EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

06.07.07

LG: Another Cross Licensing Deal with Microsoft Includes “Linux-based Embedded Devices”

Posted in Boycott Novell, Fuji Xerox, GNU/Linux, LG, Microsoft, Patent Covenant, Patents, Samsung at 6:17 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

After the deal with Fuji-Xerox and Samsung, Microsoft seems to have found another victim, with which it claims to have swapped patents, including Linux-related ones.

There is not much to see here because the previous deals with Fuji-Xerox and Samsung are similar (wording varies however). There is little to be worried about, but small companies that use embedded Linux ought to put an end to coverages such as this, which remain non-specific. Why would Linux require coverage? What Microsoft patents does Linux infringe on? Not a word from Microsoft. Recall deals where companies got betrayed or overcharged because patents simply remained hidden. In any event, here is the obnoxious part of news:

Under the agreement, LG will be able to use Microsoft-patented technology in its products, including Linux-based embedded devices.

To eliminate the path of destruction, one ought to force Microsoft to show its hands. Better sooner than later.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

13 Comments

  1. Shane Coyle said,

    June 7, 2007 at 8:39 am

    Gravatar

    Well, in this case I doubt LG was using OOO, Mono, or even Wine, if we’re talking embedded devices it’s just the Kernel, and maybe Samba that Microsoft could be claiming to allow them a right to use.

    Still trying to figure out what it is that Microsoft is licensing to these companies, a right to use what? Software in general?

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 7, 2007 at 8:47 am

    Gravatar

    There was a discussion about the wording a while back. It’s very vague, but it appeared not to have been the kenrel the last time (possibly just Mono on the phones). In any event, there is no technical collaboration (to defend the cash cow with OOXML), sales ‘tax’, or interoperability ‘tax’.

    Note: I have modified the site’s tagline to “Exploring the reality behind exclusionary deals with Microsoft and their subtle (yet severe) implications”. Hopefully it aligns with our extended scope, which is rooted in the Novell deal.

  3. Jack said,

    June 7, 2007 at 9:50 am

    Gravatar

    I’ve been writing about this since it all started up with Novell in November at our blog and web site, but our readers are still very confused as to what the heck is going on (it could very well be the writing, I know). They are not lawyers, and want to know how this affects the IT manager — not the legal team or the FSF.

    What are the direct consequences if MS continues to snap up vendors? I’m not talking the “religious” implications of such a scenario — I’m talking the day-to-day business of IT guys and managers in the trenches. I’m hearing “this is bad” from all over, and understand completely where that is coming from, but how does it hurt interoperability, which is one of the main concerns of IT managers today?

    -jack

  4. Shane Coyle said,

    June 7, 2007 at 10:14 am

    Gravatar

    I guess I’d have to ask – how does it help interoperability? If Microsoft wanted to interact with Linux better, it is quite easy – it’s all open source, they can have a look at what the interfaces are and go at it. Or, even easier, use an established open standard / protocol. Or, document their own interfaces and protocols for Free use, as the EC ruling is requiring. Like Red Hat maintains, interoperability shouldn’t require an agreement.

    The technical interoperability aspect of these deals is a red herring, the objectionable portion of these deal is precedent they set that the tax being imposed on implementing interoperability is justifiable, the manner in which they willfully circumvent the expressed intent of the GPLv2, and the fact that they amount to enabling a monopolist derive revenue from their only competition in the form of royalties based on spurious and vague claims.

  5. Shane Coyle said,

    June 7, 2007 at 10:28 am

    Gravatar

    But, again, what has this deal gained the day-to-day guys in the trenches? Microsoft’s ODF support plugin for Office is awful, Novell’s OOXML is incomplete at best (and many believe that has always been Microsoft’s intention with this absurd and impossible-to-implement ‘standard’ – one they cannot even afford the manpower to implement more than once themselves).

    There may be hope for ODF support in Office, but it won’t be coming from Novell or Microsoft.

    Recently, Kevan Barney tried to push off the availability of a VHD file for Microsoft Virtual Server as a Fruit of the collaboration, but I suppose there wasn’t any meat to that assertion after all.

  6. gpl1 said,

    June 7, 2007 at 10:44 am

    Gravatar

    This may be bigger than it seemed to me at first, dealing with the grandfather clause and section 11. From a post at Groklaw:

    “Pay attention! This is Microsoft’s countermove (or springing the trap)
    Authored by: gdeinsta on Thursday, June 07 2007 @ 11:12 AM EDT

    Assuming Linux eventually converts to GPL3 this would bar LG from using Linux in their devices. LG is a major, major manufacturer. Linux is being used in more and more appliances, especially phones. There is even an agreement among most of the major phone makers to adopt Linux. That’s why Linux now includes improved real-time support, despite the initial opposition of Linus; it is too important an opportunity to ignore.

    Hardware manufacturers aren’t like Linux distributors; the O/S is not a major part of their product. And there are huge capital investments required to become a hardware manufacturer, plus economies of scale, which means that hardware manufacturers don’t just come and go. Brands come and go, but the manufacturers behind them are the same, they just put on different nameplates.

    This move is designed to drive a wedge between the EFF and Linus and stop Linus from ever switching to GPL3.”

    http://www.groklaw.net/comment.php?mode=display&sid=20070606120901152&title=Pay%20attention%21%20This%20is%20Microsoft%27s%20countermove%20%28or%20springing%20the%20trap%29&type=article&order=&hideanonymous=0&pid=581186#c581261

    (I think instead of the EFF, he actually meant the FSF)

  7. gpl1 said,

    June 7, 2007 at 10:53 am

    Gravatar

    Jack: Microsoft is not about compatibility. If they succeed with their monopolistic strategy, Linux will not be free any longer, (and you will have no competition protection against monopolistic pricing) just as Microsoft’s Bill Hilf said. The only reason you have any compatibility is because of free software developers reverse engineering Microsoft’s deliberately obfuscated protocols.

    Remember, one of the main developers behind SAMBA which gives you Windows interoperability resigned from Novell after they made that awful deal in November.

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20050205010415933

    http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20061221081000710

    From the mouth of the company who wants ‘interoperability”—–

    “The Free Software movement is dead. Linux doesn’t exist in 2007.” Head of Microsoft’s Linux Labs, Manager Bill Hilf

    http://www.bangkokpost.net/090507_Database/09May2007_data05.php

  8. Jack said,

    June 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm

    Gravatar

    Thanks! On a side note, I didn’t mean to sound on one side of the issue or the other. I was looking for more straightforward info, as I imagine many people are hese days, and that’s what I got. Appreciate the links!

  9. gpl1 said,

    June 7, 2007 at 2:27 pm

    Gravatar

    Ooh, I also forgot another thing. The patent deal, while a nice moneymaker and FUD for MS, is actually very stupid for a Linux company to sign because it omits (not that these deals should be encouraged at all) programs like OO.org, server to connected client, sendmail, wine, etc. Status of Mono is unknown, probably for FUD reasons again, things that Novell didn’t make, etc. Anyone who feels protected has fallen for it.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070525211117353

    “1.9 “Other Excluded Products” means (a) office productivity applications (word processing, spreadsheets, presentation software, etc.) of the Parties that are hosted by or running on a computer acting as a server for a connected client device, and (b) new features and functions in the following categories of products of the Parties, but not to the extent the products embody operating system software or other enabling technologies: (i) video game consoles (e.g., Xbox video game consoles), console games, video game applications designed to run on a computer, and on-line video gaming services (e.g., Xbox live); (ii) business applications designed, marketed and used to meet the data processing requirements of particular business functions, such as accounting, payroll, human resources, project management, personnel performance management, sales management, financial forecasting, financial reporting, customer relationship management, and supply chain management; (iii) mail transfer agents (aka email servers); and (iv) unified communications.”

  10. shane said,

    June 7, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    Gravatar

    Bruce Lowry provided some convoluted explanation that for Novell customers OOO didn’t get automatic coverage, but does get covenant coverage, whatever that means…

  11. Roy Schestowitz said,

    June 7, 2007 at 3:22 pm

    Gravatar

    @ gpl1:

    > “…This move is designed to drive a wedge between the
    > EFF and Linus and stop Linus from ever switching to GPL3.”

    Yes, that appears to make sense. This is not the first time pressure is applied using some deal. The Xandros deal had an element of this as well.

  12. Nubian Oracle said,

    June 8, 2007 at 11:55 am

    Gravatar

    We have one patent. Currently 22 companies reference it, including Microsoft. All without permission or license. So we now have the right to sue them? Anyone know a good lawyer?

    The patent is an established patented broadcast presentation system and method patent (number 5577042) that is being assigned to the companies listed below.

    Abstract for current patent – A broadcast and presentation system for synthesis of diverse data transmission signals and multimedia application subsystems. The system includes a signal processing line for transmitting information signals in multiple formats, a plurality of application subsystems for receiving input information in a predetermined signal format, a switching matrix for receiving input signals from the signal processing line and outputting the signals to the application subsystems that are described in destination and identification information that is embedded in the signal. The system further includes converters if necessary for receiving signals in one format and outputting the signals in another format according to the identification information that is embedded in the signal. The switching matrix may be programmable and controlled by a processor. A method of transmitting information signals includes embedding an information signal with destination and identification information; routing the information signal to a selected destination in accordance with the embedded destination information; and directing the signal to an application subsystem for processing the information signal at the selected destination in accordance with the embedded signal identification information. A method of receiving information signals includes receiving an information signal that has identification information embedded in the signal and routing the information signal to a selected application subsystem that is specified in the embedded identification information.

    Current U.S. Class: 370/257 ; 340/2.1; 370/232; 370/468; 379/243 Current International Class: H04L 12/28 (20060101) Current Public References which cited the patent with the patent Number and Title.

    1 US7155734 Methods of operating a data broadcast service
    2 US7069368 System of co-located computers in a framework including removable function modules for adding modular functionality
    3 US7051111 Multiple source proxy management system
    4 US7039116 Methods and apparatus for embedding and format conversion of compressed video data
    5 US6944826 Method of operating a system of co-located computers and remote human interfaces
    6 US6886055 Computer on a card with a remote human interface
    7 US6791977 Reclocker circuit and router cell
    8 US6788956 Terminal to execute a terminal application
    9 US6654616 Wireless area network having flexible backhauls for creating backhaul network
    10 US6487330 Optical switch, method of manufacturing same, and optical communication equipment using same
    11 US6473858 Method and apparatus for broadcasting data with access control
    12 US6370152 Distributed SNMP agent for frame relay switching network
    13 US6370155 High density unit shelf network interface card and method
    14 US6259672 Method and apparatus for providing delayed communications within a communication system
    15 US6229576 Editing system with router for connection to HDTV circuitry
    16 US6226038 HDTV editing and effects previsualization using SDTV devices
    17 US6226371 Communication system with assembly carrier unit
    18 US6160853 Modem concentrator
    19 US6016520 Method of viewing at a client viewing station a multiple media title stored at a server and containing a plurality of topics utilizing anticipatory caching
    20 US5999966 Control network-directed video conferencing switching system and method
    21 US5841969 Single bus architecture supporting subsystems of various criticality levels
    22 US5754787 System for electronically publishing objects with header specifying minimum and maximum required transport delivery rates and threshold being amount publisher is willing to pay
    23 US5729684 Method and apparatus for heterogeneous multimedia conferencing using multipoint references

  13. Phillip Coombs said,

    December 16, 2007 at 10:41 am

    Gravatar

    When I originally wrote the patent, I undertood how far reaching it was. I understood it was creating a whole new class of technologies. When we disclosed what we were doing in January 1993, I even coined the phrase “Convergence” and referred to the enviroment as “converged” and as a “converged network” which created an “interoperable environment”.

    There were many witnesses to what was going on in those days. Jim “Rusty” Lewis, Mike McGraw, Bill Kurtz, and William Westscott to name a few, plus the meetings and presentations we gave to MCI, Pacific Telesys, AT&T and NYEX. We convinced enough people that AT&T, MCI and Pacific Telesys cooperated to allow us to engage in a national video conference durig NAB Convention in 1993 and convince Cincinnati Bell to step out of the way.

    I am frankly tired of watching how downplayed our role at McGraw Broadcast and Gemini Group has been when it comes to “converged communications”. This patent defined Convergence.

What Else is New


  1. Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) Willing to Work With Campinos But Foresees Difficulties

    New message from SUEPO regarding Battistelli's successor of choice (Campinos)



  2. Links 18/10/2017: GTK+ 3.92, Microsoft Bug Doors Leaked

    Links for the day



  3. The Darker Past of the Next President of the EPO - Part I: Introduction

    Some new details about Mr. Campinos, who is Battistelli’s successor at the EPO



  4. Confessions of EPO Insiders Reveal That European Patents (EPs) Have Lost Their Legitimacy/Value Due to Battistelli's Policies

    A much-discussed topic at the EPO is now the ever-declining quality of granted patents, which make or break patent offices because quality justifies high costs (searches, applications, renewals and so on)



  5. Patent Firms From the United States Try Hard to Push the Unitary Patent (UPC), Which Would Foment Litigation Wars in Europe

    The UPC push seems to be coming from firms which not only fail to represent public interests but are not even European



  6. In the Age of Alice and PTAB There is No Reason to Pursue Software Patents in the United States (Not Anymore)

    The appeal board in the US (PTAB) combined with a key decision of the Supreme Court may mean that even at a very low cost software patents can be invalidated upon demand (petition) and, failing that, the courts will invalidate these



  7. IAM is Wrong, the Narrative Isn't Changing, Except in the Battistelli-Funded (at EPO's Expense) Financial Times

    The desperate attempts to change the narrative in the press culminate in nothing more than yet another misleading article from Rana Foroohar and some rants from Watchtroll



  8. The Federal Circuit Continues Squashing Software Patents

    Under the leadership of Sharon Prost the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) continues its war on software patents, making it very hard to remember the last time it tolerated any



  9. SUEPO Representatives Like Elizabeth Hardon Vindicated as Battistelli's Detrimental Effect on Patent Quality is Widely Confirmed

    Feedback regarding the awful refusal to acknowledge patent quality crisis at the EPO as well as the appointment of a President so close to Battistelli (who most likely assures continuation of his policies)



  10. Links 17/10/2017: KDE Frameworks 5.39.0, Safe Browsing in Epiphany

    Links for the day



  11. Judge Bryson Rules Against Allergan After It Used Native American Tribes to Dodge Scrutiny of Patents (IPRs); Senator Hatch Does Not Understand IPRs

    Having attempted to dodge inter partes reviews (IPRs) by latching onto sovereign immunity, Allergan loses a key case and Senator Hatch is meanwhile attempting to water down IPRs albeit at the same time bemoaning patent trolls (which IPRs help neutralise)



  12. Rumours That António Campinos Initially Had No Competition at All (for Battistelli's Succession) Are Confirmed

    Succession at the EPO (mostly French) shows that there's little room for optimism and Battistelli's people are too deeply entrenched in the upper echelons of the EPO



  13. EPO Stakeholders Complain That the New Chairman Does Not Grasp the Issues at the EPO (or Denies These)

    Some information from inside the EPO’s Administrative Council, whose Chairman is denying (at least to himself) some of the core issues that render the EPO less competitive in the international market



  14. Another Misleading Article Regarding Patents From Rana Foroohar at the Financial Times

    In an effort to promote the agenda of patent maximalists, many of whom are connected to the Financial Times, another deceiving report comes out



  15. Monika Ermert's Reports About the Crisis at the EPO and IP Kat's Uncharacteristically Shallow Coverage

    News from inside the Council shows conflict regarding the quality of European Patents (granted by the EPO under pressure from top-level management)



  16. Patent Troll VirnetX a Reminder to Apple That Software Patents Are a Threat to Apple Too

    VirnetX, a notorious patent troll, is poised to receive a huge sum of money from Apple and Qualcomm is trying to ban Apple products, serving to remind Apple of the detrimental impact of patents on Apple itself



  17. Links 16/10/2017: Linux 4.14 RC5, Debian 9.2.1, End of LibreOffice Conference 2017

    Links for the day



  18. The Systematic Erosion of Workers' Rights and Holidays at the EPO Goes Years Back

    The legitimacy of the staff's concerns at the EPO, having seen basic labour safeguards being shredded to pieces by Battistelli for a number of years (predating even the escalation of the conflict)



  19. Articles in English and German Speak About the Decline in Quality of European Patents (Granted by the EPO)

    Heise and The Register, two sites that have closely watched EPO affairs for a number of years, speak about the real problem which is declining patent quality (or rushed examination) -- a recipe for frivolous litigation in Europe



  20. Software Patents and Patent Trolls Not a Solved Issue, But the US is Getting There

    A media survey regarding software patents, which are being rejected in the US in spite of all the spin from law firms and bullies such as IBM



  21. US Patent Trolls Are Leaving and the Eastern District of Texas Sees Patent Cases Falling by More Than Half

    The decline of patent aggression in the US and the patent microcosm's response to Justices, having ruled in TC Heartland, curtailing patent trolls



  22. Qualcomm's Nightmares Are Getting Worse as Antitrust Questions Are Raised and Assessed

    Qualcomm is getting itself deeper in trouble as fines pile up and its multi-billion dollar dispute with Apple isn't getting it anywhere



  23. Forget About Apple; Two of the Leading Phone Makers (Samsung and Huawei) Are Bickering Over Patents

    Massive Android OEMs, Huawei and Samsung, are in a big patent dispute and this time, for a change, China is a legal battleground



  24. Tim Heberden From the Glasshouse Advisory is Throwing Stones in a Glasshouse to Create Patent Litigation

    IAM's latest lobbying, aided by the patent microcosm, for a climate of feuds and disputes (to line the pockets of the litigation 'industry')



  25. Access to Medicine is More Important Than Patents

    Some of the latest news about patents that impede/deny access to crucial medication; strategic litigation from the generics sector, seeking to invalidate patents and then offer low-cost alternatives



  26. Links 14/10/2017: Windows Breaks Dutch Law, Wine 2.19 Released

    Links for the day



  27. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Supported by Congress, a Federal Judge, Soon to be Supported by the Supreme Court Too?

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is still widely defended, except by the patent microcosm which likes (and profits from) patent trolls and litigation Armageddon



  28. Patents Are Turning BlackBerry and Nokia, Which Used Android, Into Anti-Android Fronts That Tax Android OEMs

    The Canadian BlackBerry has sued BLU in the US only to compel it to pay 'protection' money; Nokia's patents are being scattered to trolls, which are doing something similar (without risking litigation themselves)



  29. The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is Rotting Like the European Patent Office

    The Unitary Patent litigation pipe dreams (or prosecution/trolling fast lane), which Battistelli's EPO long relied on, turn out to be the road to nowhere



  30. Lying and Faking Now a Standard Procedure at the European Patent Office

    The European Patent Organisation (EPO) under the leadership (or chairmanship) of Christoph Ernst continues to relay lies from Battistelli's Office, SUEPO rejects these, the Office lies about SMEs, prioritises Microsoft (again), and probably buys fake Twitter "followers"


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts