Microsoft heralds study on customer legal protections

Microsoft is touting a new study that points out that the software maker offers customers more legal protection against intellectual-property claims than that given by open-source rivals.

The report, by IDC analysts Stephen Graham and Alexandrina Boariu, says that Microsoft's policy indemnifying all end users over most types of intellectual-property claims "effectively raises the stakes for protecting software customers."

However, the report is fairly neutral on whether such protection is a major issue for customers. The report notes that outside of SCO's actions against Linux, major claims affecting software end customers have been fairly rare. At the same time, IDC notes that discussion of the issue has risen in the wake of SCO's actions.

"Recognize this for what it is--a differentiation strategy," the IDC analysts said in the report. "If customers value this basis of differentiation, they will act accordingly."

Microsoft, in particular, has been vocal on the issue, marketing it as the latest component of its anti-Linux "get the facts" campaign. In November, Microsoft extended its legal protection to nearly all customers, whereas a previous policy was limited to volume license customers. The company has also lifted a monetary cap it once had against such claims.

Martin Taylor, Microsoft's general manager of platform strategy, said the issue is of increasing concern to customers, particularly when it comes to core systems.

"It's really about how much do they care about it and what level of risk do they want to assume," Taylor said.

Hewlett-Packard and Novell have offered liability protection to some Linux customers, but both Microsoft and analysts have noted that those protections are more limited than the broad indemnity offered by Microsoft.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Study is a year late, the SCO case is dying

If this study had been done a year ago it might have made more of a difference but since SCO's case just took a major blow, (the Judge has just berated SCO for not showing ANY evidence) the conclusion made in this study will have a much smaller impact than MS would like.

[Bill Dautrive]

The only reason they might be right..

..is because they hide their code to the world. Don't get me wrong I would be embarrassed to publish their collection of garbage as well.

MS is well known for stealing, their code is probably has the biggest amount of copyright infringing code.

[David Arbogast]

short sighted

Your argument is based completely on 2 news articles released in the same day, and seems a bit short sighted, as does the response.

Microsoft CAN offer this type of protection. Open-source distributors can not (and apparently don't want to). That is all the article is suggesting. Because Microsoft wrote the code (whether you believe it or not) and maintains control of it, they can be held responsible for anything that is identified as stolen. This removes the risk of litigation from Microsoft's customers.

On the flip side, there is no one person or organization responsible for the code in Linux. Even now, there are hundreds of known IP violations in Linux code, and you have to ask the question, "When the IP owners decide to sue, who will they sue?" The answer is simple. Under the letter of the law, they reserve the right to sue any and all USERS. Its pretty much like being in posession of stolen property.

SCO's case has little to do with this study. SCO may be right or wrong, but that does not change the protection available to software consumers, or the liability of the distributors.

Open source distributors enjoy protection from IP infringement, just as Microsoft's customers do. So if I'm distributing software, perhaps it would be better to be in the Open-Source business. But as a consumer, if I am worried about IP claims against my software stack.... I'd rather be using software from a company that offers me some protection.

[John Kuzak]

berated SCO

http://www.analogstereo.com/saab_9-3_owners_manual.htm