ActiveMac - The Most Activated mac Resource

ActiveMac

User Controls

New User

Edit/View My Profile

ActiveMac

Articles

Forums

Links

News

News Search

Reviews

News Centers

Windows/Microsoft

DVD

ActiveHardware

Xbox

MaINTosh

News Search

ANet Chats

The Lobby

Special Events Room

Developer's Lounge

XBox Chat

FAQ's

Windows 98/98 SE

Windows 2000

Windows Me

Windows "Whistler" XP

Windows CE

Internet Explorer 6

Internet Explorer 5

Xbox

DirectX

DVD's

TopTechTips

Registry Tips

Windows 95/98

Windows 2000

Internet Explorer 4

Internet Explorer 5

Windows NT Tips

Program Tips

Easter Eggs

Hardware

DVD

Latest Reviews

Applications

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

Norton SystemWorks 2002

Hardware

Intel Personal Audio Player 3000

Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer

Site News/Info

About This Site

Affiliates

ANet Forums

Default Home Page

Link To Us

Links

Member Pages

Site Search

Awards

Credits
�1997/2004, Active Network. All Rights Reserved.
Layout & Design by Designer Dream. Content written by the Active Network team. Please click here for full terms of use and restrictions or read our Privacy Statement.

Microsoft, LG Electronics forge Linux deal

Time: 00:23 EST/05:23 GMT | News Source: InfoWorld | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum

Microsoft and LG Electronics announced Wednesday evening a patent cross-license agreement that will enable LG Electronics (LGE) to employ Linux in its products without fear of Microsoft reprisals.

The arrangement is intended to give LGE customers peace of mind over intellectual property (IP) issues.

The agreement follows a similar deal between Novell and Microsoft, according to a Microsoft representative. In that arrangement, Novell and Microsoft agreed to not sue each other's customers over IP issues. This issue has risen to the forefront lately, with Microsoft recently arguing that Linux and open source software violate 235 Microsoft patents.

Write Comment
Return to News

Displaying 1 through 25 of 324
Last | Next

The time now is 7:28:33 AM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us

#1 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 6/7/2007 1:29:04 AM

How will latch and his fellow religious cult members spin this one? I guess LG is just another tiny no-name company that doesn't necessarily believe linux violates Microsoft patents. They are just going to pay Microsoft from now on, for no apparent reason whatsoever.

Perhaps we are in a full-scale RUSH to sign these agreements before the new GPL (aka... the death nail in the coffin) goes into effect?

In the meantime, the opensores crowd are going to need to become more reclusive than they already are. Lets see, they can no longer (in good faith, at least):

- buy LG televisions, washers, dryers, cell phones, computers, peripherals
- buy Dell products
- buy netware, groupwise, suse, jboss (tiny applications that nobody uses)
- buy xandros

Anyone want to start a pool? How many of these agreements will be signed in the next 30 days? Latch, you wanna bet some of that hard-earned coffee pouring money you've been saving?

#2 By 12071 (203.214.150.37) at 6/7/2007 7:19:39 AM

#1 You do realize that users and companies in this case can continue to use GPLv2 code without moving to GPLv3? And I do like your description of GPLv3, as that's exactly what it's meant to be, a death nail in the coffin of all those little loopholes that companies exploited.

#3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2007 8:21:36 AM

You can never underestimate the stupidity of some people and companies. If LG wants to pay MS because MS claims it owns everything in the world, let them pay. Smart companies would expect to see some kind of proof and not just take MS at its word. But then we're all taking MS at its word when we believe this press release. How do we know it isn't like the Novell deal, where they just did a cross-license agreement, but then MS announces it was all about Linux IP protection, much to Novell's surprise, disbelief and amazement. Everyone knows MS has a reputation for screwing over its customers, suppliers and partners, but it was shocking to see them screw Novell over practically the day after the deal was signed. I suspect that LG (and others who enter these agreements) are strong-armed by MS into silence while MS talks about all this IP infringement in Linux nonsense. Why, the infringement is so bad that they can't possibly tell anyone what's being infringed or where, but just trust them it's happening.

#4 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/7/2007 9:25:46 AM

Oh yes, I forgot... we're all: old <and therefore, irrelevant>, secure our money under mattresses <because we're old and don't trust banks - as if any of us had any money to put in banks back in the 30's>, senile, apologists, shills, greedy, incompetent, war-mongering, radical, Christian, extremist, racist, delusional, Kool-aid drinking, baby killers that are now, "stupid" - all because Latch said so.

And here we go again, with the, "well smart people.... blah, blah, blah" or "Truly enlightened, and relevant, beautiful people who really, and truly get it.... blah, blah, blah"

#3,Do you realize that however well intentioned your cause may be, that every time you open your mouth, that you make a better argument for commercial software than I ever could? It is literally like spanking a dead puppy and if it wasn't worth a momentary hoot to see you get worked up, most of us wouldn't even show up. The imagery is hilarious.... walking down a hall and observing some muttering blob duck taped to a wall <smack> "shuddup" - as we head on down to grab a cup of joe <that you better have made properly this time>

I have seen three generations of this - each on the heels of the one before it, that busted its ass - just to survive - insulate the next group <from life and all its challenges> and here we go again, and again and again <smack> "not enough grounds, get it right next time."

#5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2007 10:26:16 AM

#4: No matter how you try and contort yourself, your apologies for MS are just silly. Yes, a smart company would ask for something to justify why they should pay money. If you believe otherwise, let me know where you are so I can fly down there and pick up the gazillion dollar cheque for my IP you're infringing on. And, yes, you are an apologist if you make up excuses for every move MS makes. Watching you spin yourself into another dimension has been entertaining. You've been generally smarter than most of the other Microbots here, but it's still hilarious watching you say the most inane things in your defense of MS. Your defense of companies paying up MS' protection money based on specious claims is just the latest.

#6 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/7/2007 11:30:41 AM

#5, You see... there you go again... <I loved it when President Reagan used to say that - shaking his head gently>. You appear to want to hold out that Microsoft showed up at LG's door and said, "Hey, we have some well researched patents, not the EOLAS kind, that we'd like to talk to you about and while doing so, we'd like to talk about an agreement that we propose we reach with you - whereby we each share with one another and can each be rewarded - you by us, and we by you, opposite the technologies we each have developed."

...as your assumptions continue to suggest, LG said, "Uh, no. No need to discuss it; just tell us how much you want."

When more properly, Microsoft, LG and others have had long standing relationships and as the issue of patents evolved, LG very probably evaluated the patent claims you assert do not exist; evaluated the proposed deal and all its details, and then made a business decision to work "with" Microsoft to their mutual benefit.

While you insist that all credit, merit and good faith be extended to OSS/FOSS and all bow before the almighty GPLv<2, 3 and whatever else they come up with> - you simultaneously judge companies as inventive, and seasoned as LG to be too stupid, or foolish to make a decision based upon the facts as "they" interpret them. So now, not only is the GPLv<whatever> valid for all, it is to be extended to the very processes for which any company engages in?

It is precisely this kind of "we know better for you all - than you know for yourselves" crap, that smacks so clearly of despotism and the elitist BS mentality that spawns it - all gussied up with a dressing consisting of bovine excrement and "hypocryspice."

Why not let the leaders of various companies decide what is best for them, their people, management teams, shareholders and customers - I mean, after all, they do carry the attending responsibilities to go with their decisions.

#7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2007 11:57:47 AM

#6: Well, none of us really knows what happened. I have my suspicions it went something like this:

MS approaches LG | LG approaches MS to talk cross-licensing
Cross-licensing deal is worked out
MS says "Hey LG, let us write the press release
Press release: "LG fears mighty MS IP in Linux"

After all, if MS had IP problems in Linux, why would they approach a customer instead of a Linux vendor???? That makes no sense at all, to threaten your customers. Well, it makes no sense unless you're a predatory monopolist that's used to getting its way and doesn't have to worry about negative repercussions or accountability.

And, lastly, I'll be quite happy to let whomever make whatever decision they want. EV1 made the decision to pony up for a SCO license. They made their decision based on what they thought was best for them at the time. Turns out they were flat wrong and got conned, and now regret it entirely. It costs them money and business, and all for nothing. I'm sure LG got what they wanted out of this deal, but I doubt very much they gave a damn about MS' Linux IP claims.

#8 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 6/7/2007 12:24:27 PM

#7, "After all, if MS had IP problems in Linux, why would they approach a customer instead of a Linux vendor????"

Because there is no return address - part of the argument commercial houses have presented all along and a really big problem.

Linux - as we all recall, both no one and everyone, writes Linux code. The very nature, and alleged strength behind Linux is that legion of coders all contribute to it. Linux distributors are NOT writing Linux, they assert. They merely support it and their business models center on selling support for a product that is otherwise free. Okay, so we know who we are to call, and pay, but we don't know who to all when questions regarding code are concerned.

Some Linux distributors, recognizing the weakness in the model, sought to indemnify the buyers of their support - what good is that, if both parties would be named in any legal action despite indemnification - after all, how can one protect another from that which they have no right to offer protection for?

So then, who wrote what - and where it applies, in so doing who actually violated what - the Easter Bunny?

So it comes down to who is using Linux and in what - in appliances, consumer electronics and commercial software. People with a return address. People with an identity.

When we build software, our customer know who to call. I can look in our systems and see exactly who built what and with whom else and why. I know where to go and so do my customers. The same is true for any commercial software and any company that builds it. It isn't true of those that write FOSS/OSS in all but a very few cases.

What single number would one call and to what address would one send a letter?

This post was edited by lketchum on Thursday, June 07, 2007 at 12:25.

#9 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2007 12:41:42 PM

#8: More nonsense. I'm sure even you, with enough time & effort, could locate the corporate addresses of Red Hat, Canonical, Mandriva, IBM etc etc etc etc. You know, the people distributing & making money off of Linux? It makes no sense to hassle your customers, and no sense to hassle those who have nothing you want ie FOSS devs who write code in their spare time. No, it makes sense to go after deep pockets that make money off Linux. And yet they don't do that. I wonder why. Whoops, I sense another Ketchum "You're too young & dumb to see the grand picture that I always see" essay. I can hardly wait.

#10 By 32132 (142.32.208.234) at 6/7/2007 12:57:14 PM

IBM doesn't have an official distro because they know they would get sued.

As for RedHat ... Microsoft is waiting for Oracle to grind them down. Then they'll approach Oracle.

#11 By 32132 (142.32.208.234) at 6/7/2007 12:59:17 PM

#1 IT executives are going to get mighty tired of the FSF fanatics in their department running in and demanding that they ban Novell, LG, Xandros, mono etc etc. It might sink in that an IT department with fanatics in it is bad for business.

#12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 6/7/2007 2:06:18 PM

http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/57653.html

"However, none of the half-dozen IT executives who were interviewed about Microsoft's infringement assertions plan to change their open source adoption strategies -- at least, not unless and until there's a good reason for them to do so."

I guess not every company takes MS' ambiguous claims seriously.

#13 By 32132 (142.32.208.234) at 6/7/2007 2:38:26 PM

#12 "On the other hand, Beach Clark Jr., vice president of IT at the Georgia Aquarium in Atlanta, described Microsoft's patent tactic as "just business." The software vendor has a right to protect its patents against infringement, Clark said"

Now, admittedly the "Georgia Aquarium" is the best known company of the "half-dozen IT executives" interviewed, but ... I'd never heard of them before.

Are they bigger than LG?

#14 By 3653 (68.52.143.149) at 6/7/2007 4:45:40 PM

latch - "MS says "Hey LG, let us write the press release"

latch, you have once against opened your kimono and shown us all how tiny your business acumen is.

#15 By 4240821 (213.139.195.162) at 10/27/2023 4:17:53 AM