Microsoft Won't Assert Web Services Patents

Andy Updegrove writes, "Microsoft has just posted the text of a new promise not to assert its patents with respect to 35 listed Web Services standards. The promise is similar to the covenant not to assert patents that it issued last year with respect to its Office 2003 XML Reference Schema, with two important improvements intended to make it more clearly compatible with open source licensing. Those changes are to add an explicit promise not to assert any relevant patents against anyone in the distribution chain of a product, from the original vendor through to the end user; and to clarify that the promise covers a partial as well as a full implementation of a standard. It's all part of a recent wave of such pledges made by companies such as IBM, Nokia, and Oracle, and a significant shift in how Microsoft is dealing with open standards."

Re:A promise

[rewt66]

Two words: promissory estoppel.

IANAL. I'm not even sure I spelled either word right. But the thing is, legally, if you make a promise, and I act on that promise, you can't turn around and sue me for acting on your promise.

OK, it's a bit muddier than that. You can still sue me. Anybody can pretty much sue anybody for anything. But you can't win the lawsuit, and losing can be painful enough that most people don't play such games.

It's actually even muddier than that. You can't win the lawsuit, unless there's something else going on, like I'm also infringing on some other patent that you didn't promise not to sue on. So don't blindly take this and run without actually understanding what Microsoft said. It may go less far than you expect. But that paranoia aside, it's actually a really cool thing for MS to do (and I don't say that very often).

Re:Lets be sure to praise em for doing good

[Kesch]

Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert...

It does appear to be legally binding by the tone of the analysis in the TFA.

You pretty much automatically have been granted a license to the listed patents and the only term of use is that you lose the protection if you try to file a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft concerning the standard.

Re:Why not?

[DragonWriter]

The doctrine of laches is only applicable to delay, a promise not to enforce would not raise an issue of laches, though it might raise an issue of promissory estoppel, which might be a bar to enforcement in some cases, and in others the promise might simply limit the available remedies.

Re:Breakable Pledges

[Anonymous Coward]

When you give your word and publish it in durable form, that's pretty much binding. It's not a contract (which requires explicit mutual agreement and thus EULAs don't contain the word "contract"), but it hardly constitutes tresspass when you put out the welcome sign. They could conceivably revoke future uses of the patent at some arbitrary point, but it'd be a pretty hard sell to a judge, let alone a jury to sue anyone over it.

Re:A promise is as good as gold

[Russ Nelson]

Uhhhh, actually, there is a legal doctrine called "reliance". If somebody says "I won't do this even though the law lets me", and you rely on their promise, then they have very little chance of successfully doing it. The judge will throw their case out of court so fast it will go into orbit.