Open Source Weblog

“Through the agreement, Samsung will obtain access to Microsoft patents that may be practiced in a range of Samsung’s existing and future product lines, such as computer products, set-top boxes, digital media players, camcorders, televisions, printers and home appliances. In these product lines, Samsung and its distributors and customers may utilize Microsoft’s patents in Samsung’s products with proprietary software, and Samsung will also obtain coverage from Microsoft for its customers’ use of certain Linux-based products,” the announcement of the Samsung deal states.

“Through the agreement, Fuji Xerox will obtain access to Microsoft patents for Fuji Xerox’s existing and future product lines, including products that incorporate proprietary source and open source software, such as Linux,” states the Fuji Xerox announcement.

Neither of which actually state that Linux contains Microsoft’s intellectual property, but they continue to associate the open source operating system with Microsoft’s intellectual property.

It’s a fair assumption that maintaining the association is the main reason for mentioning Linux in the announcements, given that there must be countless other technologies involved that do not get a specific mention.

Only Microsoft and Samsung/Fuji Xerox know how much the deals actually relate to Linux.

So what is going on here? Given the vague nature of the patent sharing agreements it remains to be seen, but the argument put forward by Matt Asay recently following a conversation with Mark Shuttleworth certainly makes a lot of sense:

“Microsoft's patent game is designed to force open source to compete on its terms. Mark made a hugely salient point on this: Microsoft has been a disruptive force in the software industry by building complex software and essentially giving it away for peanuts.

But if Microsoft can place a patent tax on all open source software or, at least, the open source software most threatening to its business, then it provides an effective way to inhibit open source disruption.”

The suggestion is that Microsoft is not so much protecting its intellectual property as it is its business model. By creating a group of ‘patent-approved’ Linux vendors and discouraging enterprise adoption of alternatives via the threat of litigation the company would be able to stifle disruptive business models and innovation – all without ever proving any intellectual property infringement.