    > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=569&e=9&u=/nm/20041118

    tc_nm/asia_tech_microsoft_dc

    They won't give up.....and nor should anyone who wants to use Linux.

    It is nothing but extortion to threaten people with what are effectively
    spurious lawsuits.

    --
    Distributed Computing Projects:
    SETI at Home
    http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=1248
    ClimatePrediction.net
    http://boinc.mundayweb.com/cpdn/stats.php?userID=334
     
    steve, Nov 19, 2004
    #13
  14. Mutlley

    Peter Guest

    Chris Hope wrote:
    > Actually Microsoft has been claiming recently that they will indemnify
    > *all* customers now in the event of a breach of someone else's patent.


    Although I have seen MS loudly proclaiming that Linux users aren't covered,
    I don't recall seeing an undertaking from MS to indemnify all their
    customers.

    Do you have a reference or link for this?


    Peter
     
    Peter, Nov 19, 2004
    #14
  15. Mutlley

    Chris Hope Guest

    Peter wrote:

    > Chris Hope wrote:
    >> Actually Microsoft has been claiming recently that they will indemnify
    >> *all* customers now in the event of a breach of someone else's patent.

    >
    > Although I have seen MS loudly proclaiming that Linux users aren't
    > covered, I don't recall seeing an undertaking from MS to indemnify all
    > their customers.
    >
    > Do you have a reference or link for this?


    Looks like I wasn't quite right - they'll indemnify for IP claims but it
    doesn't say anything about patents.

    http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/nov04/11-10IPProtectionPR.asp

    --
    Chris Hope - The Electric Toolbox - http://www.electrictoolbox.com/
     
    Chris Hope, Nov 19, 2004
    #15
  16. Mutlley

    Peter Guest

    Mutlley wrote:
    > Doesn't Microshit ever give up on this stuff.
    >
    > "SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. warned Asian governments on
    > Thursday they could face patent lawsuits for using the Linux (news -
    > web sites) operating system instead of its Windows software.


    Some more on this over at Register ...
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/11/19/microsoft_wto_winning_without_firing/
    including some interesting comments on Microsoft's apparent strategy and
    their use of the WTO.


    Peter
     
    Peter, Nov 19, 2004
    #16
  17. In article <ti9nd.3592$>, Matthias <> wrote:
    >thing wrote:
    >
    >> No, MS has as yet not launched any patent law suits against Linux/OSS.
    >> To do so at present would be foolish IMHO...

    >
    >Especially since that would effectively put Microsoft up against IBM
    >and--with their enormous patent portfolio--IBM are probably the last
    >company you would want to be facing in a patent dispute.
    >

    1) IBM's turnover is vastly greater than MS's. Several 10s of millions
    of dollars a year greater.
    2) IBM ground the US DoJ to a halt. Not even MS achieved that.
    3) In said case between IBM and the US DoJ, IBM filed one motion which
    was 56 four-drawer filing cabinets. Their legal team is enormous, and
    highly competent. MS lacks the length of experience to even start to
    compete in a lawyer war.

    If anyone's going to take on MS and wipe the floor, it will be IBM.
    Though that said, Novell just took home a healthy wad'o'cash. A few
    more of those, and MS's pending dividends won't be quite so generous.

    --
    Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
    "Veni, vidi, velcro...
    I came, I saw, I stuck around"

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
     
    Matthew Poole, Nov 19, 2004
    #17
  18. Mutlley

    Dumbkiwi Guest

    On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:42:16 +1300, Chris Hope wrote:

    > Peter wrote:
    >
    >> Chris Hope wrote:
    >>> Actually Microsoft has been claiming recently that they will indemnify
    >>> *all* customers now in the event of a breach of someone else's patent.

    >>
    >> Although I have seen MS loudly proclaiming that Linux users aren't
    >> covered, I don't recall seeing an undertaking from MS to indemnify all
    >> their customers.
    >>
    >> Do you have a reference or link for this?

    >
    > Looks like I wasn't quite right - they'll indemnify for IP claims but it
    > doesn't say anything about patents.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2004/nov04/11-10IPProtectionPR.asp


    THIS IS FROM THEIR WEBSITE:

    For any covered software, we will:
    * defend you against any claims made by an unaffiliated third party that
    the covered software infringes its patent, copyright, or trademark or
    misappropriates its trade secret, and
    * pay the amount of any resulting
    adverse final judgment against you (after any appeals) or settlement to
    which we consent.

    >Relatively standard - so far so good.


    For purposes of this commitment, the terms "misappropriation" and "trade
    secret" will have the meanings defined in the Uniform Trade Secret Act.

    You must notify us promptly in writing of the claim. You also must give us
    sole control over its defense or settlement. You agree to provide us with
    reasonable assistance in defending the claim. We will reimburse you for
    reasonable out-of-pocket expenses that you incur in providing that
    assistance. The claim might fall outside the scope of our commitment, but
    send it to us anyway. We may choose to treat it as if it were covered by
    this commitment.

    >You are accused of a breach, and they take over the defence. This would
    >be standard practice in any such indemnification contract.


    Our obligations will not apply to the extent that the claim or adverse
    final judgment is based on:

    >Here is the limitation of liability


    (i) your running of the covered software after we notify you to
    discontinue running due to such a claim;

    >MS breaches someone's IP. You have to stop using the software - hope
    >it's not mission critical. If you carry on using it because your
    >business will die without it, no indemnification. Hmmm Rock? Hard place?


    (ii) the combination of the
    covered software with a non-Microsoft product, data, or business process;

    >What does combination mean? Isn't the point of software to manipulate
    >data? If I use MS software for its intended purpose (ie manipulating my
    >own data) I'm not indemnified?


    (iii) damages attributable to the value of the use of a non-Microsoft
    product, data, or business process;

    (iv) your altering the covered
    software;

    >Fair enough.


    (v) your distribution of the covered software to, or its use for
    the benefit of, any third party;

    >So if I use their software to create a document for the benefit of a
    >client, I'm not covered? Seems so.


    (vi) your use of our trademark(s) without
    express written consent to do so; or

    >Fair enough.


    (vii) for any trade secret claim,
    your acquiring a trade secret (a) through improper means; (b) under
    circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its
    use; or (c) from a person (other than us or our affiliates) who owed to
    the party asserting the claim a duty to maintain the secrecy or limit the
    use of the trade secret.

    You will reimburse us for any costs or damages that result from these
    actions.

    >So I'm now indemnifying them for using their software for the benefit of
    >my clients. <sarcasm>This is sounding really good now</sarcasm>. How
    >are they expecting to enforce a contractual term that I'm not a party
    >to?


    If we receive information
    about an infringement claim related to covered software, we may do any of
    the following, at our expense and without obligation to do so:

    * procure the right to continue its use; or

    >Good. I paid for it, I should be able to use it.


    * replace it with a functional equivalent, or modify it to make it
    non-infringing (including disabling the challenged functionality). If we
    do that, you will stop running the allegedly infringing software
    immediately.

    >Not so good. Basically they rip out the function, and if it's useful to
    >me, or mission critical to me, I have a major cost/risk of lost business.
    >Will they compensate me for this? - see below


    If, as a result of an infringement claim, a court of competent
    jurisdiction enjoins your use of covered software, we will do one of the
    following, at our option:

    >At their option. I'm the aggreived party. Surely I choose the
    >remedy?


    * procure the right to continue its use,

    > Good.


    * replace it with a functional equivalent,

    >Good


    * modify it to make it non-infringing (including disabling the
    challenged functionality), or

    >There goes the functionality I paid for, and the cost of replacing it,
    >plus lost business in the meantime.


    * refund the amount paid for the infringing software and terminate the
    license for it.

    >Woohoo. I wonder if this is the option they'll choose each time? Hmmm.


    This commitment provides your exclusive remedy for third-party
    infringement and trade secret misappropriation claims.

    >I wonder what the Consumer Guarantees Act has to say about exclusive
    >remedies, and contracting out?


    My conclusion:

    In summary, if I use their software in an everyday way to either
    manipulate my own data, or for the benefit of my clients, I'm not covered.
    If I don't actually use their software and find myself covered, they will
    generously refund me the cost of buying it.

    Seems to me that I get as much indemnification from FOSS. I paid nothing
    for it, and I'm sure the developers will be more than happy to refund me
    the purchase price.

    Dumbkiwi.
     
    Dumbkiwi, Nov 19, 2004
    #18
  19. Mutlley

    BrianM Guest

    BrianM, Nov 19, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <>,
    thing <> wrote:

    >The US is trying to get US style software patents approved in the EU...


    I think the European Commission keeps proposing the idea, but the
    European Parliament keeps throwing it out.

    Australia, on the other hand, seems set to adopt US-style software
    patents as well a US-style DMCA law, in their haste to get a free-trade
    agreement and show what close friends they are with the US.
     
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Nov 22, 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. Gloria Goitre

    Your generosity is the target of Governments

    Gloria Goitre, Jan 27, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    369
    John Holmes
    Jan 27, 2005
  2. garbagedisposal

    Re: If SCO succeeds in their lawsuits

    garbagedisposal, Apr 19, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    311
  3. Milo T. Sucks Cock

    Re: If SCO succeeds in their lawsuits

    Milo T. Sucks Cock, Apr 20, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    299
    New Scotland Yard
    Apr 21, 2004
  4. The Equalizer
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    603
    The Equalizer
    Dec 16, 2003
  5. Au79
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    409
Loading...

Share This Page