Microsoft Raids Linux, Signs Patent Deal With I-O Data Device

Microsoft and I-O Data Device Inc. have entered into an agreement that will provide I-O Data’s customers with patent coverage for their use of I-O Data’s products running Linux and other related open source software. Microsoft has been using its power tactics to force Linux providers to sign such deals.

Specifically, the patent covenants apply to I-O Data’s network-attached storage devices and its routers, which run Linux. Although the details of the agreement have not been disclosed, the parties indicated that Microsoft is being "compensated" by I-O Data. (Join KATONDA FACEBOOK page and stay connected)

“We’re pleased to reach this agreement with I-O Data,” said David Kaefer, general manager of Intellectual Property Licensing at Microsoft. “Microsoft has a strong track record of collaboration with companies running Linux-based offerings, and this agreement is a reflection of our commitment to partner with industry leaders around the world.”

Microsoft says that, "This patent agreement is another example of the important role that intellectual property (IP) plays in ensuring a healthy and vibrant IT ecosystem. Since Microsoft launched its IP licensing program in December 2003, the company has entered into more than 600 agreements and continues to develop programs that make it possible for customers, partners and competitors to access its IP portfolio. The program was developed to open access to Microsoft’s significant research and development investments and its growing, broad patent and IP portfolio. In recent years, Microsoft has entered into patent agreements with other leading companies that use Linux for their embedded devices, including Brother International Corp., Fuji Xerox Co. Ltd., Kyocera Mita Corp., LG Electronics, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and TomTom International BV."

According to Free Software Foundation, "Publishers and lawyers like to describe copyright as “intellectual property”—a term also applied to patents, trademarks, and other more obscure areas of law. These laws have so little in common, and differ so much, that it is ill-advised to generalize about them. It is best to talk specifically about “copyright,” or about “patents,” or about “trademarks.”

The term “intellectual property” carries a hidden assumption—that the way to think about all these disparate issues is based on an analogy with physical objects, and our conception of them as physical property.

When it comes to copying, this analogy disregards the crucial difference between material objects and information: information can be copied and shared almost effortlessly, while material objects can't be.

To avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of “intellectual property”.

The hypocrisy of calling these powers “rights” is starting to make the World “Intellectual Property” Organization embarrassed.