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


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


  1. Shane Coyle said,

    June 7, 2007 at 8:39 am


    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


    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


    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?


  4. Shane Coyle said,

    June 7, 2007 at 10:14 am


    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


    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


    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.”


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

  7. gpl1 said,

    June 7, 2007 at 10:53 am


    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.



    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


  8. Jack said,

    June 7, 2007 at 12:06 pm


    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


    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.


    “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


    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


    @ 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


    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


    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. From PTAB Bashing to Federal Circuit (CAFC) Bashing: How the Patent 'Industry' Sells Software Patents

    The latest tactics of the patent microcosm are just about as distasteful as last month's (or last year's), with focus shifting to the courts and few broadly-misinterpreted patent cases (mainly Finjan, Berkheimer, and Aatrix)

  2. Patent Maximalists Keep Coming Up With New Terms and Buzzwords to Bypass the Practical Ban on Software Patents

    The fightback against Section 101 and the US Supreme Court (notably Alice) seems to concentrate on old and new buzzwords, such as "Software as a Medical Device" ("SaMD") or "Fourth Industrial Revolution" ("4IR"), which the EPO recently paid European media to spread and promote

  3. News About Patents is Often Just Advertisements Composed Directly or Indirectly by Companies That Sell Patents and Patent Services

    Infomercials are still dominant among news about patents, in effect drowning out the signal (real journalism) and instead pushing agenda that is detached from reality, pertinent facts, objective assessment, public interest and so on

  4. Blocks and Paywalls Won't Protect the Patent Trolls' Lobby From Scrutiny/Fact-Checking

    Joff Wild and Benoît Battistelli have much in common, including patent maximalism and chronic resistance to facts (or fact-checking)

  5. China Has Become Very Aggressive With Patents

    China now targets other Asian countries/firms -- more so than Western firms -- with patent lawsuits; we expect this to get worse in years to come

  6. UPC/Battistelli Booster IAM Blames Brexit Rather Than EPO Abuses

    While the EPO is collapsing due to mismanagement the boosters of Team Battistelli would rather deflect and speak about Brexit, which is itself partly motivated by such mismanagement

  7. European Commission Again Urged to Tackle Abuses at the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Rina Ronja Kari is the latest MEP attempting to compel the Commission to actually do something about the EPO other than turning a blind eye

  8. Links 18/3/2018: Wine 3.4, Wine-Staging 3.4, KDE Connect 1.8 for Android

    Links for the day

  9. TXED Courts Are Causing Businesses to Leave the District, Notably For Fear That Having Any Operations Based There is a Legal Liability

    A discussion about the infamous abundance of patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas (TXED/EDTX) and what this will mean for businesses that have branches or any form of operations there (making them subjected to lawsuits in that district even after TC Heartland)

  10. PTAB Hatred is So Intense Among the Patent 'Industry' That Even Scammers Are Hailed as Champions If They Target PTAB

    The patent microcosm is so eager to stop the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that it's supporting sham deals (or "scams") and exploits/distorts the voice of the new USPTO Director to come up with PTAB-hostile catchphrases

  11. The Patent 'Industry' is Increasingly Mocking CAFC and Its Judges Because It Doesn't Like the Decisions

    Judgmental patent maximalists are still respecting high courts only when it suits them; whenever the outcome is not desirable they're willing to attack the legitimacy of the courts and the competence of judges, even resorting to racist ad hominem attacks if necessary

  12. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Carries on Enforcing § 101, Invalidating Software Patents and Upsetting the Patent 'Industry' in the Process

    A quick report on where PTAB stands at the moment, some time ahead of the Oil States decision (soon to come from the US Supreme Court)

  13. Luxembourg Can Become a Hub of Patent Trolls If the EPO Carries on With Its 'Reforms', Even Without the UPC

    With or without the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which is the wet dream of patent trolls and their legal representatives, the EPO's terrible policies have landed a lot of low-quality patents on the hands of patent trolls (many of which operate through city-states that exist for tax evasion -- a fiscal environment ripe for shells)

  14. The Patent 'Printing Machine' of the EPO Will Spawn Many Lawsuits and Extortions (Threats of Lawsuits), in Effect Taxing Europe

    The money-obsessed, money-printing patent office, where the assembly line mentality has been adopted and patent-printing management is in charge, is devaluing or diluting the pool of European Patents, more so with restrictions (monetary barriers) to challenging bad patents

  15. Links 17/3/2018: Varnish 6, Wine 3.4

    Links for the day

  16. Deleted EPO Tweets and Promotion of Software Patents Amid Complaints About Abuse and Demise of Patent Quality

    Another ordinary day at the EPO with repressions of workforce, promotion of patents that aren't even allowed, and Team UPC failing to get its act together

  17. Guest Post: Suspected “Whitewashing” Operations by Željko Topić in Croatia

    Articles about EPO Vice-President Željko Topić are disappearing and sources indicate that it’s a result of yet more SLAPP from him

  18. Monumental Effort to Highlight Decline in Quality of European Patents (a Quarter of Examiners Sign Petition in Spite of Fear), Yet Barely Any Press Coverage

    he media in Europe continues to be largely apathetic towards the EPO crisis, instead relaying a bunch of press releases and doctored figures from the EPO; only blogs that closely follow EPO scandals bothered mentioning the new petition

  19. Careful Not to Conflate UPC Critics With AfD or Anti-EU Elements

    The tyrannical Unified Patent Court (UPC) is being spun as something that only fascists would oppose after the right-wing, anti-EU politicians in Germany express strong opposition to it

  20. Links 15/3/2018: Qt Creator 4.6 RC, Microsoft Openwashing

    Links for the day

  21. PTAB Continues to Increase Capacity Ahead of Oil States; Patent Maximalists Utterly Upset

    The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) sees the number of filings up to an almost all-time high and efforts to undermine PTAB are failing pretty badly -- a trend which will be further cemented quite soon when the US Supreme Court (quite likely) backs the processes of PTAB

  22. Patent Maximalists Are Still Trying to Create a Patent Bubble in India

    Litigation maximalists and patent zealots continue to taunt India, looking for an opportunity to sue over just about anything including abstract ideas because that's what they derive income from

  23. EPO Staff Has Just Warned the National Delegates That EPO's Decline (in Terms of Patent Quality and Staff Welfare) Would Be Beneficial to Patent Trolls

    The staff of the EPO increasingly recognises the grave dangers of low-quality patents -- an issue we've written about (also in relation to the EPO) for many years

  24. The EPO is a Mess Under Battistelli and Stakeholders Including Law Firms Will Suffer, Not Just EP Holders

    As one last 'gift' from Battistelli, appeals are becoming a lot more expensive -- the very opposite of what he does to applications, in effect ensuring a sharp increase in wrongly-granted patents

  25. The EPO Under Battistelli Has Become Like China Under Xi and CPC

    The EPO is trying very hard to silence not only the union but also staff representatives; it's evidently worried that the lies told by Team Battistelli will be refuted and morale be affected by reality

  26. Links 14/3/2018: IPFire 2.19 – Core Update 119, Tails 3.6

    Links for the day

  27. Links 13/3/2018: Qt Creator 4.5.2, Tails 3.6, Firefox 59

    Links for the day

  28. Willy Minnoye (EPO) Threatened Staff With Disabilities Said to Have Been Caused by the EPO Work Pressures

    Willy Minnoye, or Battistelli's 'deputy' at the EPO until last year, turns out to have misused powers (and immunity) to essentially bully vulnerable staff

  29. IAM and IBM Want Lots of Patent Litigation in India

    Having 'championed' lobbying for litigation Armageddon in China (where IBM's practicing business units have gone), patent maximalists set their eyes on India

  30. The Patent Trolls' Lobby (IAM) Already Pressures Andrei Iancu, Inciting a USPTO Director Against PTAB

    Suspicions that Iancu might destroy the integrity of the Office for the sake of the litigation ‘industry’ may be further reaffirmed by the approach towards patent maximalists from IAM, who also participated in the shaming of his predecessor, Michelle Lee, and promoted a disgraced judge (and friend of patent trolls) for her then-vacant role


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


Recent Posts