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. IP Kat is Lobbying Heavily for the UPC, Courtesy of Team UPC

    When does an IP (or patent) blog become little more than an aggregation of interest groups and self-serving patent law firms, whose agenda overlaps that of Team Battistelli?



  2. Leaked: Conclusions of the Secretive EPO Board 28 Meeting (8th of September 2016)

    The agenda and outcome of the secretive meeting of the Board of the Administrative Council of the EPO



  3. Letter From the Dutch Institute of Patent Attorneys (Nederlandse Orde van Octrooigemachtigden) to the Administrative Council of the EPO

    The Netherlands Institute of Patent Attorneys, a group representing a large number of Dutch patent practitioners, is against Benoît Battistelli and his horrible behaviour at the European Patent Office (EPO)



  4. EPO's Board 28 Notes Battistelli's “Three Current Investigations/Disciplinary Proceedings Involving SUEPO Members in The Hague."

    The attack on SUEPO (EPO staff representatives) at The Hague appears to have been silently expanded to a third person, showing an obvious increase in Battistelli's attacks on truth-tellers



  5. Links 28/9/2016: Alpine Linux 3.4.4, Endless OS 3.0

    Links for the day



  6. Cementing Autocracy: The European Patent Office Against Democracy, Against Media, and Against the Rule of Law

    The European Patent Office (EPO) actively undermines democracy in Europe, it undermines the freedom of the press (by paying it for puff pieces), and it undermines the rule of law by giving one single tyrant total power in Eponia and immunity from outside Eponia (even when he breaks his own rules)



  7. Links 28/9/2016: New Red Hat Offices, Fedora 25 'Frozen'

    Links for the day



  8. Team Battistelli Intensifies the Attack on the Boards of Appeal Again

    The lawless state of the EPO, where the rule of law is basically reducible to Battistelli's ego and insecurities, is again demonstrated with an escalation and perhaps another fake 'trial' in the making (after guilt repeatedly fails to be established)



  9. After the EPO Paid the Financial Times to Produce Propaganda the Newspaper Continues to Produce UPC Puff Pieces, Just Ahead of EU Council Meeting

    How the media, including the Financial Times, has been used (and even paid!) by the EPO in exchange for self-serving (to the EPO) messages and articles



  10. Beware the Patent Law Firms Insinuating That Software Patents Are Back Because of McRO

    By repeatedly claiming (and then generalising) that CAFC accepted a software patent the patent microcosm (meta-industry) hopes to convince us that we should continue to pursue software patents in the US, i.e. pay them a lot more money for something of little/no value



  11. The US Supreme Court Might Soon Tighten Patent Scope in the United States Even Further, the USPTO Produces Patent Maximalism Propaganda

    A struggle brewing between the patent 'industry' (profiting from irrational saturation) and the highest US court, as well as the Government Accountability Office (GAO)



  12. Patent Trolling a Growing Problem in East Asia (Software Patents Also), Whereas in the US the Problem Goes Away Along With Software Patents

    A look at two contrasting stories, one in Asia where patent litigation and hype are on the rise (same in Europe due to the EPO) and another in the US where a lot of patents face growing uncertainty and a high invalidation rate



  13. The EPO's Continued Push for Software Patents, Marginalisation of Appeals (Reassessment), and Deviation From the EPC

    A roundup of new developments at the EPO, where things further exacerbate and patent quality continues its downward spiral



  14. The Battistelli Effect: “We Will be Gradually Forced to File Our Patent Applications Outside the EPO in the Interests of Our Clients”

    While the EPO dusts off old files and grants in haste without quality control (won't be sustainable for more than a couple more years) the applicants are moving away as trust in the EPO erodes rapidly and profoundly



  15. Links 27/9/2016: Lenovo Layoffs, OPNFV Third Software Release

    Links for the day



  16. The Moral Depravity of the European Patent Office Under Battistelli

    The European Patent Office (EPO) comes under heavy criticism from its very own employees, who also seem to recognise that lobbying for the UPC is a very bad idea which discredits the European Patent Organisation



  17. Links 26/9/2016: Linux 4.8 RC8, SuperTux 0.5

    Links for the day



  18. What Insiders Are Saying About the Sad State of the European Patent Office (EPO)

    Anonymous claims made by people who are intimately familiar with the European Patent Office (from the inside) shed light on how bad things have become



  19. The EPO Does Not Want Skilled (and 'Expensive') Staff, Layoffs a Growing Concern

    A somewhat pessimistic look (albeit increasingly realistic look) at the European Patent Office, where unions are under fire for raising legitimate concerns about the direction taken by the management since a largely French team was put in charge



  20. Patents Roundup: Accenture Software Patents, Patent Troll Against Apple, Willful Infringements, and Apple Against a Software Patent

    A quick look at various new articles of interest (about software patents) and what can be deduced from them, especially now that software patents are the primary barrier to Free/Libre Open Source software adoption



  21. Software Patents Propped Up by Patent Law Firms That Are Lying, Further Assisted by Rogue Elements Like David Kappos and Randall Rader (Revolving Doors)

    The sheer dishonesty of the patent microcosm (seeking to bring back software patents by misleading the public) and those who are helping this microcosm change the system from the inside, owing to intimate connections from their dubious days inside government



  22. Links 25/9/2016: Linux 4.7.5, 4.4.22; LXQt 0.11

    Links for the day



  23. Patent Quality and Patent Scope the Unspeakable Taboo at the EPO, as Both Are Guillotined by Benoît Battistelli for the Sake of Money

    The gradual destruction of the European Patent Office (EPO), which was once unanimously regarded as the world's best, by a neo-liberal autocrat from France, Benoît Battistelli



  24. Bristows LLP's Hatred/Disdain of UK/EU Democracy Demonstrated; Says “Not Only Will the Pressure for UK Ratification of the UPC Agreement Continue, But a Decision is Wanted Within Weeks.”

    Without even consulting the British public or the European public (both of whom would be severely harmed by the UPC), the flag bearers of the UPC continue to bamboozle and then pressure politicians, public servants and nontechnical representatives



  25. Released Late on a Friday, EPO Social 'Study' (Battistelli-Commissioned Propaganda) Attempts to Blame Staff for Everything

    The longstanding propaganda campaign (framing staff as happy or framing unhappy staff as a disgruntled minority) is out and the timing of the release is suspicious to say the least



  26. Links 23/9/2016: Latest Microsoft and Lenovo Spin (Now in ‘Damage Control’ Mode)

    Links for the day



  27. White Male-Dominated EPO Management Sinks to New Lows, Again

    Benoît Battistelli continues to make the EPO look like Europe's biggest laughing stock by attempting to tackle issues with corny photo ops rather than real change (like SUEPO recognition, diverse hiring, improved patent quality, and cessation of sheer abuses)



  28. Journalism 102: Do Not Become Like 'Managing IP' or IAM 'Magazine' (the Megaphones of the EPO’s Management)

    Another look at convergence between media and the EPO, which is spending virtually millions of Euros literally buying the media and ensuring that the EPO's abuses are scarcely covered (if ever mentioned at all)



  29. Journalism 101: Do Not Believe Anything That Benoît Battistelli and the EPO's Management Say (Also Don't Fall for the UPC Hype)

    A survey/review (or an overview) of recent articles about the EPO and why they're wrong (mostly because they parrot the official lies from Battistelli's department)



  30. Patent Law Firms, David Kappos, and IAM 'Magazine' Still Shelter Software Patents by Cherry-Picking and Lobbying

    Amid the gradual collapse of software patents in the United States there are disingenuous efforts to bring them back or maintain a perception that these patents are still potent


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