Microsoft Deepens Indemnity - InformationWeek

InformationWeek is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

IoT
IoT
Software // Enterprise Applications
News
10/29/2004
12:50 PM
John Foley
John Foley
Features
Connect Directly
Google+
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Microsoft Deepens Indemnity

Barrage of lawsuits has vendor considering ways to provide coverage to more business users and possibly consumers

In the wake of rising concerns within companies about intellectual-property lawsuits over software, Microsoft is considering ways to broaden the indemnification policy that provides legal protection to its customers.

Microsoft is looking at ways to make its indemnification policy compelling, says David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of business development for IP and licensing.

Microsoft is looking at ways to make its indemnification policy compelling, Kaefer says.
The vendor already promises to shield business customers that sign its volume license agreements from patent-infringement or other claims that might be made against its products by outside parties. Now, amid growing questions from customers about their legal exposure, "we're revisiting ways to make our indemnification as compelling as possible," says David Kaefer, Microsoft's director of business development for IP and licensing.

It's unclear what Microsoft has in mind, but the possibilities include expanding its indemnification policy to cover all business customers and maybe consumers. Microsoft executives have been promoting the company's indemnification coverage as a reason to license Windows at a time when questions are being raised in the courtroom and elsewhere over the source-code lineage of the Linux operating system.

"We understand that being on the wrong end of a software-patent lawsuit could cost a customer millions of dollars and massively disrupt their business," CEO Steve Ballmer wrote in a letter distributed via E-mail last week to Microsoft customers and partners.

The potential legal ramifications for software customers were driven home earlier this year when SCO Group filed lawsuits against AutoZone Inc. and DaimlerChrysler AG, after months of warning hundreds of companies that the use of Linux infringed on its Unix intellectual-property holdings. (In a related action, SCO Group is locked in a $3 billion suit with IBM over the alleged misappropriation of SCO Group's trade secrets.) More recently, Java users worried that they might be susceptible when a software-patent lawsuit by Eastman Kodak Co. against Sun Microsystems swung in Kodak's favor. Sun agreed a few weeks ago to pay Kodak $92 million to settle the matter.

In a September speech to the Massachusetts Software Council, Ballmer warned that commercial software companies need to be thinking about the same issues. "Let's say you know you want to build your business around Windows or Linux," Ballmer said. "You have to decide what intellectual-property risk you want to build, what additional cost you might be pushing to your customers that is unanticipated because nobody stands behind the stuff."

That last remark is somewhat of an overstatement. While it's true that some Linux distributors don't offer indemnification, others do, though their offers of legal protection vary. Just over a year ago, Hewlett-Packard began offering indemnification to customers that run Linux on HP computers, subject to certain limitations. And in January, Novell introduced an indemnification program to cover customers of its newly acquired SuSE Linux. The Open Source Development Lab, a consortium of open-source developers and commercial software companies, has created a defense fund to help defray potential legal expenses of Linux users. However, the fund can be applied only to cases associated with SCO Group's litigation, and source-code contributors aren't covered.

Microsoft strengthened its original indemnification, or "duty to defend," policy in April of last year. It expanded the policy's provisions to cover trade-secret and trademark claims and removed a monetary cap on damages. "They're saying, 'We accept full responsibility.' That's almost unheard of in the industry," says Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio. In doing so, Microsoft is exploiting the fact that some Linux distributors have been unwilling to provide their customers with similar guarantees, she adds.

We welcome your comments on this topic on our social media channels, or [contact us directly] with questions about the site.
Previous
1 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
News
How COVID is Changing Technology Futures
Jessica Davis, Senior Editor, Enterprise Apps,  7/23/2020
Slideshows
10 Ways AI Is Transforming Enterprise Software
Cynthia Harvey, Freelance Journalist, InformationWeek,  7/13/2020
Commentary
IT Career Paths You May Not Have Considered
Lisa Morgan, Freelance Writer,  6/30/2020
White Papers
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
Video
Current Issue
Special Report: Why Performance Testing is Crucial Today
This special report will help enterprises determine what they should expect from performance testing solutions and how to put them to work most efficiently. Get it today!
Slideshows
Flash Poll