Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 10:26 AM EDT

Companies like Novell != Novell



Looks like the left a little wiggle room in their story. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 10:27 AM EDT

So they can be fixed



---

IANAL

My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License

Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0

P.J. has permission for commercial use. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jmc on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 10:31 AM EDT

As has been observed before: ... he must have a long spoon that must eat with the devil William Shakespeare: The Comedy of Errors Act IV Scene 3. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 10:34 AM EDT

Please post off topic comments beneath this one. Thanks. ---

"Fat operating systems spend most of their energy supporting their own fat."

--Nicholas Negroponte, MIT Media Lab, rediff.com, Apr 2006 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 10:38 AM EDT

Novell says that Microsoft always alleged there were violations, but that Novell

has never accepted those claims and still doesn't.



Microsoft says there are violations, and that they have discussed specific

patents with Novell.



These are consistent statements. MS isn't claiming Novell agreed to the

allegations. They aren't even claiming that specific patents were discussed

before the deal was made, only that there have been discussions. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Aladdin Sane on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 10:39 AM EDT

"...Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents." --Ron H., Novell Ron, yes you did. ---

"Fat operating systems spend most of their energy supporting their own fat."

--Nicholas Negroponte, MIT Media Lab, rediff.com, Apr 2006 [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 10:51 AM EDT

What a feeling this is. Am I the only one under the impression we are witnessing a major turning point? The emperor is losing his clothes at last. Noting the FUD is for all practical purposes useless, Darigaaz made an interesting post. That confirms it for me. Microsoft has three options now - a spectacular flameout a la SCO, a steady decline into irrelevance, or a complete corporate reinvention. Upon this I observed that option 2 and 3 are unlikely to suit Microsoft current management. Therefore option 1 it will be and this means an actual lawsuit. Money is not the objective of Microsoft, they will sue for the purpose of causing disruption. This is where comes the magnificient risk analysis from Webster. It deserves to be read in full, buthere is an operative part. Litigation is a very risky step for the Monopoly. The DoJ may perk up in an effort to show that they can function with Gonzalez sans deputies. They have a problem showing actual damages since open source software is free. One pays basically for support when corporations buy Red Hat. Without damages, an injunction is less likely. They are more likely to face appeals and lose patents every step of the way. The patentability of software will also get a good review. There are some intelligent receptive justices amongst the Supremes. The Linusians would probably form a class action defense. Imagine IBM and Moglen involved. The patent Office and system is so disfunctional. The Monopoly has argued against it itself since it is sued so often. Their own words wil be turned against them. Plus if they start a patent war on Linux, IBM could try to join their part of it into the SCO trial. SCO and the Monopoly telling Judge Wells she doesn't understand her own orders. Therefore option 1 doesn't look good either. It will just accelerate the defeat. The question is now will Microsoft try something rash? Or will they just milk the monopoly profits while they last doing what they can to slow down their decline? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:02 AM EDT

Microsoft is going try everything possible to shutdown Groklaw.



SCO/Caldera had hoped to win their shakedown efforts by controlling the

information flow.

But because of Groklaw, SCO/Caldera could not control the information flow. And

SCO/Caldera is now losing.



This is why SCO/Caldera-Microsoft tried to depose you and to eventually put you

under some gag restriction.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:06 AM EDT

to leverage the 'many eyes' on to MS patent portfolio and start collecting

evidence that will debunk their patents and then make it available to MS's

rivals?

[ Reply to This | # ]



Maybe it's time - Authored by: CustomDesigned on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:28 AM EDT

- Authored by: CustomDesigned on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:28 AM EDT Agreed! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 12:51 PM EDT

Authored by: wvhillbilly on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:07 AM EDT

For Ron H: You are losing out on the value add of FOSS, in my view, and sullying its good reputation. And I might add, you've lost most, if not all, of your credibility with the FOSS community too. ---

What goes around comes around, and the longer it goes the bigger it grows. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:15 AM EDT

What exactly is a PHB, anyways? I've been looking around and I can't find it

defined anywhere. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:15 AM EDT

The quote says:

discussed them in private with companies like Novell Inc. that it struck deals with

This doesn't say that they told Novell, it says that they told comapanies "like Novell Inc. that it struck deals with"



Maybe they told Dell, or Fuji-Xerox? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:17 AM EDT

They did not say NOVELL, but LIKE Novell.



Read carefully .... [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:26 AM EDT

Meh...I doubt MS cares about any distro other then RHEL and SLES or any

companies besides RH, Novell, IBM and HP.



I would suspect that IBM and HP will play ball leaving RH the only major

enterprise player squeezed. I'm guessing they are hoping that between this

nonsense (which will be resolved with a simple patent cross license between

the major players) and GPL v3 that the corporate linuxes will fork on GPL v2.



Will RH cave? Who knows. OIN isn't the same as a defensive patent portfolio

from it's description in articles and RH's own portfolio is tiny.



But divorcing Linux v3 from its corporate sponsors would put RMS in the

same boat as Theo...just a much larger one with more folks on board. For MS

that's a huge win.



Vinea [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:27 AM EDT

"That really is the value-add of FOSS, you know. Nobody lies to you."



That is so sweeping a statement that it has to be inaccurate. Some on the FOSS

side are liars. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: tredman on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:33 AM EDT

I was pondering this last night, and have to admit that this is terribly bad

timing for Microsoft.



We could potentially be on the eve of multiple summary judgment findings in SCO

v IBM. Worst case scenario involves Judge Kimball not only finding for IBM on

several counts, but also publicly chastising SCO for not being open and up front

about their boasting claims of massive infringement. Sanctions may even be

involved, against the company and/or its litigators.



If this happens, companies around the world who make a living using or

developing open source software will become emboldened and stand up to the great

monopoly. They may even band together as a legal class and demand that

Microsoft "put up or shut up" on their patent claims, holding a

Kimball judgment in their hands as legal precedence.



Microsoft will be forced in the end to either stand up to accusations of

barratry, tortious interfererence and anti-trust bullying, or to lay their

patents on the table for all to see. Either option doesn't play too well for

Redmond.



I was also just thinking of their claim that OpenOffice violates a certain

number of their patents. How curious that this statement should come out in the

middle of the process to get OfficeXML ratified as an ISO standard.



Once again, MS puts itself into what could be perceived as a no-win situation.

If they rattle the patent sabre louder, they endanger their document format in

its quest to be considered an "open" standard. If they don't,

OpenOffice and the ODF standard picks up that much more steam and momentum, and

OfficeXML risks falling by the wayside, not being approved as an ISO standard.



Indeed, very intriguing times we live in.



---

Tim

"I drank what?" - Socrates, 399 BCE [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: rsmith on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:34 AM EDT

Remember that a Microsoft partner is just a victim they haven't gotten around to

dealing with yet.



---

Intellectual Property is an oxymoron. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT

PJ, you don't get it--and neither do I for that matter. I'm not a MS-hater, I

simply do not trust them enough to enter into any level of partnership with

them. Since using an OS or a word-processor is a partnership: their software

holds my data, I don't use their products for anything I care about.



But business people are immersed in deals and partnerships with people they

don't trust. If a deal looks to gain an extra buck in the near-term, and they

can afford to risk the ante, they're in, even knowing that the other player has

a reputation as a cheat. I guarantee you that Novell knows exactly how far they

can trust MS.



It's just business. I don't get it. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:43 AM EDT

"There could be stuff that Microsoft is inadvertently using in Linux and

Linux is inadvertently using in Windows.". Mmmmmm! Does this mean that MS

is using GPL code in XP/Vista?? Have they now been caught with their hand in

the cookie jar?? Maybe they are the ones in violation and need the protection of

Novell??? Will we ever know and is there even a way to know not having access

to their code??? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:47 AM EDT

Here is an o pinion from Paul McDougall at Information Week. They basically say Microsoft must sue. What choice does Microsoft have? It's basically lost the Internet to Google. If Linux and other free software continues its march toward mainstream (don't underestimate the significance of Dell's decision to ship Ubuntu Linux for the desktop) what's left for the company? Only the courtroom. Perhaps that from Microsoft perspective, the Novell and other patent deals are preliminaries for lawsuits? They want to reduce the number of potential FOSS defenders before they unleash the lawyers. A business plan Slashdot style: Sign companies into patent deals for five years Sue non signatories out of existence Upon renewing the patent deals after five years, alter the terms under threats of more lawsuits There is no ???? step. If this stage is reached, Microsoft has succeeded to impose a proprietary patent tax on Linux. Profit A question for Novell, how do you plan to address step 3? Proceed to step 4 and pay the Microsoft tax? We can see why the GPL3 matters. This is how we can stop this plan. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 12:01 PM EDT

Novell has no choice in what they say. Under the "Liberty or Death"

clause of the GPL, they cannot distribute GPLed software if there is any reason

why it cannot be freely distributed thereafter. Specifically, if Microsoft has

any patents that would apply to the Linux kernel, nobody can distribute the

Linux kernel. As long as Novell maintains that there is no patent encumbrance,

they can consistently distribute Linux. If they admit to patent encumbrance,

they are admitting a violation of the GPL.



Microsoft, of course, does as it pleases. I've speculated before that this may

be a sleazy division of labor: Novell maintains no patent problems, to keep

distributing Linux, and Microsoft maintains there are, to make Novell's Linux

more attractive. After all, Novell's patent deal with Microsoft is worthless if

it's as meaningless as Novell needs to claim. (If that's a confusing sentence,

it's because it's my best attempt at describing a confusing situation.) [ Reply to This | # ]



Novell's side - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 02:34 PM EDT

- Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 02:34 PM EDT Novell's side - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 05:57 PM EDT But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:18 AM EDT

- Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 05:57 PM EDT

Authored by: TiddlyPom on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 12:05 PM EDT

Until Microsoft comes up with actual examples as underlined in US law (and note

that that software patents do not apply outside the US at the moment) then they

simply have no case and could potentially be prosecuted for potential damage to

business for millions of people who now use or depend on Linux.



As has been stated several times, I believe this is a real turning point in the

software industry. Microsoft can see a nightmare scenario of large numbers of

people across the world abandoning Windows (especially as Vista is not exactly

the best product they have ever come up with) and are terrified of the

consequences.



The most damaging thing of all is that ordinary computer users (not those of us

in the IT industry) are starting to realise that Microsoft are becoming

*irrelevent* (i.e. you don't *need* Windows or indeed any Microsoft products

anymore if you have a computer). Is it any wonder that they (like anyone under

threat) are turning nasty.



The second problem that Microsoft have is that a large percentage of computer

users do not *trust* them anymore. Would you?



Once SCO is defeated (which isn't long now I think), Microsoft's position will

be much weaker.



Microsoft need to bring a case to court with the claims out in the open or they

will simply be compared to SCO's baseless sabre rattling and ignored.



Either the claims will turn out to be FUD (which I suspect most of them are) or

we will work around them. If Microsoft really bring on the pressure to stop

Linux vendors shipping products then I'm sure that there are enough patents in

the hands of companies who work with Linux and BSD UNIX to stop Vista/XP being

shipped for a while in the US.



Mr Bullmer, I will *never* buy another Microsoft product as long as I live (and

I have spent most of my career working with Microsoft products so far) and would

gladly donate money to any effort that keeps Linux alive (and I'm sure I'm not

the only one).



You will not win this battle. There are too many people in the world who care

about open source software to see that happen.



---

"There is no spoon?"

"Then you will see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself." [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 12:08 PM EDT

The Fortune article contains the following juicy tidbit: Gutierrez refuses to identify specific patents or explain how they're being infringed, lest FOSS advocates start filing challenges to them. I'm wondering what the possibility of MS knowing - or at least having a reasonable belief - that the validity of their patents are highly questionable. If MS itself believes they don't have valid patents, would it not constitute fraud for them to try and license said unvalid patents? Would the refusal to disclose the patents for fear FOSS advocates would start challenging them constitute a potential belief the patents are invalid? Could the above argument possibly be used to force MS to disclose the patents somehow? Hmm.... curious. RAS [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 12:14 PM EDT

Dunno why folks think this is bad timing for MS. This is great timing if their



objective is to fork Linux into v2 and v3 camps.



These manuvers are IMHO not intended for the court room but the board

room. There's a lot of wait and see IMHO among the corporate players and

they do have the resources to fork Linux on v2 vs v3 lines.



V3 is close to soup. There are provisions in there that IMHO make

corporations ambivalent about the transition regardless of non-binding

public statements (like IBM engineering blogs).



If MS comes with a cross license + $$$ deal then staying with V2 (even if it

means forking) where they retain control over their destiny rather than the

FSF would seem like a good deal to corporate GCs in my opinion.



Vinea [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: VivianC on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 12:23 PM EDT

This is just a thought and feel free to correct me if needed:



I kinda see the patent agreement as a sweeping promise not to sue over the interoperability that Novell wants to add to SuSE. Active Directory and other structures are patented by MS and interoperability could violate those patents. Rather than name all the patents involved, MS just agreed to all of them. Perhaps Novell didn't see the potential for FUD in the agreement.



Also, Active Directory (AD) has always struck me as a clone of Novell Directory Services (NDS) which was added to Netware 4 back in 1993. Rather than battle between NDS and AD patents (and validity of AD patents when viewing the prior art of NDS), they agreed to the covenant.



I would guess someone should look and compare any NDS patents with any AD patents and functionality and see if there is an overlap.



Full Disclosure: I like Novell and SuSE. I used Netware before Windows had a sever platform. I run SuSE at home and Microsoft at work. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: iabervon on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 12:36 PM EDT

The second Microsoft story doesn't really specify the order of the events.

Everything is perfectly consistent if Microsoft discussed particular patents

with Novell after the deal, and Novell didn't find them convincing. For that

matter, my initial interpretation of Microsoft's second statement was that they

made their big announcement, then refused to tell the general public about

particular patents, but then went to people with whom they have patent deals

(and who would therefore care less about challenging the patents) and told them

where they got the numbers. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: jog on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 12:59 PM EDT

On Jonathan Schwarts's blog on

"Free Advice for the Litigeous".

Twice today, I imagined PJ as:

"The Sentinel"

Well, because "Prince George" is the

wrong gender.

Harkening to *old* movies.

jog [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 01:11 PM EDT

Microsoft says that Linux and other FOSS software violates 235 of their patents. From the Eolas vs. Microsoft case we know that just one patent can be worth $521 million. 235 * $521 million = $122435000000. Yup $122 Billion So this revelation by Steve Ballmer and other Microsoft executives is clearly material to Microsoft's future financial results (the market cap for MSFT is currently less than $300B, so a revenue stream of this size is huge). So it's time to BUY, BUY, BUY now before Wall Street realizes the huge impact of this news. And if this all turns out to be FUD and Microsoft turns out not to have 235 defendable patents, or doesn't elect to collect on them, well then you can sue Microsoft for making these forward looking public statements. You just can't lose! Financial health warning: Nobody who has followed a stock tip from me has ever made money on it, but past performance is no guarantee of future results ... perhaps I'm right this time :-) [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 01:13 PM EDT

it has discussed them in private with companies like Novell Inc. that it... MS doesn't state that they even talked with Novell. They only state that they talked with companies like Novell ie maybe other companies that have some similarity with Novel (redhat maybe) And even if they did talk with Novell there is no indications any agreement was reached; the issue of alleged patent infringement may have been an issue discussed after contracts where signed and money was transfered. Novell has publicly rejected MS ideas that clearly weren't disused when that contract was concieved. The only thing we really have is an agreement between MS and Novell one detail of which is a litigation truce regarding patents infringement claims, and an insinuation by MS that such a truce is a form of admittance or recognition of the patent issues being putting forth. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: cf on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 01:18 PM EDT

In addition to the recent contradictory/misleading statements highlighted in the

article, consider this:



At the time of the deal, observers noted the large balance of dollars going to

Novell in the deal. Representatives from both companies, if I recall correctly,

implied that was due to the strength and number of Novell's patents, esp. in

networking, compared to MS's patent porfolio. I cannot determine value of my

patent porfolio compared to yours without knowing what is in both.



No business will spend hundreds of millions of dollars unless they know what

they are getting for it. If the patent portion of the agreement was really about

patents, both sides knew what the other side had. The public comments from both

sides just do not add up. The patent rider on this deal is just plain fishy. And

it stinks.



I think the patent deal was an excuse for MS to purchase FUD (if people believe

what MS says, this FUD comes at a bargain price), and for Novell to inject some

much needed cash into their business.



Unfortunately for MS, fewer people are inclined to believe them these days.

Unfortunately for Novell, the cost of that cash is proof to the open source

community that they don't grok the community. At all.



In both cases, the deal was driven by what I call QVB's - Quarterly Vision

Bosses. QVB's are the subset of PHB's bosses who are genetically incapable, from

all appearences, of seeing anything beyond the next quarter's financial

reports.



[ Reply to This | # ]



And not only that.... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 11:24 AM EDT

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 01:30 PM EDT

The only way to make sense of these public utterances is

to examine each word careully to see how many other meanings

it has. All the words are just weasel words spoken to have

some effect. There is no requirement for any of these

statements to be in harmony. Rarely are they outright lies.

That is why it is better to judge based on actions rather

than spoken words or writings, but few people do.

Politicians and PR people know this and that is why the

media is so effective at controlling peoples behaviour.



:|

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: RyanEpps on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 01:45 PM EDT

"Novell will also make running royalty payments based on a percentage of

its revenues from open source products."



The above is from Novell's FAQ page.



Why is Novell doing this if they don't believe there are problems?



RyanEpps [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 01:51 PM EDT

Authored by: billyskank on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 02:02 PM EDT

Ron Hovsepian is quoted: We disagree with the recent statements made by

Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with

Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft

intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with

Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering

violates Microsoft patents.



Ron, if you don't believe "Linux" infringes any MS IP, why'd you agree

to the patent cooperation agreement? Remind us, you get paid the big bucks

because...?



---

It's not the software that's free; it's you. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 02:12 PM EDT

Honestly, I wonder why that question isn't asked more in business, but here we

have some good questions. I found it interesting how Novell seemed surprised by

the community reaction and wanted to cover itself, while Microsoft saw an

immediate opportunity for FUD. After all, we do know that Microsoft had links

to SCO...



Anyhow, my feeling is that Microsoft started this to stir discontent. That

doesn't absolve Novell, but at least Novell can keep their story straight.

Microsoft is starting to change theirs to suit the audience... does that remind

you of anyone else?



So I'm going to have to say that I believe this is a calculated effort by

Microsoft to disrupt things. Maybe some of it was accidental, but they're

certainly capitalizing on the opportunity. Novell? Well, they seem to have

sold out without fully realizing the ramifications. Maybe, hopefully, they can

undo it, but I wonder how. At least the agreement expires in a few years.



As for Microsoft, I can't see them doing anything but blowing more hot air.

Unless SCO pulls out some kind of surprise win (hahahahahaha!), I doubt they'll

want to follow suit, but that doesn't mean they won't make private arrangements

with large companies, sorta like they did with Novell, but kept out of the

public eye. If they were litigating, someone might just use discovery to see if

they'd made any more strange Novell-like deals that might contravene the GPL,

because I have to feel like any further ones will be under NDAs and they'll try

to avoid mentioning Linux on paper (even if they market the license as some kind

of tax to permit the use of Linux). [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 03:58 PM EDT

I'm growing rather tired of the Microsoft-Novell "conspiracy" that you

are trying to invent and I'm growing rather tired of Groklaw.



Let's get back to Anna Nicole...could we? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 05:33 PM EDT

So it seems Microsoft is now saying



"We know the patent is in there, but we want to wait until more deep

pockets are using it before we sue."



Is that legal? Or is a valid defense



"Hey Microsoft, if you wanted them not to use them you should have told

them earlier". [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Fredric on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 05:52 PM EDT

The MS and Novell people have no interest in telling "the truth". From Novells point of view:

First of IF you know you are guilty of patent infringement the very last thing you would do is to blabber about it in public. It least if you listen to your corporate lawyers. And you would write no memos, emails or even napkins that discuss the issue. And very few people in the organization would know. Maybe not even the CEO.

Note that I do not know if Novell is aware of any patent infringements, I just point out that the response would be the same no matter what. From MS point of view it is also obvious that they want to portrait Linux situation in the worst possible light. The worst thing that could happen is that the, eventually, loose another case a'la SCO. No big deal. They are probably smart enough to not paint themselves into a corner. If you look for honesty you are better of somewhere else than in press releases concerning patent issues. ---

/Fredric Fredricson

--------

-- Heisenberg was maybe here [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: brian-from-fl on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 07:01 PM EDT

Microsoft's 3rd Story: http://bangk okpost.com/090507_Database/09May2007_data05.php "The Free Software movement is dead. Linux doesn't exist in 2007. Even Linus has got a job today." Controversial statements from the head of Microsoft's Linux Labs, Bill Hilf. So, Microsoft is also claiming that something that doesn't exist is violating patents that it cannot disclose. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Night Flyer on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 07:45 PM EDT

The one-way street is that Microsoft can look inside Linux's open software, but

we cannot look inside Microsoft's closed software to find where it has violated

Linux copyrights/patents.



As well, even though it appears that Microsoft is doing a shotgun approach to

gathering patents, I believe it is very carefully calculating and trying to

manoeuver its way into having bottleneck-critical patents as a strategy. In any

event it is building a diverse portfolio.



Though some of its patents have been revoked (and one can only assume that close

inspection of other patents will find more), there will still be lots left for

it to wield in court.



Further, suppose Microsoft found something not completely protected in Linux and

it applied for and obtained a patent. If SCO with $10 or $20 million can tie up

IBM for years, which of us would want to meet Microsoft in court with its

billions?



The intimidation factor? Enormous.



It seems to me that we need to focus a lot of attention on reforming software

patent laws into a copyright type of law. And we need to be sure the DOJ sees

understands that any action by a monopolist abusing its power hurts industry and

creativity in this country.



---

Veritas Vincit - Truth Conquers [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: leopardi on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 08:28 PM EDT

The Fourier Analysis tool in the Analysis ToolPak of Microsoft Office may violate United States Patent 6,859,816 Makino, et al. February 22, 2005, (assignee: Sony Corporation), filed January 25, 2001. Whether it does or not may come down to the details of the implementation and whether Microsoft has obtained a license from Sony. And yes, US 6,859,816 is apparently a patent for a pure algorithm, with obvious candidates for prior art, (such as FFTW). [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:41 PM EDT

but I'll say it again. I switched to Suse about four years

ago, bought (with real money), the newest version just

before the Novel/MS crap.



I threw the CDs in the trash and switched to Kubuntu.



Novel! Are you listening.



P.S. We have 400 Linux servers at work. No Suse.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: dhcolesj on Tuesday, May 15 2007 @ 11:45 PM EDT

I'm very familiar with Novell's product line. I'm a CNE, and CDE (Certified

Directory Engineer). I no longer work with Novell's stuff. However, there are

things we all need to remember:

1. SUSE is just a part of Novell's product line. Due to their wonderful

marketing no one knows about ID management, GroupWise, eDirectory, or ZENWorks.

All of which are fine products or at least decent.

2. Novell writes client and server software for Windows. Novell's Client32 for

Windows as it was once called, is how you mapped drives to a NetWare/OES Linux

NSS volume.



In OpenSUSE you wont find any of the Novell non-GPLed stuff, (anymore anyway),

however, in OES Linux, or SUSE Linux Enterprise Server you will. The difference

is that OES Linux includes eDirectory and many of the NetWare services for

Linux, and SLES doesn't.



I've spent quit a lot of time bashing Novell's crappy service, software release,

and marketing over the years. So, even though I'm very puzzled by their

actions.

Here's my take (if you give Novell the benefit of the doubt):

Novell needed an agreement to continue developing its Windows products

(GroupWise server and client, eDirectory, etc. etc.) so that Windows clients

could mount/map or use services running on SLES or OES Linux. MS needed a cover

for itself in case it was determined that the SCO "source" license was

indeed a farce (which it is). Then turned around and used Novell's need to

twist their arm into a bad patent agreement. Novell being on the short end of

the bargaining leverage bar. The thing most folks miss out on is that

GroupWise, eDirectory, ZENWorks and other products Novell produces run on

NetWare, Windows, Linux, even AIX and other platforms. The product I can most

see them needing the agreement for is Identity Manager which needs to tie in

pretty close to the OS to work.

The problem is Novell's crappy marketing and business decision makers made this

look like a bad deal (at best) and MS made it look worse.





---

See Ya'

Howard Coles Jr.

John 3:16! [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 02:28 AM EDT

both these peeps of bad faithers are playing everyone both knwo the deal and if

novell or MS has balls they would say here it is you be the judge , the fact is

they don't to increase the fud .novells goal is to pretend to be open source

friendly while letting MS whine out the patent FUD. As we see in the most recent

article using press releases and lying can and will come back to haunt you.



GOOD to the oin folks and now its the cold war. Where everyone yaps until

software patents are dissolved.

MS can't win a true patent war in fact is actually has the msot revenue wise

to lose , we all know it.

Silently IBM and others having been gathering up them.

this isn't about innovation it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that patent

holdings by any comany above mid sized are ntohign mroe then weapons of mass

destruction. How?

Use them to destroy competition and slow competitions innovations . Ruin lives

by causing places ot pay more then they should. Lessons tax reveunes thus and

therefore our standards of living. It is ntohign short of an attack on democracy

they are allowed to use these in such ways.

SHAME on the WHOLE CORPORATE industry for it.

[ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 05:59 AM EDT

Authored by: mtew on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 12:14 PM EDT

You are correct, PJ, in noting the inconsistancies. However, given the actors

involved, the inconsistancies (i.e. lies) are more likely to be comming out of

Washington State than out of Utah. Novell may be able to provide more

information, but it has already and consistantly said that it has no specific

information. It is the other side that has changed its tune. (Those people do

seem to have a reputation for streching the truth past its elastic limit.)



On the other hand, while there are some very negative consequencs for Novell in

terms of publicity and the fact that it does enable FUD, there may be (but I

have no hard evidence) benifits to Novell, and possibly even the entire FOSS

community, from improved interoperability. Given that, I can see why Novell

might be reluctant to terminate the 'deal'.



Novell probably deserves some credit for being as open as it can be about the

deal. The other participant is the one that deserves centure.



[Sorry, I need a serious software upgrade on this machine and have not had the

time to do it, so please forgive any spelling errors.]



---

MTEW [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 03:02 PM EDT

Whenever I can't understand what Microsoft is up to, I tend to get a little worried.

Stupidity and ignorance of law don't seem to be among their list of faults. Not really.

They claim to know exactly which patents are infringed, and also claim that they don't plan to litigate. Even if it weren't for laches, that doesn't seem likely to cause much worry.

So now I have to wonder... what is their other hand doing while we're all so distracted with their patent-rattling? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: MacsEntropy on Wednesday, May 16 2007 @ 03:48 PM EDT

... to disclose the terms of any contractual obligations they may have, as part

of SEC scrutiny? Any major business deal is guaranteed to have a material

effect on the company's business risk.



If this is not so, could the real attorneys in the audience offer an explanation

of why? [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 17 2007 @ 07:29 AM EDT

I think if Novell, as a corporation, truly has any sense of business ethics and

pride should cancel its deal with MS. Sure, it just got into the deal and,

according to press in protest releases (how much can you believe those?) it is

leading to more and more businesses using SuSe.



However, if they truly believe that MS is spreading FUD they should protest by

canceling the deal. "We cannot continue to deal with liars" or

something like that.



Personally, I think software patents are stupid (patenting clicking one time to

checkout....wtf is that?) so I'd love to see a software patent Armageddon!



Let's get Novell to say, "Oh yeah! Well Windows infringes on these

patents!" And IBM will say, "Yeah, Windows infringes on THESE

patents." Then MS will tell both Novell and IBM that "Lotus Notes and

Netware infringe on THESE patents!" Then Apple comes along and says they

invented the GUI and sue MS. Then PARC says they actually invented the concept

of the GUI and mouse and they sue. And everyone sues everyone until the US

government realized that software patents are silly. [ Reply to This | # ]



Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2007 @ 06:24 PM EDT