decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Microsoft Posts the New License Terms for Interoperability in the EU Agreement - Updated
Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 08:50 AM EDT

Microsoft has now posted the revised licenses for interoperability as a result of the EU antitrust agreement. Microsoft calls them the Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program License Agreements for Development and Product Distribution (WSPP Development Agreements). I don't know why they can't come up with better names. Probably for the same reason the Zune is brown.

You might want to read them carefully and see what you think. The EU Commission has not yet formally approved them, so it's not too late to notice anything egregious. The one most directly relevant to Samba is this one, the No Patents one [PDF]. Believe it or not, it's 53 pages long.

Here's the Patents Only license [PDF]. Here's the "All intellectual property" license [PDF]. Here's the IDL only license [PDF], meaning Interface Definition Language IDL files only.

The patent one is obviously incompatible with the GPL, as Tom Sanders points out on vnunet, having interviewed Mark Webbink, formerly at Red Hat and now on the board of the Software Freedom Law Center:

Linux vendors will be unable to license Microsoft's interoperability patents under the terms that were mandated by the European Commission, open source legal experts argue.

It is claimed that the the terms are incompatible with the General Public Licence (GPL), the licence that governs the Linux operating system.

"The agreement is going to run foul of the GPL," Mark Webbink, a director with the Software Freedom Law Center told vnunet.com. The group offers legal support to open source developers and users.

Red Hat's general counsel Michael Cunningham agrees that it looks that way. "Webbink also suggested that the Open Innovation Network (OIN) could build a patent portfolio to cover Microsoft interoperability," the article adds.

[Update: I think the worst part of it, though, is that it purports to be a worldwide solution. The EU has just agreed with Microsoft that software patents can be charged for, despite software patents being not allowed in many places in the world, including Europe so far. And the other serious issue I see is that the EU got a promise from Microsoft not to sue individual developers, only commercial vendors and end users. But in GPL works, there is no such distinction. End users and developers are one and the same, and contributions from noncommercial developers go right into commercial products. So any way you look at it, there is fear now smack dab in the middle of the new development process. FOSS is something new, and no solution that requires it to be like Microsoft will work, because it destroys what makes FOSS better. I'm sure Microsoft won't mind; but those who wish to have choice in the marketplace need to realize that something new has arrived, and to preserve it requires thinking in new ways. That means not allowing Microsoft to get you to chip away or destroy the GPL. That is what makes FOSS survive in the wild, and if you go along with Microsoft, only *other* open source licenses will survive. The problem with that is: the GPL is the single most popular license in the FOSS community. Linux uses that license. So does Samba, which the EU purports to be trying to help. So any solution that does not allow the GPL to function as intended is destructive to FOSS as a whole. It's why Microsoft fights it, after all, I've no doubt.]

Microsoft couldn't care less about GPL interoperability, obviously. It adds this note to the page with the new licenses:

Note: The WSPP Evaluation Agreements have been revised as of October 23, 2007. All of the agreements currently offered under the WSPP are subject to further review and comment by the European Commission. Under the development and distribution license terms, the technical documentation or intellectual property provided under the type of license chosen by the licensee can be used in worldwide development and distribution of work group server operating system products to accomplish the licensee's choice of work group server services. The WSPP communications protocols provide the rules for information exchange to accomplish specific predefined tasks and scenarios across a network connection. In some cases, specific protocols can be applied to more than one task or scenario.

Under the development and distribution license terms, the technical documentation or intellectual property provided under the type of license chosen by the licensee can be used in worldwide development and distribution of work group server operating system products to accomplish the licensee's choice of work group server services. The WSPP communications protocols provide the rules for information exchange to accomplish specific predefined tasks and scenarios across a network connection. In some cases, specific protocols can be applied to more than one task or scenario.

Protocols available under this program have been grouped according to the server tasks and scenarios for which they are used. Licensees can request that Microsoft grant them different usage rights from those that are reflected in standard WSPP license agreements for Microsoft protocol technology. Microsoft encourages developers interested in licensing Microsoft protocol technology for purposes other than those described in the standard WSPP license agreement to discuss their technical requirements with the Microsoft Protocol Licensing team to determine a suitable solution.

  • Contact the Microsoft Protocol Program team [infodoc at microsoft.com]

To a large degree, the applicable royalty rates are determined by the server tasks or scenarios that licensees choose for their products that implement the communications protocols. Microsoft is committed to working constructively and in a spirit of good faith to craft appropriate royalties and customized licenses that may depart from programmatic offerings to address the needs of a particular licensee.

All licenses available under the program require completion of WSPP entry requirements and, in most cases, payment of one-time flat fee or prepaid royalties. Because of the range of different possible uses of the protocols that WSPP must accommodate in a reasonable and nondiscriminatory manner, the specific royalty amount may vary.

They have some background information there too, but the above is what you need to look for traps. Pardon my cynicism.

I clicked on the "entry requirements" and it seems that a patent license isn't just for the patent fee they announced:

C-2. For each separate WSPP Development Agreement, a licensee fee (for technical documentation) of €10,000 and a prepaid royalty payment (for patent licenses) of €5,000 is required. These amounts are nonrefundable unless your participation in the Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program is terminated because you do not complete other Program Entry Requirements.

Obviously that will never come up for any GPL code, because it's not compatible with patent licenses, which this is. This is not an offer of a patent peace for customers or any other such fancy footwork workaround. So not even Linspire can say yes to this. But for those who do, it's not €5,000 for a patent license and there you are. It's actually a royalty payment, not a license fee. Combining it with the €10,000 for the interoperability info, you get €15,000 for each WSPP agreement.

Now I need to go look and see how many would one need? This could get a bit pricey. And I note something in the Definitions section of the Patents Only license. They define Definitions like this:

1.5 "Distribute" or "Distribution" means selling, offering to sell, licensing, distributing, providing online access to, importing or otherwise making availaable in any manner to a third party, or to Licensee's own employees for internal use.

You'll love the definition of end user as well:

1.6 "End User" means a third party customer to which a a copy of or access to a product or service is Distributed, or otherwise provided for that customer's use, or creation of derivative workes, and not for further sublicense or further Distribution.

Lordy, there is always a "The GPL Need Not Apply" clause in everything Microsoft does. In this case, it's mutual and no GPL folks will be applying for that license. Maybe it's a good thing that no cash strapped vendors can be tempted. But it does mean, whether the EU Commission realizes it yet or not that Microsoft's number one competitor, Linux, is completely unable to be interoperable with Microsoft's patented code. I'm curious as to how that is helpful to the public who wish to have a choice. Neelie Kroes mentioned that there are only 31 patents that the EU Commission sees that might be at issue; what she may not have thought about is the effect of this precedent. If the end result is that Linux, which is released under the GPL, is unable to interoperate with Microsoft, then it's all been for nothing. All Microsoft needs to do then is patent every bit of functionality it can. Wait. It already is. And in the US, they can. So at some point, regulators need to think about this wall in the roadway that Linux can't pass. If marketplace choice is the goal, that wall has to come down. Perhaps the EU Commission thinks that the patents in this server case are easily worked around; if so, perhaps then they might consider making a statement regarding this being an agreement that is not to be taken as a precdent for any and all future interoperability situations.

To make it easier for us to analyze as a group, here are the first 16 pages of the text of the No Patents license:

********************************************

LICENSE AGREEMENT
(NO PATENTS)
FOR DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION

This Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program License Agreement (No Patents) for Development and Product Distribution (the "Agreement") is entered into between Microsoft Corporation, a Washington corporation, with offices at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Washington 98052- 6399 U.S.A. ("Microsoft"), and the person(s) or company(ies) identified as Licensees below, all of whom are jointly and severally liable under this Agreement ("Licensee"), effective as of the date it has been signed on behalf of all parties (the "Effective Date").

Licensee Full Legal Name: (parent)
Type of Legal Entity (corporation, company, partnership, sole proprietorship or other):
State/Province Organized:
Street Address:
City, State (or equivalent), Country and Postal Code: DUNS #:
Licensee Contact Name:
Phone Number:
Fax Number:

[Licensee may execute the agreement on behalf of its wholly-owned subsidiaries] [add the following for each licensee affiliate also licensed under this agreement]
Licensee Full Legal Name: (subsidiary)
Type of Legal Entity (corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship or other):
State/Province Organized:
Licensee Legal Advisor Contact Information, if any:
Legal Advisor Name:
Legal Advisor Contact Phone Number:
Legal Advisor Contact Fax Number:
Licensee Support Phone Number:
Licensee Support Website:

Table of Exhibits
Exhibit A Licensed Protocols
Exhibit B Program Entry Requirements (applicable as of the Effective Date)
Appendix 1 WSPP Pricing Principles, Scenarios Royalty Tables, and Available Protocols
Appendix 2 Protocol Technical Documentation Specifications
Appendix 3 Third Party IP Claims (as of the Effective Date)

1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement are defined in this Section 1 or elsewhere in this Agreement.

1.1 "Commission" means the Commission of the European Communities.

1.2 "Confidential Information" has the meaning set forth in Section 5.1.

1.3 "Decision" means the Commission of the European Communities Decision dated March 24, 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-3/37.792-Microsoft-Decision).

1.4 "Distribute" or "Distribution" means licensing (including the right to modify and redistribute source code versions of Licensed Server Implementations), distributing, providing online access to, importing or otherwise making available in any manner to a third party.

1.5 "Licensed Protocols" means the WSPP Protocols listed in Exhibit A.

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

1

WSPP Protocols or WSPP Documentation that Microsoft owns or has the right to sublicense without a fee: (a) know-how, industrial secrets, trade secrets and confidential information embodied in the WSPP Protocols or disclosed by the WSPP Documentation; and (b) copyrights in the WSPP Documentation, and, to the extent necessary for Licensee to exercise its rights under the scope of the license granted in Section 2.1 of this Agreement, in the WSPP Protocols. For purposes of clarification, Microsoft Licensed Intellectual Property does not include any rights under Microsoft patents or patent applications. Microsoft acknowledges that by signing this Agreement, Licensee is not waiving its right to contest the validity of any of Microsoft's know-how, industrial secrets, trade secrets and confidential information embodied in the WSPP Protocols and disclosed by the WSPP Documentation, or copyrights.

1.7 "Program Entry Requirements" means the WSPP program entry requirements posted on the WSPP Website from time to time.

1.8 "Protocol" means a set of rules of interconnection and interaction between various instances of Windows Server Operating Systems and Windows Client Operating Systems running on different computers in a Windows Work Group Network.

1.9 "Service Pack" means updates that Microsoft makes commercially available as a "service pack" to a Windows Client Operating System or a Windows Server Operating System, under the applicable end user license agreement for such product.

1.10 "Trustee" means a trustee appointed by the Commission pursuant to the Decision and the Commission Decision of 28.7.2005 (C (2005) 2988 final) .

1.11 "Update" means any critical fix or recommended modification to, or updated component for, a Windows Client Operating System or a Windows Server Operating System, that Microsoft develops and makes commercially available through its website for the product to which the update applies (e.g., Windows Update or successor site), under the applicable end user license agreement for such product.

1.12 "Windows Client Operating Systems" means the software marketed, distributed and licensed by Microsoft as Windows 98, Windows 98 Second Edition, Windows Millennium Edition, Windows NT Workstation 4.0, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows XP Professional, Windows XP Home, or Windows Vista, including updates (which include, without limitation, security patches) and upgrades (both described in Section 3.2(a)) thereto, or their successors (including updates and upgrades thereto) for use on personal computers. "Windows Client Operating Systems" do not include Windows XP Embedded or its successors, Windows CE or its successors, or any other operating system designed for use with non- PC devices such as gaming consoles, television set-top boxes, mobile telephones and personal digital assistants.

1.13 "Windows Server Operating Systems" means the software marketed, distributed and licensed by Microsoft as Windows NT Server 4.0, Windows 2000 Server Standard Edition, Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition, and Windows Server 2008, including updates (which include, without limitation, security patches) and upgrades (both described in Section 3.2(a)) thereto, or their successors (including updates and upgrades thereto).

1.14 "Windows Work Group Network" means any group of (i) personal computers connected to a network and on each of which a Windows Client Operating System is installed and (ii) Windows Work Group Servers, linked together via a computer network. "Windows Work Group Server" means a computer connected to a network and on which a Windows Server Operating System is installed.

1.15 "WSPP" means the Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program licensing program made available by Microsoft and described at the WSPP Website.

1.16 "WSPP Development Agreement" means a then current version of a Microsoft protocol license agreement for development and product distribution entered into by Microsoft and a licensee under the WSPP.

1.17 "WSPP Development Licensee" means another licensee under a WSPP Development Agreement, who has satisfied applicable Program Entry Requirements.

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

2

and corrections per Sections 3.2 and 3.3(a), provided by Microsoft pursuant to Article 5 of the Decision and under this Agreement (and absent a specific reference to WSPP IDL Documentation, includes WSPP IDL Documentation).

1.19 "WSPP IDL Documentation" means the Interface Definition Language (IDL) specifications for the WSPP IDLs.

1.20 "WSPP IDLs" means the file & print and user & group administration IDLs associated with certain WSPP Protocols. WSPP Protocols with which WSPP IDLs are associated as of the Effective Date are identified in Table A-2 of Appendix 1.

1.21 "WSPP Protocols" means the file & print and user & group administration Protocols disclosed by Microsoft pursuant to Article 5 of the Decision and that are available for license under the WSPP (and absent a specific reference to WSPP IDLs, includes WSPP IDLs). The WSPP Protocols as of the Effective Date are listed in Appendix 1, and include updates and corrections per Sections 3.2 and 3.3(a) of this Agreement.

1.22 "WSPP Website" means the website located at http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/legal/eudecision or successor site.

2. License Grant; Licensed Server Implementations; License Clarifications; No Microsoft Statements; No Other Rights; Discussion of Licensing Terms; Notification Regarding Other Licenses

2.1 License Grant.

(a) General. Effective upon Licensee's fulfillment of all Program Entry Requirements, Microsoft hereby grants to Licensee a world-wide, non-exclusive, personal license under the Microsoft Licensed Intellectual Property to develop, make, use, and Distribute Licensed Server Implementations (as defined below), subject to all provisions of this Agreement.

(b) Subcontracting. Licensee may contract with a third party to develop, consistent with all of the terms of this Agreement, Licensed Server Implementations on Licensee's behalf ("Subcontractor") provided that any such contract must contain terms requiring any and all third party Subcontractors to comply with obligations no less restrictive than the applicable terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to Sections 2 and 5 of this Agreement. Further, nothing in this Agreement shall preclude any such third party Subcontractor from performing similar development work for any other WSPP Development Licensee, pursuant to their WSPP Development Agreement.

2.2 "Licensed Server Implementation(s)" means only those portion(s) of individual copies of software developed by or for Licensee that implement the Licensed Protocols.

2.3 License Clarifications. The licenses granted to Licensee in this Agreement do not include any right to modify or Distribute the WSPP Documentation (or to modify or Distribute WSPP IDL Documentation), except that Licensee may annotate those copies of the WSPP Documentation made available by Microsoft to Licensee under this Agreement, for the purpose of Licensee's development activities under the license granted in Section 2.1(a)(i). Information (other than information included in source code) contained in the WSPP Documentation may not be Distributed in any manner other than as part of a Licensed Server Implementation.

2.4 No Microsoft Statements. This Agreement does not authorize Licensee to make any claim, representation, warranty (whether express, implied or statutory), or other statement on behalf of Microsoft, including any statement that:

(a) Creates or purports to create any support or other obligations on the part of Microsoft, with respect to the Licensed Server Implementation or otherwise;

(b) Allows any recovery of damages by any third party directly from Microsoft under any theory of liability for any matter related to the Licensed Server Implementation; or

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

3

providing the Licensed Server Implementation.

2.5 No Other Rights. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, no other rights are granted under this Agreement by implication or estoppel or otherwise.

2.6 Discussion of Licensing Terms; Notification and Opportunity Regarding Other Licenses.

Microsoft acknowledges that this Agreement must be reasonable and non-discriminatory under the terms of the Decision. In the event that Licensee believes any term in this Agreement is unreasonable, Licensee may advise Microsoft of the issue and the reasons why Licensee believes the term or terms are unreasonable. Microsoft agrees to work with Licensee in good faith to appropriately resolve the issue in a reasonable and timely manner, i.e. within 60 days after Microsoft received notice from Licensee. In the event that Microsoft and Licensee are unable to achieve agreement on such terms after good faith efforts, Microsoft is willing to submit the matter for review by the Trustee. If any other WSPP Development Licensee enters into a WSPP Development Agreement for the same Licensed Protocols with the same WSPP Documentation under the same Microsoft Licensed Intellectual Property as licensed by Licensee under this Agreement (such WSPP Development Agreement, an "Other License"), and the License Fee (as defined below) and/or other terms of that Other License are more advantageous to that other WSPP Development Licensee than the terms of this Agreement, Microsoft will notify Licensee and Licensee will have the opportunity to enter into the same agreement as that Other License. Licensee will also have the opportunity to receive a refund (if applicable) of the License Fee already paid by Licensee under this Agreement, that reflects the same License Fee adjustment as received by the licensee under that Other License.

3. Deliverables; Updates; Support; Comments and Suggestions

3.1 WSPP Documentation Delivery.

(a) General. Microsoft will provide Licensee with access to WSPP Documentation for the Licensed Protocols via a security-protected online site or other reasonable method determined by Microsoft from time to time as described in this Section 3.1 and Section 3.2.

(b) Licensee's Selection of Protocol Documentation.

(i) Once Licensee has initially fulfilled generally applicable Program Entry Requirements, Microsoft will provide Licensee with access to the WSPP Documentation for the Licensed Protocols initially selected by Licensee and listed on Exhibit A. Upon fulfillment of all applicable Program Entry Requirements, the WSPP Protocols chosen by Licensee will become "Licensed Protocols" under this Agreement. Program Entry Requirements applicable to Licensee's initial choices of Licensed Protocols as of the Effective Date are listed on Exhibit B, and once Licensee has fulfilled those Program Entry Requirements, Licensee will not be required to re-fulfill them, even if they subsequently change. At Licensee's request, Microsoft will also provide up to three printed, personalized volumes of such WSPP Documentation to Licensee. In light of Licensee's access also to an online version of the WSPP Documentation, updated volumes will be provided annually.

(ii) If applicable, within 10 days of receipt of a written request from Licensee, Microsoft will also provide Licensee with access to WSPP Documentation for any other WSPP Protocols subsequently selected by Licensee. Microsoft will send Licensee an updated Exhibit A, and any additional WSPP Protocols listed on that updated exhibit will also become a "Licensed Protocol" under this Agreement.

3.2 WSPP Documentation Updates

. (a) General. Microsoft will make updated WSPP Documentation for modified and new WSPP Protocols (that are added to WSPP after Microsoft initially provides WSPP Documentation to Licensee under Section 3.1) available for license by Licensee under this Agreement:

(i) if applicable, upon release of the First Beta for the relevant Service Pack to the relevant product, or new version of that product, that includes the modified or new WSPP Protocol (documentation provided in such instance, a "Preliminary Documentation Update"), or

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

4

(A) commercial release of the Service Pack to the relevant product (i.e., Windows Client Operating System or Windows Server Operating System), or new version of that product, that includes the modified or new WSPP Protocol, or

(B) the day on which the final version of any other Update is posted to the Microsoft website for the product to which the update applies (e.g., Windows Update site or successor website). "First Beta" means the first public beta testing version of the Service Pack or new version of the relevant Windows operating system product made available by Microsoft via an MSDN (Microsoft Developers Network) subscription offering or of which 150,000 or more copies are distributed. Licensee will be given automatic access to the WSPP Documentation for any Licensed Protocol modifications made available under this Section 3.2. Licensee will be given access to the WSPP Documentation for any other WSPP Protocol modifications or any new WSPP Protocols pursuant to the process described in Section 3.1(b)(ii).

(b) Preliminary Documentation Updates. When a Preliminary Documentation Update is made available to Licensee, Microsoft will also make the WSPP Documentation for the Commercially Released version of the relevant Service Pack or new product version (such documentation, a "Final Documentation Update") available to Licensee within 15 days after the relevant date production is authorized for the manufacture of copies of software for commercial availability. THE CORRECTION ASSISTANCE AND WARRANTY PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 3.3(a) AND 6.3 DO NOT APPLY TO PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION UPDATES, BUT DO APPLY TO FINAL DOCUMENTATION UPDATES. Once Final Documentation Update(s) are made available, all Licensee rights to use relevant Preliminary Documentation Update(s) automatically terminate. SINCE THE FIRST BETA CODE, FEATURES AND/OR FUNCTIONALITY MAY BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CODE, FEATURES AND/OR FUNCTIONALITY OF THE COMMERCIALLY RELEASED VERSION, LICENSEE IS ADVISED THAT THERE ARE RISKS IN ANY RELIANCE ON PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION UPDATES, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT LICENSEE INCURS ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR ANY OTHER COSTS AS A RESULT OF SUCH RELIANCE, IT DOES SO AT ITS OWN RISK.

(c) Availability. Once a protocol becomes a WSPP Protocol under the WSPP, Microsoft will continue to make WSPP Documentation for that protocol available during the Term. Subject to the foregoing, nothing in this Agreement requires Microsoft to (i) deliver any WSPP Documentation for any modified or new protocol other than as provided in this Section 3.2 or (ii) continue to implement any WSPP Protocol in any Windows Client Operating System or Windows Server Operating System. However, Microsoft will provide notice to Licensee in the relevant portion of the WSPP Documentation of WSPP Protocols that remain available for license but which are no longer used by Microsoft in Windows Client and Server Operating Systems, generally in accordance with the timeframe in Section 3.2(a)(i).

3.3 Support.

(a) Correction Assistance. Microsoft (either itself or through a third party) will (i) specifically acknowledge (i.e., beyond an auto-generated email) any Licensee requests for correction assistance regarding any inaccuracies or omissions in the WSPP Documentation within 24 hours of such request, and (ii) correct within a reasonable time any confirmed inaccuracies or omissions that prevent the WSPP Documentation from complying with the warranty in Section 6.3 ("Correction Assistance"). Correction Assistance does not include development or delivery of any software (including any computer program or code, any product related bug fixes, workarounds, patches, beta fixes or beta builds), or any resolution to implementation issues.

(b) Additional Technical Support. Licensee may, at its option, obtain managed technical support regarding Microsoft's WSPP Documentation and Windows operating systems products, at levels up to and including an on-site Technical Account Manager, by entering into a WSPP Licensed Protocol Support Addendum (a form of which is posted on the WSPP Website). Microsoft technical support personnel will have access to internal Microsoft technical resources such as its product engineering organization, and Windows operating system products source code as needed. Such technical support may include (i) information about WSPP Protocols or WSPP Documentation; (ii) information about Windows operating systems products publicly or programmatically available to Microsoft's customers or ISVs (independent software vendors), other than source code; and/or (iii) assistance with debugging and verifying actual

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

5

products. Such technical support will not include (A) Licensee access to source code of Windows operating systems or other Microsoft products, other than by entering into a WSPP Source Code License Addendum (a form of which is posted on the WSPP Website); (B) any writing by Microsoft support personnel of source code for Licensed Server Implementations; or (C) any assistance regarding Licensee implementations of any underlying server functionality (as contrasted with the WSPP Protocols). Any information and assistance provided in connection with support described in this Section 3.3(b) concerning the behavior, meaning or interdependencies of Microsoft's products or protocol implementations is provided for reference only and Licensee does not obtain any additional license rights under this Agreement as a result of any disclosure contemplated by this Section 3.3(b).

(c) Third Party IP Rights and Claims.

(i) Rights. Although Microsoft warranty and notice obligations regarding Third Party IP Claims (as defined below) are provided in Section 3.3(c)(ii) and Section 6.4, it is also possible that third parties may have intellectual property rights in the WSPP Protocols of which Microsoft is unaware or under which it is not free to sublicense, and accordingly, Licensee acknowledges that it may be required to obtain additional license rights from third parties in order to implement the WSPP Protocols under the licenses granted in this Agreement.

(ii) Claims. If the Microsoft Law and Corporate Affairs Department receives in its possession during the Term a Third Party IP Claim in which Microsoft is an IP Defendant, Microsoft will provide Licensee with written notice identifying that Third Party IP Claim. Also, if Licensee receives in its possession during the Term a Third Party IP Claim in which Licensee is an IP Defendant, Licensee may provide Microsoft with written notice identifying that Third Party IP Claim. "Third Party IP Claim(s)" means, with respect to the entity (either Microsoft or Licensee) who is named as a defendant or against whom a claim is made (the "IP Defendant") (i) litigation in which the IP Defendant is named as a defendant and served with process or (ii) a written threat of litigation against the IP Defendant that a third party or its authorized agent sends to the IP Defendant, and the IP Defendant and the IP Defendant's internal legal department (to the extent the IP Defendant has one) receives in its possession, which alleges that a WSPP Protocol or the WSPP Documentation infringes that third party's own intellectual property rights for which Licensee is licensed under Section 2.1(a), with specificity and in sufficient detail for the IP Defendant to identify (A) the allegedly infringing WSPP Protocol or WSPP Documentation, (B) the allegedly infringed intellectual property and (C) the legal and technical basis of the allegation.

(d) Other. Except for the Microsoft obligations expressly described in Sections 3.3(a), (b) and

(c), as between Microsoft and Licensee, Licensee is solely responsible for all support issues relating to Licensed Server Implementations.

3.4 Comments and Suggestions. Microsoft invites Licensee's comments and suggestions on the WSPP Documentation and other items or information provided by Microsoft under this Agreement ("Comments and Suggestions"). If Licensee voluntarily provides (in connection with correction assistance or otherwise) any Comments and Suggestions relating to the WSPP Documentation or matters contained therein, Microsoft may, in connection with Microsoft products and services, use, disclose or otherwise commercialize in any manner, any of those Comments and Suggestions without obligation or restriction based on intellectual property rights or otherwise except that the foregoing does not permit the Comments or Suggestions to be licensed by Microsoft on a standalone basis.

4. License Fee and Payments.

4.1 License Fee. Licensee will pay Microsoft a one-time license fee of 10,000 Euros ("License Fee").

4.2 Payments.

(a) Payment Terms and Instructions. Licensee will pay an invoice issued by Microsoft (or its Payment Agent) for the Licensee Fee within 30 days of receipt of the invoice. Payment will be made to the Payment Agent (i.e. payments will be made out to the Payment Agent), to the following account or address (or alternate Payment Agent, account or address upon reasonable notice from Microsoft): Payment Agent: Microsoft Corporation

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

6

[Bank information redacted]
(Please remit one week prior to invoice due date if paying by check. Licensee is responsible for mailing & courier fees.)

(b) Manner of Payment. The License Fee is payable in Euros. All references in this Agreement to "" refer to Euros. The License Fee is non-refundable except as provided in Section 9.2(c).

(c) Taxes. This Section 4.2(c) governs the treatment of all taxes arising as a result of or in connection with this Agreement, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement.

(i) Licensee is responsible for the billing, collecting and remitting of sales, use, value added, and other comparable taxes due with respect to the collection of any revenues by Licensee, or any portion thereof. Microsoft is not liable for any taxes (including any penalties or interest thereon), that Licensee is legally obligated to pay and that are incurred by Licensee in connection with this Agreement or any Licensee revenues or related to the licensing or other Distribution of any Licensed Server Implementation, and Licensee takes full responsibility for all such taxes. Licensee is not liable for any income taxes that Microsoft is legally obligated to pay with respect to any amounts paid to Microsoft by Licensee under this Agreement.

(ii) The License Fee excludes any taxes, duties, levies, fees, excises or tariffs imposed on any of Licensee's activities in connection with this Agreement. Licensee will pay to Microsoft (pursuant to Section 4.2(a)) any applicable taxes that are owed by Licensee solely as a result of entering into this Agreement and which are permitted to be collected from Licensee by Microsoft under applicable law, except to the extent Licensee provides to Microsoft a valid exemption certificate for such taxes. Licensee agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Microsoft harmless from any taxes (including without limitation sales or use taxes paid by Licensee to Microsoft) or claims, causes of action, costs (including without limitation reasonable attorneys' fees) and any other liabilities of any nature whatsoever related to such taxes.

(iii) If, after a determination by a tax authority outside the U.S., any taxes are required to be withheld on payments made by Licensee to Microsoft, Licensee may deduct such taxes from the amount owed Microsoft and pay them to the appropriate taxing authority; provided however, that Licensee will promptly secure and deliver to Microsoft (through its Payment Agent) an official receipt for any such taxes withheld or other documents necessary to enable Microsoft to claim a U.S. Foreign Tax Credit. Licensee will make certain that any taxes withheld are minimized to the extent possible under applicable law.

5. Confidentiality

5.1 Definition of Confidential Information. Microsoft asserts that it has invested significant effort and expense in developing the WSPP Protocols and WSPP Documentation (although Microsoft acknowledges that by signing this Agreement, Licensee is not (i) necessarily agreeing with the foregoing assertion or (ii) waiving its right to contest it). The WSPP Documentation, and all non-public information disclosed to Licensee in connection with Correction Assistance per Section 3.3(a), are Microsoft's "Confidential Information." The terms of this Agreement are not Confidential Information of either

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

7

of Licensee. Each party disclosing its Confidential Information to the other party under this Agreement is the "Disclosing Party", and the party receiving such Confidential Information is the "Receiving Party."

5.2 Use and Disclosure of Confidential Information.

(a) General. Each Receiving Party will: (a) subject to Section 5.4, retain in confidence the Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party; (b) make no use of the Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party except as permitted under this Agreement; and (c) protect Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party by using reasonable measures sufficient to maintain the confidentiality of such Confidential Information.

(b) Permitted Recipients. Except as otherwise expressly authorized in Section 5.6, the Receiving Party may disclose Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party to its employees, temporary personnel or independent contractors or other persons authorized by Licensee only on a "need to know basis" and under a suitable written non-disclosure agreement that does not permit disclosure or use except as permitted under this Agreement., 5.3 Specific Procedures. Without limiting the generality of its obligations as a Receiving Party under Section 5.2: (a) Licensee will preserve, abide by and not circumvent or attempt to circumvent any technological mechanism (such as digital rights management technology or password protection) designed to restrict access to or limit copying of the WSPP Documentation and that is included in or applied to the WSPP Documentation made available by Microsoft, and (b) Licensee will not place or save the electronic file containing the WSPP Documentation on any computer system that is accessible via the Internet, except via a secure encrypted "virtual private network" connection to Licensee's internal network system that is limited to authenticated use by persons otherwise authorized to have access to Confidential Information under Section 5.2.

5.4 Exclusions. Neither party's Confidential Information includes information which: (a) is in or subsequently enters the public domain or is or subsequently becomes known to the Receiving Party from a source other than the Disclosing Party, without imposition of a confidentiality obligation on the Receiving Party, and that entry into the public domain or disclosure does not result from any violation of laws or breach of an obligation of confidentiality owed directly or indirectly with respect to the information; or (b) was independently developed by the Receiving Party without reference to any Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party in any form.

5.5 Independent Development/Residuals. The terms of confidentiality under this Agreement shall not be construed to limit either the Disclosing Party or the Receiving Party's right to independently develop or acquire products without use of the other party's Confidential Information. Further, the Receiving Party shall be free to use for any purpose the residuals resulting from access to or work with the Confidential Information of the Disclosing Party, provided that the Receiving Party shall not disclose such Confidential Information except as expressly permitted pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The term "residuals" means information in intangible form, which is retained in unaided memory by persons authorized by the Receiving Party who have had access to the Disclosing Party's Confidential Information per the provisions of Section 5.2 (such persons, "Authorized Persons"), including ideas, concepts, know-how or techniques contained in such Confidential Information. An Authorized Person's memory will be considered to be unaided if such Authorized Person has not intentionally memorized the Confidential Information for the purpose of retaining and subsequently using or disclosing it. The Receiving Party shall not have any obligation to limit or restrict the assignment of Authorized Persons or to pay royalties for any work resulting from the use of residuals. However, this Section 5.5 shall not be deemed to grant to the Receiving Party a license under the Disclosing Party's copyrights or patents.

5.6 Permitted Disclosures.

(a) To the extent that Microsoft Confidential Information is embodied in and disclosed by source code (including comments to source code in line with standard industry practice) versions of Licensed Server Implementations, Licensee may disclose such Confidential Information as part of a distribution of such source code. The foregoing does not authorize Licensee to publish the WSPP Documentation in any manner (including in connection with or as part of Licensed Server Implementation source code) or to

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

8

Implementation source code or works derived from it.

(b) The Receiving Party may disclose Confidential Information in accordance with judicial or other governmental order, provided the Receiving Party (i) gives the Disclosing Party reasonable notice prior to such disclosure to allow the Disclosing Party a reasonable opportunity to seek a protective order or equivalent, or (ii) obtains written assurance from the applicable judicial or governmental entity affording the Confidential Information the highest level of protection afforded under applicable law or regulation, provided that (except with respect to governmental orders) in no event may such level of protection be less than is reasonably necessary to maintain the confidentiality of such Confidential Information.

(c) Subject to Section 5.6(b), the Receiving Party may also disclose Confidential Information in connection with the Microsoft Work Group Server Protocol Program or Microsoft's compliance with the Decision, to the Commission or to the Trustee.

(d) Confidential Information disclosed under this Section 5.6 remains Confidential Information under this Agreement.

5.7 Publicity. Nothing in this Agreement prohibits Licensee from disclosing the fact that it has entered into this Agreement and that it has implemented WSPP Protocol(s) in Licensed Server Implementation(s), as long as Licensee does not use any Microsoft logo in so doing. However, Microsoft will not, without Licensee's approval, issue any press releases or similar communications during the Term regarding the fact that Licensee has entered into this Agreement, unless such fact has already been made public by someone other than Microsoft.

6. Warranties, Limitations of Liability, Exclusive Remedies and Sole Liability.

6.1 General.

(a) Each party warrants that (i) the person executing this Agreement on behalf of such party has all necessary power and authority to do so, and that upon such signature this Agreement is a legal, valid and binding obligation enforceable against such party, and (ii) that it is entering into this Agreement in good faith.

(b) Licensee further warrants that, as of the Effective Date and throughout the Term: Licensee has not: (i) created or Distributed a computer virus with malicious intent; or (ii) engaged in repeated willful violations, or knowing and material contribution or inducement to repeated willful violations by third parties, of intellectual property rights or of laws or regulations prohibiting circumvention of technology measures that control access to, or the ability to copy, software or other copyrighted digital content.

6.2 Copyright Infringement. Microsoft further warrants that the WSPP Protocols and the WSPP Documentation do not infringe any copyright of any third party.

6.3 Documentation and Licensing Terms. Microsoft further represents and warrants and undertakes that

(a) the WSPP Documentation is complete and accurate as required by Article 5 of the Decision read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Decision;

(b) the WSPP Documentation conforms to the Protocol Technical Documentation Specifications listed in Appendix 2;

(c) the WSPP Documentation is and will be kept updated on an ongoing basis and in a timely manner as required by Article 5 of the Decision read in conjunction with Article 1 of the Decision;

(d) the WSPP Documentation provided by Microsoft under this Agreement will be provided in an organized manner and in a format suitable for analysis and interpretation by software engineers reasonably skilled in the art of server software protocols and familiar with (although not necessarily specialized in) Windows Server Operating Systems developer technologies;

(e) in offering the terms and conditions under this Agreement to Licensee (including, without limitation, the financial provisions, warranties and any restrictions imposed on Licensee hereunder in

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

9

comply with the requirement under Article 5 of the Decision that it must allow undertakings to use the Interoperability Information (as defined in Article 1 of the Decision) on terms which are reasonable and non-discriminatory. If at any time Microsoft grants any Third Party license fees, terms and conditions that may be deemed to be more advantageous, Microsoft will give prompt notice to Licensee and provide the necessary information to determine compliance with this representation and warranty.

6.4 Third Party Claims. Microsoft further warrants that as of the Effective Date, to the best of its knowledge, it does not have any Third Party IP Claims (defined in Section 3.3(c)(ii)) other than as may be set forth in Appendix 3 to this Agreement.

6.5 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 6.1-6.4 AND WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF TITLE AS TO ANY GOODS PROVIDED TO LICENSEE, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, EACH PARTY EXCLUDES ALL CONDITIONS, WARRANTIES AND OTHER TERMS WHICH MIGHT HAVE EFFECT BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR BE IMPLIED OR INCORPORATED INTO THIS AGREEMENT (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, IN RELATION TO (i) THE WSPP DOCUMENTATION, (ii) PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTATION UPDATES, (iii) CORRECTION ASSISTANCE, (iv) COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS, AND (v) ALL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN ANY OF THE FOREGOING (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE MICROSOFT LICENSED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY) (COLLECTIVELY, THE "MATERIALS"), WHETHER BY STATUTE, COMMON LAW OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED CONDITIONS, WARRANTIES AND OTHER TERMS AS TO SATISFACTORY QUALITY, FITNESS FOR PURPOSE AND THE USE OF REASONABLE SKILL AND CARE. EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 6.2 OR 6.4 AND WITHOUT LIMITING THE GENERALITY OF THE FOREGOING, MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND THAT (i) THE MATERIALS DO NOT INFRINGE THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS OF A THIRD PARTY OR (ii) ANY LICENSED SERVER IMPLEMENTATION WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHT OF ANY THIRD PARTY.

6.6 EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES AND SOLE LIABILITY. BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT LICENSEE'S SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY AND MICROSOFT'S SOLE LIABILITY IN CONNECTION WITH ANY CLAIM RELATED TO:

(a) A VIOLATION OR BREACH OF THE WARRANTY IN SECTION 6.2 IS A CLAIM FOR INDEMNIFICATION FROM THIRD PARTY CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 7.1(a) (SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 7), AND THAT LICENSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO BRING ANY CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST MICROSOFT BASED ON ANY ALLEGED OR ACTUAL VIOLATION OR BREACH OF THE WARRANTY IN SECTION 6.2;

(b) SECTION 6.4 (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY BREACH THEREOF) IS FOR LICENSEE TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO ALL WSPP PROTOCOLS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE RELEVANT THIRD PARTY IP CLAIM AND, FOLLOWING SUCH TERMINATION, TO PURSUE A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST MICROSOFT BASED ON A VIOLATION OR BREACH OF THE WARRANTY IN SECTION 6.4, PROVIDED THAT SUCH DAMAGES WILL NOT IN ANY EVENT EXCEED (REGARDLESS OF THE LEGAL THEORY UPON WHICH ANY CLAIM FOR SUCH DAMAGES IS BASED) THE AMOUNT OF THE LICENSE FEE PAID BY LICENSEE TO MICROSOFT HEREUNDER, AND TO THE EXTENT APPLICABLE, TO OBTAIN INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE BY MICROSOFT WITH RESPECT TO THIRD PARTY IP CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 7.1(b) SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND LIMITATIONS SET FORTH IN SECTION 7; AND NOTHING IN THIS SECTION 6.6 IS INTENDED TO LIMIT THE REMEDIES AVAILABLE TO MICROSOFT WITH RESPECT TO MISREPRESENTATIONS BY LICENSEE OR OTHER BREACHES OF SECTION 6.1. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT SHALL EXCLUDE MICROSOFT'S LIABILITY FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE.

7. Indemnification.

7.1 General. Subject to Sections 7.2 and 7.3, Microsoft agrees at its expense and Licensee's request to indemnify and hold harmless Licensee and Licensee's subsidiaries, directors, officers, and

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

10

by) a court of competent jurisdiction or agreed to in a settlement pursuant to Section 7.3 below ("Indemnified Damages") as a result of:

(a) third party claims, demands or actions based on allegations which, if true, would constitute a breach of Microsoft's warranty in Section 6.2, and/or

(b) third party claims, demands or actions based on allegations which, if true, would constitute a breach of Microsoft's warranty in Section 6.4 ("7.1(b) Covered Claims"; along with the claims referenced in Section 7.1(a), "Covered Claims").

7.2 7.1(b) Claims. Subject to Section 7.3, Microsoft also agrees at its expense to defend the Indemnified Parties against 7.1(b) Covered Claims, and the costs of such defense are not capped; provided, however, that such defense obligation, and Microsoft's obligation to indemnify and hold the Indemnified Parties harmless under Section 7.1(b), excludes Licensee's reverse engineered products or products created by Licensee prior to the Effective Date.

7.3 Condition and Procedures. Microsoft's obligation to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the Indemnified Parties under Section 7.1 and 7.2 is conditioned on Licensee's providing Microsoft with reasonably prompt notice in writing of any Covered Claim, and tendering control of the defense of such Covered Claim to Microsoft. Microsoft will not settle any Covered Claim except with prior written permission of Licensee, which permission Licensee will not unreasonably withhold. Notwithstanding Licensee's tender of control of defense to Microsoft under this Section 7.3, Licensee may also participate at its own expense in such defense, provided that control over defense strategy decisions remains with Microsoft subject only to the express provisions of this Section 7.3 regarding settlement approvals.

7.4 Additional Claims. Microsoft agrees at its expense and Licensee's request to defend Licensee in a lawsuit, and pay the amount of any adverse final judgment (or settlement to which Microsoft agrees in advance in writing) from such lawsuit, for any third party claim(s) that a Licensed Protocol implemented and Distributed in a Licensed Server Implementation in accordance with Section 2 and the other provisions of this Agreement, infringes third party patent Necessary Claims that were not known to Microsoft as of the Effective Date (such third party claims, "Additional Claim(s)"); provided that:

(a) Licensee promptly notifies Microsoft in writing of the Additional Claim, in sufficient detail to identify (i) the allegedly infringing Licensed Protocol, (ii) the allegedly infringed patent Necessary Claims and (iii) the legal and technical basis of the allegation,

(b) Microsoft controls the defense and/or settlement of the Additional Claim,

(c) Licensee provides Microsoft with reasonable assistance (at Microsoft's expense) in the defense of the Additional Claim,

(d) Microsoft's obligations to defend and pay any Additional Claim shall be limited to Additional Claims wherein the Licensed Protocol alone, without combination or modification, constitutes direct or contributory infringement of such Additional Claim, and

(e) if the lawsuit identified above includes any claim, other than Additional Claim(s), that the Licensed Server Implementation containing the allegedly infringing Licensed Protocol(s) infringes any third party intellectual property rights ("Other Claims"), Licensee reimburses Microsoft for any and all attorney's fees and costs incurred by Microsoft in defending against Other Claims, provided that Licensee controls the defense and/or settlement of those Other Claims. Notwithstanding each party's control of defense of Additional Claims and Other Claims under this Section 7.4, the other party may also participate at its own expense in such defense, provided that control over defense strategy decisions with respect to (i) Additional Claims remains with Microsoft and (ii) Other Claims remains with Licensee. Microsoft will have no obligations under this Section 7.4 for any Additional Claim based on (A) Licensee's manufacture, use or Distribution of software containing an allegedly infringing Licensed Protocol more than 20 days after Microsoft has provided Licensee with at least 20 days written notice that (1) Microsoft (at its option) will stop such activity or (2) Microsoft (at its option) will modify the allegedly infringing Licensed Protocol and provide that modified Licensed Protocol to Licensee for license under this Agreement in lieu of the allegedly infringing Licensed Protocol at or prior to the end of such notice period, or (B) on Licensee's reverse engineered products or products created by Licensee prior to the Effective Date. Microsoft's liability under this Section 7.4 will not exceed,

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

11

attorneys incurred by Microsoft in defending Additional Claim(s).

8. LIMITATIONS OF REMEDIES & LIABILITY. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, NEITHER PARTY IS LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL LOSSES OR SPECIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, OR FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, ANTICIPATED SAVINGS, BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY OR GOODWILL OR LOSS OF DATA, ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE WSPP DOCUMENTATION OR OTHERWISE UNDER OR IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROVISION OF THIS AGREEMENT, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE. THE FOREGOING EXCLUSION APPLIES EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES IN ADVANCE AND EVEN IF ANY AVAILABLE REMEDY FAILS OF ITS ESSENTIAL PURPOSE, BUT DOES NOT APPLY TO (I) BREACH OF SECTION 5 (CONFIDENTIALITY), SECTION 6.1(B) (CERTAIN LICENSEE WARRANTIES), OR SECTION 6.3 ( DOCUMENTATION AND LICENSING TERMS) ((II) INDEMNIFIED DAMAGES, OR (III) ANY INFRINGEMENT OR MISAPPROPRIATION OF EITHER PARTY'S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. NOTHING IN THIS AGREEMENT EXCLUDES MICROSOFT'S LIABILITY FOR DEATH OR PERSONAL INJURY ARISING FROM NEGLIGENCE.

9. Term & Termination.

9.1 Term.

(a) Initial Term. The initial term of this Agreement commences on the Effective Date and remains in effect until the date that is five years from the Effective Date, unless and until this Agreement is earlier terminated in accordance with Section 9.2 ("Initial Term").

(b) Term Extensions. Unless the Agreement has been terminated prior to expiration, Licensee may extend the term of this Agreement for successive terms of five years ("Extensions") by giving written notice to Microsoft during the period beginning 60 days prior and ending on the expiration date of the Initial Term or then-current Extension. The Initial Term, together with any Extensions, constitutes the "Term" of this Agreement. To account for the availability of new technology or other developments, Microsoft reserves the right to make any Extension subject to Licensee's agreement to new or revised terms, including royalty terms, provided any such terms are consistent with the Decision and the WSPP Pricing Principles set forth in Appendix 1. Microsoft may terminate Licensee's right to obtain Extensions by giving written notice to Licensee if Microsoft receives permission from the Commission of the European Communities to do so. Following delivery of such notice, the Agreement will expire on the date that is the later of (i) the last day of the Initial Term or then-current Extension (if applicable); or (ii) three years following the date of such notice.

9.2 Termination.

(a) By Licensee Without Cause. Licensee may terminate this Agreement at any time, in its sole discretion and without cause, by providing written notice to Microsoft and complying with Section 9.3(a).

(b) By Microsoft for Cause. Microsoft may terminate this Agreement: (i) immediately upon written notice at any time, if Licensee is in material breach of Section 5 of this Agreement; (ii) upon written notice at any time if Licensee is in material breach of any warranty, term or condition of this Agreement and fails to remedy that breach (if such breach is capable of being remedied) within 60 days after written notice thereof; or (iii) upon written notice at any time if Licensee has received three or more written termination notices under the preceding clause (ii) within the previous 12-month period based on an actual material breach of a material warranty, term, or condition of this Agreement, even if those previous material breaches have been cured. Any material breach has to be established by a court of competent jurisdiction.

(c) Termination for Non-Satisfaction of Program Entry Requirements. If Licensee has not satisfied all applicable Program Entry Requirements within 90 days after the Effective Date, Microsoft has the right to immediately terminate this Agreement upon written notice to Licensee, and in the event of

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

12

paid before such termination. Licensee's failure to satisfy any Program Entry Requirements is not, in and of itself, a material breach of this Agreement.

(d) Termination as to Licensee Subsidiaries; Survival. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement: (i) this Agreement will terminate immediately (without notice or opportunity to cure) with respect to any party identified as a Licensee subsidiary on the first page of this Agreement, at such time as such subsidiary ceases to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of the party identified as the Licensee parent on the first page of this Agreement, and (ii) upon such termination, such subsidiary will no longer be entitled to exercise any rights under this Agreement, but all obligations and liabilities of such subsidiary accruing before the termination date will survive such termination; provided that any subsidiary so terminated may (after meeting applicable then-current Program Entry Requirements) enter into a new agreement on its own behalf either: (i) on the then-current terms of the WSPP Development Agreement, or (ii) for a period of 30 days after such termination, on the same terms as this Agreement (rather than the then-current terms of the WSPP Development Agreement) and for a term concurrent with this Agreement.

9.3 Effect of Expiration or Termination; Survival.

(a) Termination - General. Upon any termination of this Agreement or (if applicable) Licensee's rights under Section 9.3(b) or (c): (i) except as provided in Section 9.3(c) below, Licensee will immediately (A) cease all reference to and use of the WSPP Documentation and activities (including but not limited to all production and all Distribution of Licensed Server Implementations) with respect to the WSPP Protocols and/or Microsoft Licensed Intellectual Property and (B) if Licensee has received any copies of WSPP Documentation from Microsoft, return to Microsoft all such WSPP Documentation copies (including any portion thereof) in Licensee's possession or under its control and if requested by Microsoft, provide a declaration signed by a Licensee officer attesting that all such copies have been returned to Microsoft, and (ii) the following will survive such termination: Sections 3.2(b) (Preliminary Documentation Updates), solely as to the warranty and liability exclusions therein; 3.4 (Comments and Suggestions); 4 (License Fee and Payment), 5 (Confidentiality), 6-8 (Warranties, Limitations of Liability, Exclusive Remedies and Sole Liability; Indemnification; Limitations of Remedies & Liability), and 10 (Miscellaneous), as well as Sections 9.1-9.2, 9.4 and this Section 9.3(a).

(b) Expiration of Agreement (Without Earlier Termination). If this Agreement has not been earlier terminated, then upon expiration of the full Term of this Agreement: (i) subject to the express license scope and other terms and conditions referenced in Sections 2 and 5, the rights granted Licensee under Section 2.1(a) will survive, and Licensee may retain in its possession and continue to use the WSPP Documentation made available to it by Microsoft during the Term solely to exercise such rights; and (ii) the following will also survive such expiration: Sections 3.2(b) (Preliminary Documentation Updates), solely as to the warranty and liability exclusions therein; 3.4 (Comments and Suggestions); 4 (License Fee and Payment); 5 (Confidentiality); 6-8 (Warranties, Limitations of Liability, Exclusive Remedies and Sole Liability; Indemnification; Limitations of Remedies & Liability); and 10 (Miscellaneous); and this Section 9 (Termination).

(c) Support for Licensee Products Following Termination. Subject to the express license scope and other terms and conditions referenced in Sections 2 and 5, upon any termination of this Agreement other than under Section 9.2(a), Licensee may retain in its possession and continue to use the WSPP Documentation made available to it by Microsoft during the Term solely for purposes of providing technical support and maintenance services for versions of Licensed Server Implementations Commercially Released prior to such termination ("Existing WSPP Implementations"), including Distribution of bug fixes and patches for such Existing WSPP Implementations. The following provisions of this Agreement will also survive as applicable to such technical support and maintenance activities: Sections 3.2(b) (Preliminary Documentation Updates), solely as to the warranty and liability exclusions therein; 3.4 (Comments and Suggestions); 4 (License Fee and Payment); 5 (Confidentiality); 6-8 (Warranties, Limitations of Liability, Exclusive Remedies and Sole Liability; Indemnification; Limitations of Remedies & Liability); and 10 (Miscellaneous); and this Section 9 (Termination).

(d) Expiration or Termination of this Agreement do not affect the rights of recipients of source code versions of Licensed Server Implementations to copy, distribute and modify source code versions of Licensed Server Implementations.

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

13

are not exclusive of any rights or remedies available at law or in equity, subject only to the express waivers and limitations of liability set forth in this Agreement.

10. Miscellaneous.

10.1 No Partnership, Joint Venture or Franchise. Neither this Agreement, nor any terms or conditions contained herein, create a partnership, joint venture or agency relationship or grant a franchise as defined in the Washington Franchise Investment Protection Act, RCW 10.100, as amended, 16 CFR Section 436.2(a), or any other similar laws in other jurisdictions.

10.2 Export Laws and Regulations. Products and technical information of Microsoft are subject to U.S. export jurisdiction and other applicable national or international laws and regulations, and the licenses and deliveries of technical information and data contemplated herein may be prohibited by such laws and regulations. Licensee agrees to comply with all applicable international and national laws. For additional information, see http://www.microsoft.com/exporting/.

10.3 Actions on Behalf of the Parties. Microsoft and Licensee are each liable for, and will be deemed for all purposes of this Agreement to have done or failed to do, any act or omission of their respective officers, employees, temporary personnel, or independent contractors related to acts or omissions in connection with this Agreement.

10.4 Notices. All notices and requests in connection with this Agreement are deemed given on the day they are received either by messenger, delivery service, or in the United States of America mails, postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested, and addressed to Licensee using the contact information indicated on the first page of this Agreement, to Microsoft using the contact information below, or to either party at such other address as the party to receive the notice or request so designates per this notice provision:

Microsoft Corporation [address, phone fax redacted]

10.5 Licensee Contests and Complaints.

(a) Microsoft acknowledges that by signing this Agreement, Licensee is not waiving its right to contest the validity of any of Microsoft's know-how, industrial secrets, trade secrets and confidential information embodied in the WSPP Protocols and disclosed by the WSPP Documentation, or copyrights, and without prejudice to the provisions of Section 9.2, Microsoft will not withhold WSPP Documentation from Licensee or terminate this Agreement on the basis of such a contest by Licensee.

(b) Nothing in this Agreement will prevent Licensee from complaining to the Commission of the European Communities that terms and conditions of this Agreement do not comply with the Decision. Without prejudice to the provisions of Section 9.2, Microsoft will not withhold WSPP Documentation from Licensee or terminate this Agreement on the basis of such a complaint by Licensee.

(c) This Agreement neither takes away from nor adds (except as expressly stated in this Agreement) to any rights a licensee might have under Articles 81 or 82 EC or equivalent provisions of national competition laws.

10.6 Injunctive and Equitable Relief, Liquidated Damages.

(a) Microsoft acknowledges and agrees that (i) monetary damages will not be a sufficient remedy for Microsoft's breach of its obligations under Section 5, and (ii) such unauthorized disclosure, use or exercise of rights will cause Licensee immediate, severe and irreparable injury. Accordingly, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10.7, Microsoft acknowledges that Licensee will be entitled in such circumstances, without waiving or prejudicing any other rights or remedies, to such injunctive or equitable relief as a court of competent jurisdiction may grant.

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

14

Decision or the representation in Section 6.3, (i) monetary damages will not be a sufficient remedy; (ii) in any event, the injured party will be entitled to such injunctive or equitable relief as a court of competent jurisdiction may grant, without waiving or prejudicing any other rights or remedies. In the event of any breach by Microsoft of any of the provisions of Sections 6.3(a), (b), (c) or (d) of this Agreement, where as a result of such breach (and as long as it continues) Licensee is unable effectively to use the WSPP Documentation as contemplated in Article 5 of the Decision for a software development project the planning or actual execution of which is duly substantiated, Microsoft shall pay Licensee liquidated damages in the amount of [to be determined by Parties based on an estimation of actual damages, but at least 135.000] per day for each day in which such breach continues. The parties acknowledge that the foregoing amount reflects their assessment of the damages which Licensee is likely to incur as a result of such breach including by reason of expected delays in developing products and launching products on the market.

(c) Licensee acknowledges and agrees that (i) monetary damages will not be a sufficient remedy for Licensee's breach of its obligations under Section 5, or for use of the WSPP Documentation or exercise of rights in the Microsoft Licensed Intellectual Property other than as authorized by Sections 2 and 5 of this Agreement, and (ii) such unauthorized disclosure, use or exercise of rights will cause Microsoft immediate, severe and irreparable injury. Accordingly, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10.7, Licensee acknowledges that Microsoft will be entitled in such circumstances, without waiving or prejudicing any other rights or remedies, to such injunctive or equitable relief as a court of competent jurisdiction may grant.

10.7 Governing Law; Jurisdiction; Attorneys' Fees.

This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law. Each party hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Chancery Division of the High Court of England and Wales in London. Process may be served on either party in the manner authorized by applicable law or court rule. In any formal action or suit to enforce any right or remedy under this Agreement or to interpret any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to recover its costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other expenses. The Parties acknowledge and agree that any formal action or suit to enforce any right or remedy under this Agreement or to interpret any provision of this Agreement constitutes an issue relating to the application of Article 82 of the Treaty within the meaning of Article 15 of Regulation 1/2003.

10.8 Assignment.

(a) The party identified as the Licensee parent on the first page of this Agreement may assign this Agreement on satisfaction of the following conditions precedent: (i) such Licensee and the proposed assignee have executed and delivered an Assignment and Assumption Agreement in a form acceptable to Microsoft (a sample of which is available on the WSPP Website), which agreement provides for the assignment of all of Licensee's rights and obligations under this Agreement to the proposed assignee; and (ii) the proposed assignee has satisfied all applicable Program Entry Requirements. Upon fulfillment of (i) and (ii) Microsoft will promptly sign the Assignment and Assumption Agreement and return an executed copy to Licensee and the proposed assignee.

(b) Microsoft may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice if the party identified as the Licensee parent on the first page of this Agreement assigns or otherwise transfers, whether by operation of contract, law or otherwise, fifty percent (50%) or more of such Licensee's assets, excluding this Agreement, in a single transaction or series of transactions, unless either (i) the entity to which such Licensee proposes to make such assignment or transfer first enters into a Guarantee Agreement in the form posted on the WSPP Website from time to time, or (ii) such Licensee and Microsoft expressly agree otherwise in writing.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, any party identified as a Licensee subsidiary on the first page of this Agreement does not have the right to, and will not, assign this Agreement (or its rights or obligations hereunder) in whole or in part.

(d) Any attempted assignment in violation of Section 10.8(a), (b) or (c) is null and void and has no force or effect.

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

15

the Decision and statement of reasons for it. If for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction finds any provision of this Agreement, or portion thereof, other than Sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, -2.5 (License Grant; Licensed Server Implementations; License Clarifications; No Other Rights), 5 (Confidentiality), 6.5 (Limitations of Liability), 6.6 (Exclusive Remedies and Sole Liability), 8 (Limitations of Remedies & Liability), or 10.8 (Assignment), to be unenforceable, the rest will remain in effect. If any of the foregoing provisions or any portion thereof are held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable, this Agreement terminates immediately.

10.10 Third Parties Rights. A person who is not a party to this Agreement is not a beneficiary of the rights granted to Licensee under this Agreement, and has no right under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to enforce any term of this Agreement in contract.

10.11 Entire Agreement. This Agreement does not constitute an offer by Microsoft and is not effective unless and until this Agreement is signed by duly authorized representatives of both parties. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement (including its Exhibits and Appendices) constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to its subject matter and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous communications, agreements, arrangements and understandings between the parties in connection with this Agreement and on such subject matter. Except as provided in Section 3.1(b)(ii) (regarding updates to Exhibit A), no modifications of this Agreement are effective unless contained in a subsequent written agreement that expressly references this Agreement and its intent to modify its terms, and is signed by duly authorized representatives of Licensee and Microsoft.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their duly authorized representatives, have entered into this Agreement, to be effective on the Effective Date.

[signature lines]

WSPP Dev Agmt No Patents
Rev. 23 October 2007

16


  


Microsoft Posts the New License Terms for Interoperability in the EU Agreement - Updated | 174 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
News Picks here
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 09:13 AM EDT
Please start your thread with the News Pick title

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 09:15 AM EDT
If needed.

Please list the correction in your title

[ Reply to This | # ]

OFF Topic here
Authored by: SirHumphrey on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 09:18 AM EDT
Please use the title in your post. Use clicky's if you've got them, such as
<a href="http://www.example.com/">Like this</a>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Everything OK
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 09:24 AM EDT
It was good enough for TurboLinux.
Even before the EU Commission asked for it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Everything OK - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 10:45 AM EDT
    • Everything NOT OK - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 03:59 PM EDT
Has anything useful been achieved?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 10:18 AM EDT

Before all this: to connect non-Microsoft computers to a LAN dominated by Microsoft servers, some talented people (Tridge and others) had to spend a lot of time reverse-engineering Microsoft's second-rate protocols (SMB, etc).

Now, after the EU has pushed, prodded, and kicked Microsoft into partial openness; if Microsoft invents another protocol for the purpose of making interoperability difficult: to connect non-Microsoft computers to a LAN dominated by Microsoft servers, some talented people will have to spend a lot of time reverse-engineering Microsoft's second-rate protocols.

Because under the EU/Microsoft deal, Microsoft does not have to supply any information under terms usable by people writing software licensed under the GPL, or any other free license.

So what exactly has the whole process achieved?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft is asking EU to grant it a monopoly.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 10:43 AM EDT
Neat, this is an attempt at a DOJ style switcheroo! Microsoft has been found
guilty, so the EU has to enhance Microsoft's monopoly by requiring that
competitors are forced to buy Microsoft licenses to interoperate. What Microsoft
is asking the EU to do here is grant it a monopoly on access to it's protocols
and patents, where no reason to do so due to any legally enforceable monopoly by
virtue of patents or any other legal requirement exists.

In Europe, software patents are not valid, and concealment of information
required to implement the protocols has been declared an illegal violation of
anti-trust law by the EU courts. Charging developers for licensing of software
patents (which are not valid in the EU) and for access to trade secrets required
for interoperability in Europe, for which there is no legal requirement to do so
is therefore fraudulent. If the EU were to accept Microsoft's stipulations, then
they would in effect be legally mandating additional Microsoft monopoly rights
over what they are entitled to now.

The licenses also introduce all sorts of unwarranted restrictions and strings
attached like audits, maintenance of records etc. which are designed to
frustrate it's main competitor - GPL software, to which Microsoft is not
entitled, which are tied and subject to Microsoft's compliance to EU law.

In order to develop open source products, it is necessary to discuss the
protocol specs openly, which means it's details must be capable of being
published freely without restriction. The additional conditions Microsoft
attaches to it's license for things that are not licensable in the EU prevent
this.

Microsoft is entitled for the cost of providing the documentation, and no more.
The EU should pay Microsoft a fair price for the document (10,000 euro I
presume), which can come from the fines levied on Microsoft and then publish
them on the internet for anyone to use free of charge or restriction. Of course
developers in other countries that recognize software patents will have to pay
Microsoft for patent licenses - fair is fair after all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Question about the confidentiallity section (5.x)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 11:02 AM EDT
It seems to say that you can disclose MS's info in source form (including
comments) but not the actual documentation.

Can developers who have signed up to the agreement discuss the protocols with
developers that have not signed the agreement? So can people developing Samba
post stuff to public lists.

It wasn't clear to me whether people who had not signed the agreement could
reverse engineer the protocols from the source code. I guess as they are not
parties to it they can.

IANAL

[ Reply to This | # ]

2 questions
Authored by: kh on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 11:31 AM EDT
1) (because I'm really lazy and haven't read the agreement) This includes a
one-off payment of €15,000. Do you have to pay Microsoft per seat or user as
well or any additional charges?

2) It's not clear from this that the documentation itself is actually useable.
Has anyone with enough technical knowledge evaluated the documentation?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft New License Terms
Authored by: rsmith on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 11:35 AM EDT
Just to be on the safe side, I'm considering any code under a
MS license as dangerously contaminated rubbish and treat it accordingly
(i.e. stay well clear).

---
Intellectual Property is an oxymoron.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How can the EU produce a defeat from the jaws of victory?
Authored by: TiddlyPom on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 11:49 AM EDT
I can hardly believe that the EU have caved in and agreed to this having brought the mightly Microsoft to its knees with a just, clever and well reasoned court case! (Actually I can being a British citizen and well used to the bumbling bureaucracy of the EU)

Where does this leave FOSS and in particular Linux in terms of interoperability? It would seem that we are in a far worse situation than before this court case took place.
But it does mean, whether the EU Commission realizes it yet or not that Microsoft's number one competitor, Linux, is completely unable to be interoperable with Microsoft's patented code
The key phrase (I think) is
Microsoft's patented code
If the protocols are OK to be copied (but not the code) than Linux is fine as we will be using our own algorithms thank you very much. If not then we are in a much worse position.
Lets be honest - this is why Microsoft is fighting like made to get their file formats and protocols made into international standards. They want to stitch-up the world - locking everybody forever into Microsoft controlled technologies. That is one of the reasons why (for instance) the ODF vs OOXML debate is so important and why we must never start to depend on Microsoft technologies like .NET or Silverlight .

Novell and Miguel de Icaza in particular please take note of this EU decision and note that Microsoft will still attack you with patent claims (by proxy) even if they do not do it directly.
THEY CANNOT BE TRUSTED!

We must not use any Microsoft related technologies any more in anything that we do on Linux. Any interoperability software (such as Samba) has to be sandboxed so that if (or rather when) Microsoft attack us with patents the critical core parts of Linux are Microsoft free.

We are much better off using open source technologies such as Java which are protected (to some extent) from Microsoft's insatiable greed by the GPL. Anybody using OpenOffice and saving files in Microsoft formats please start using ODF now :)

---
Open Source Software - Unpicking the Microsoft monopoly piece-by-piece.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So I'm Asking Myself...
Authored by: BassSinger on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 11:53 AM EDT
...Why doesn't the European Union just make it illegal to sell or provide Microsoft Patented Software?

If they want to play the "You can't get there from here" game, it can be played by both sides.

M$ Software does not meet the requirements of the EU Commission's and the Court of First Instance's Limitations on them. The European Union does not recognize software patents. So why should M$ be allowed to sell within the jurisdiction of those entities?

I freely admit that having the best government money can buy here in the US we have a government apparently bought by M$. But you folks still have a chance. Take it!

Tom

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them."
-- Albert Einstein

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Because - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 12:06 PM EDT
    Microsoft Posts the New License Terms for Interoperability in the EU Agreement
    Authored by: John Hasler on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 11:57 AM EDT
    (a) To the extent that Microsoft Confidential Information is embodied in and disclosed by source code (including comments to source code in line with standard industry practice) versions of Licensed Server Implementations, Licensee may disclose such Confidential Information as part of a distribution of such source code. The foregoing does not authorize Licensee to publish the WSPP Documentation in any manner (including in connection with or as part of Licensed Server Implementation source code) or to Implementation source code or works derived from it.
    It appears that someone needs to buy a license and then write and release as Free Software reference implementations of the protocols. That last sentence is a bit worrisome, though.

    ---
    IOANAL. Licensed under the GNU General Public License

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Grammar? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 07:17 PM EDT
    How Many Years Did M$ Spend Writing This
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 11:57 AM EDT
    It's obvious to me:

    a) That M$ has had their two hundred SPIN DOCTORS (who all hang out
    nonstop at the Black Jack tables in Las Vegas) have been writing today's M$
    installment here, for a year or more!

    b) That being the case, then M$ knew in advance what the EU decision would
    be.

    c) That leaves only one question unanswered, are the EU decision makers
    being bribed by M$ or are the EU decision makers not being bribed by M$
    and are instead just plain Dullards!



    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • How Many Years Did M$ Spend Writing This - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 11:59 AM EDT
    • A Suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 12:14 PM EDT
      • A Suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 01:07 PM EDT
        • A Suggestion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 01:22 PM EDT
          • Fines already paid - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 04:43 PM EDT
            • Fines already paid - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 06:04 PM EDT
            • But - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 03:06 PM EDT
    Long name?
    Authored by: Phillep on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 12:02 PM EDT
    Verbosity as an agressive act.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Posts the New License Terms for Interoperability in the EU Agreement
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 12:39 PM EDT
    Well, it seems to me that it seems to be that the EU anti-trust action against
    M$ was an utter, complete and total *failure*.

    krp

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Bureacracy is one trap
    Authored by: fabbe on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 12:52 PM EDT

    There seems to be lots of traps here -- actually there could be more traps than MS itself is aware of.

    It's quite ingenious what they've done. Section 3.1(b)(i) ties Exhibit B into the agreement. Then, Exhibit B defines bureaucracy that you have to take part in if you want to enter into the agreement.

    In particular, you must provide detailed financial information through the D&B D-U-N-S system. If you're a company, you must send documents to MS that are dated no earlier than seven days before entering into the agreement -- you can't just get a copy from your archive, you have to ask authorities for a new one. If you're an individual, you must send a copy of a government-issued proof of identity. (Exhibit B, Section A.)

    Look at these:

    • Section 5.1: All of the WSPP Documentation is Confidential Information, and any information you give them as part of Correction Assistance (Section 3.3(a)) is, too.
    • Section 5.2(b): Employees etc. must sign NDA to receive Confidential Information on a need-to-know basis.

    Since you cannot communicate the contents of the documentation you receive, this will create disparate parts in the FOSS community. There will be those who have read the WSPP Documentation, but they can never discuss it with anyone unless they make that person sign an NDA. There will be those who have seen parts through an NDA, but they can never discuss them. And there will be those who can read FOSS code implemented by following the WSPP Documentation, but they can never know why something was implemented in some particular way.

    I can't imagine FOSS projects managing the bureaucracy that this agreement would impose. I can, however, imagine the difficulty of working in a FOSS community where bug reports get closed and source code gets committed with the words "I can't tell you why, but this is how it has to be"...

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What on Earth is going on in the EC? SW patents to do not apply in Europe!
    Authored by: Superbowl H5N1 on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 12:53 PM EDT

    What on Earth is going on in the EC? What's visible of the agreement so far seems to not only exclude all FOSS users (not just developers) but also slide, in practice, the adoption and recognition of software patents in Europe -- without legislation.

    Either patent law applies or copyright law applies, but there is no such beast as "intellectual property" law. Those that persist in using the phrase "intellectual property" contribute only to making resolution more difficult. So, talking about "intellectual property" simply enables discussion of specifics to be evaded, which are prerequisite to resolving the problems.

    It's rather abhorrent how clueless the EC appears and how toothless its remedies come across.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Clearly Microsoft is worried
    Authored by: kh on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 12:58 PM EDT
    The way the license is worded Microsoft is clearly worried and is clearly
    putting up barriers to make it difficult for anyone developing an interoperable
    server, despite all their talk about interoperability. Well perhaps I should
    say that Microsoft is trying to stop people getting together to share the work
    of building such a thing.

    I can't personally see why the court is happy with this.

    Why can't the court set on-going terms like: until there are several independent
    implementations proving that interoperability is possible that scrutiny will
    continue?

    Even better: at least one GPL solution.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Someone needs to be notified/complained to about this. Who?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 01:15 PM EDT
    Who can be contacted/can we complain to? This outcome is not nearly solving the
    problem it set out to solve in the beginning, and may even leave OSS worse off
    than before.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Why do we need a DUNS number
    Authored by: Chris Lingard on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 01:17 PM EDT

    This is an American thing, why should we have one?

    This part of the registration form is wrong.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    a technological shell game ..
    Authored by: emacsuser on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 01:24 PM EDT
    'You are not licensed under any Microsoft patents or other intellectual property to distribute this code in any form (including source or binary) unless you have obtained an appropriate license from Microsoft'

    'Licensee will pay Microsoft a one-time license fee of 10,000 Euros .. Licensee will pay Royalties'

    'Except as provided in Section 6 below, Licensee will pay Microsoft a one-time amount of €5,000 in Prepaid Royalties within 45 days of the Effective Date'

    'Prepaid Royalties. If the Multi-Year Fixed Fee is paid before 45 days from the Effective Date, the Payment Agent will allocate €5000 of the Multi-Year Fixed Fee toward Prepaid Royalties'

    'An evaluation fee of €1,000 is required for a 45-day evaluation. The evaluation fee is nonrefundable but is 100 percent applicable toward the prepaid royalties'

    'For each separate WSPP IDL Development Agreement, a license fee (for technical documentation) of €10,000 and a prepaid royalty payment (for patent licenses) of €5,000 is required'

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Posts the New License Terms for Interoperability in the EU Agreement
    Authored by: zman58 on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 01:25 PM EDT
    I can not fathom how any individual or corporation would care to deal with this
    overly-complex mess. My brain goes numb just trying to get through it. It's like
    trying to navigate a mine field -or trying to swim in quick sand. Either way,
    the outlook is just plain grim.

    So stay away! Just say no. I wish more people actually read and comprehended
    BEFORE they agreed, and ponied up good cash.

    These terms do not promote competetion, choice, or interoperability by any
    means. I hope the EU has the wisdom to see what is going on here. I remain
    hopeful that they can do the job that our great U.S. DOJ so miserably failed to
    do in 2001.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Microsoft Posts the New License Terms for Interoperability in the EU Agreement
    Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 01:57 PM EDT
    The walls Microsoft is building now to impede competition will be our advantage
    in the future. The whole world is starting to realize that openness and
    collaboration has much better results than secrets and patents. The Microsoft
    fortress is not compatible with this development model so you are either in
    their fortress or outside it. If you are inside the Microsoft fortress you can
    only go as far as the walls. Outside the Microsoft fortress you can go anywhere
    you want except the fortress. You can choose a direction away from the fortress
    and the fortress can't build walls fast enough to keep up with you. That is
    happening now, people are starting to realize you can do more outside the walls
    than inside. As the market changes, Microsoft's walls will serve to keep it in
    not us out.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    What, not OSI approved?
    Authored by: mbd on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 04:21 PM EDT
    After careful study, I've determined that these license terms vary considerably
    from Microsoft's recent OSI-approved licenses. What a shock! I was just certain
    that future MS licenses would follow the brief and direct (compared to GPL3, for
    example) and open model that was so praised in the OSI approval. Looking at
    these interoperability agreements, one might be inclined to conclude that MS
    will do everything in its power to thwart Open Source. (Bill Hilf, tell me I'm
    wrong! I belive every word you say!)
    </sarcasm>

    ---
    Russ

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    There's an obvious way around all this.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 05:10 PM EDT
    Don't interoperate with Microsoft.

    There. It's easy.

    Use only software with open, documented, standard, file formats and interfaces.

    What's that you say? Most of the software you use, and most of your data, is in
    proprietary forms? I see; you mean that you've given control of your life and
    business to somebody else.

    Let me give you a hint; in the long run, it will be cheaper, easier, and better
    for you to change now. Yes, I do mean convert everything.

    Either you're in charge, or you're owned.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    RedHat concerned about Microsoft's proposals for settlement terms.
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 06:11 PM EDT
    Redhat is concerned that the terms Microsoft is proposing won't be compatible with open source development models - Microsoft's only competition. Now why isn't anybody surprised by Microsoft's actions?

    Link

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Not all gloom and doom
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 06:30 PM EDT

    It's apparent the "Patents Only" and "All Intellectual Property" licenses will not work for most FOSS projects. The licenses are written to only provide patent protection to a software vendor and a single layer of end-users of that vendor's products. For vendors of proprietary products that compete with Microsoft, this may be adequate.

    I still think things are significantly better, even for FOSS developers, after the MS-EU agreement than before. For one, the "No Patents" license appears to be what it was billed as. It allows organizations or individuals to pay a one-time 10K euro fee to receive documentation on MS protocols which they can use to produce comforming software products. While the documentation must be held in confidence, the resulting software source code or its derivatives is not restricted.

    5.6 Permitted Disclosures.

    (a) To the extent that Microsoft Confidential Information is embodied in and disclosed by source code (including comments to source code in line with standard industry practice) versions of Licensed Server Implementations, Licensee may disclose such Confidential Information as part of a distribution of such source code. The foregoing does not authorize Licensee to publish the WSPP Documentation in any manner (including in connection with or as part of Licensed Server Implementation source code) or to disclose Microsoft Confidential information in any other manner than publication of Licensed Server Implementation source code or works derived from it.

    The vnunet article PJ linked to tells us that approximately 25-30% of the interoperability information is potentially covered by MS patents, so that leaves at least 70-75% free to be implemented using just the "No Patents" license. Using the typical Linux software platform model, each protocol would only have to be implemented once by a vendor or project as a shared library, and then all other projects could benefit from the distributed work. If the work were licensed under the LGPL or a more permissive license like BSD or MPL, it would be usable by virtually all FOSS projects, including GPL'd ones.

    Another benefit of the agreeement and the publication of the MS licenses is that we now know exactly which patents are in play in this area. Exhibit A (page 12) of the "Patents Only" license document gives a list of European and U.S. patents and pending patents Microsoft says it is licensing. Knowing what patents are being claimed, FOSS developers can choose appropriate strategies to use. Mark Webbink in the vnunet article tells us there are several approaches developers can take.

    Webbink also suggested that the Open Innovation Network (OIN) could build a patent portfolio to cover Microsoft interoperability. The company collects patents that cover key open source applications and uses those to defend the software from patent threats. If Microsoft would file a patent claims against an open source vendor in the interoperability space, OIN could use its patents to lodge a counterclaim.

    Some of Microsoft's patents will prove to be unenforceable. Or developers could work around the patent by architecting their software in such a way that the Microsoft patents don't apply.

    Developers are certainly no worse off now than they were before the MS-EU agreement, since even reverse-engineered implementations that unknowingly infringed on MS patents would still be considered infringing and subject to claims of liability. At least now areas of patent concern can be more easily identified and dealt with directly.

    --bystander1313

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Now, that's FAST:Microsoft Posts the New License Terms for Interoperability in the EU Agreement
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 06:36 PM EDT
    Microsoft ALREADY had to had the licences and terms prepared before obtaintng
    the agreement with Mrs.Kroes to be this fast...doesn't it look too suspicious?

    They have guided the competition commisioner exactly through the path they
    wanted...???

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Isn't this violating the principle of patents?
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 24 2007 @ 07:58 PM EDT
    The idea behind a patent is that the monopoly protection is granted in exchange
    for full disclosure. All the EU commission is asking for is full disclosure of
    technical information. How can this possibly create a patent issue? Anything
    patented involved is supposed to have been fully disclosed already.

    This whole "secret patents" theme which MS is following seems to be an
    attempt to create a kind of hybrid between trade secrets and patents, whereby
    you get the strong monopoly protection of patents, but don't have to disclose
    anything.

    MS shouldn't be permitted to create hybrid versions of trade secret, trademark,
    patent and copyright protections which use only those aspects of each most
    advantageous to MS. They should have to pick one peg and hang their hat on it.

    If they are claiming patent protection, then full disclosure is required. If
    they are claiming it is a trade secret then they can't prevent reverse
    engineering. And so on.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Weird Procedure
    Authored by: billposer on Thursday, October 25 2007 @ 02:43 AM EDT
    Isn't the procedure here backwards? Normally, if a case is settled, the precise
    terms are worked out first and the parties sign off on them if it is agreed that
    they are satisfactory. Here, the EU seems to have accepted a vague statement by
    Microsoft without first scrutinizing the details. Surely the proper procedure
    would be to have Microsoft submit its proposed licenses first and only to
    consider the matter settled if they are acceptable. In a case like this,
    programmers should have been allowed to comment before Microsoft's proposal was
    accepted.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )