OSNews

No,they are not scared about anyone (especially Linux). They are still arrogant. And such arrogance you get only when you sit on top of the things. But then again, arrogance had IBM as well. Not like they don't have it now as well.

They aren't scared. They see an opportunity. Exactly what that opportunity is, is up for debate. Is it win-win? It's probably too early to do anything other than speculate.

On one hand, it can put Linux on more people's radar. On the other hand, they may be an attempt to control Linux.

If they keep the fight out of the courtroom, I think it will ultimately benefit all distributions by validating Linux in the eyes of management.

Whatever the case may be, Microsoft isn't scared.

Is it win-win?

I would actually prefer lin-lin ;-)

Just a little little add, but when it comes to Linux, it's better to say 'install base', since not all of Linux is marketed (and actually, not all of Windows too, considering piracy)

Yeah, in fact, the non-commercial distros are growing faster than the commercial ones.

There's a lot that people don't understand about patents and intellectual property as a whole, and this deal preys on those misconceptions.

It is impossible to infringe upon anyone's IP (patent, copyright, trademark, etc.) merely by receiving, using, and/or modifying software (free or otherwise) according to the terms of the particular license. A recipient of software under a given license may assume that the distributor is legally entitled to distribute the software under that license.

If MS were to sue Novell's customers, it would have to be for something other than intellectual property infringement. Of course, nothing in this deal says MS can't sue Novell itself for patent infringement. That sort of agreement, however, would clearly run afoul of the GPLv2.

So, from the perspective of the end-user, the covenant is worthless but harmless. However, as much as Nat claims otherwise, this does establish a legal precedent that would aid a MS patent suit against any commercial Linux software vendor, including Novell.

It is impossible to infringe upon anyone's IP (patent, copyright, trademark, etc.) merely by receiving, using, and/or modifying software (free or otherwise) according to the terms of the particular license. A recipient of software under a given license may assume that the distributor is legally entitled to distribute the software under that license.

That's not quite true. Patent law generally gives holders protection against others using, producing or selling their patented work. Most cases of infringement are between holders and manufacturers or vendors though, since a) that is somewhat more pragmatic that targeting individual users and b) many manufacturers or vendors include indemnification for users of their products, for many government and large enterprise customers, this is a standard requirement for products and services purchased.

Copyright law is a little murkier and varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. However, one of the basic premises of copyright in this day and age is to ensure authors or creators preserve the right to receive recompense for their work; in the case of widespread copyright infringement of clearly protected work (ie. stolen code from an application) without a clear target to take legal action against, I don't think a copyright holder would necessarily be unable to target holders of unauthorized work. I believe there are cases where people have had pirated or bootlegged material seized without actually distributing it, but IANAL so take that with a grain of salt.

The only reason MS is able to play the IP card is because, as I mentioned, corporate and government customers are frankly accustomed to receiving indemnification from their suppliers. Even if the holder of protected works pursued individual users, manufacturers offering indemnity would ultimately be responsible anyways. IBM asserted as much in their response claiming the patent litigation should remain strictly among vendors and not target end users, since that's self-defeating.

Which brings up the point that indemnification is only as useful as the ability of the vendor's ability to stand behind it. Microsoft, or IBM, offering indemnity for customers of their products offers an organization a little more security than a small organization potentially lacking the resources to defend legal claims.

Microsoft is playing up that inherent fear of litigation in institutional customers, this has nothing to do with the community or even smaller companies. We can downplay the threat of IP attacks against linux, but enterprises don't have that luxury. A threat doesn't have to materialize into something tangible before it can be recognized.

So I agree that there's a ridiculous amount of FUD generating from Microsoft, and I still think it's important to remember that Ballmer has still not made a direct accusation of patent-infringement in linux. But we can't dismiss the concerns commercial organizations have, because they're real whether based in substance or not.

The peculiar thing about this deal is that both Microsoft and Novell already offer indemnity to their customers, so their customers already had reasonable assurance that they could not be sued or held accountable directly for infringements. I suppose that in theory this just alleviates MS and Novell of the potential costs for enforcing that indemnity should a case ever arise from it. But it sort of underscores that the patent thing was a bit of a useless add-on to the overall agreement for both parties, as Novell implied when claiming MS forced the patent relief as a condition for the agreement. I think we can see why.

So, from the perspective of the end-user, the covenant is worthless but harmless. However, as much as Nat claims otherwise, this does establish a legal precedent that would aid a MS patent suit against any commercial Linux software vendor, including Novell.

No, I don't think it provides a legal precedent or validation of Microsoft's claims in the eyes of the law, even the FSF's lawyers haven't asserted that.

Their intent is pure corporate spin; "Well Novell is playing along, and they're a big company with lawyers so obviously they feel something's wrong and needs an agreement for protection." If Red Hat had played along, all the better. Microsoft would essentially be playing the large commercial organizations against the community in an effort to drive a split. Regardless, this just helps them in an effort to sow the seeds of doubt in larger organizations. They care naught about generating license fees (a drop in the bucket) or making customers legitimate. Definitely FUD, but unfortunately sometimes FUD works.

"There's a lot that people don't understand about patents and intellectual property as a whole, and this deal preys on those misconceptions.

It is impossible to infringe upon anyone's IP (patent, copyright, trademark, etc.) merely by receiving, using, and/or modifying software ..."

Yes, and that includes you. Why could SCO threaten Autozone into a deal then? - Because their lawyer was late in reading your wisdom here?

The use of software needs a license. If Company A didn't license their code (containing their IP !!) to company B, B cannot license it to you, the end user. So if you use something without the consent of A, you can be sued. Very easy. And the very reason why SCO could at least offer to sell end user licenses without being laughed at. - Well, at least not for that reason...


"A recipient of software under a given license may assume that the distributor is legally entitled to distribute the software under that license."

That is utter nonsense. By that logic, no end user could be harmed for using counterfeit MS Windows, for example, after all, what does he know..?! - The reality is very different..

You lack basic understanding of these matters, I am afraid.

"Why could SCO threaten Autozone into a deal then?"
It's called "scare tactics" and is quite common. Autozone, rather than getting into a tedious and resource consuming lawsuit chose to give in to SCO.
Please note that in countries where frivolous litigation isn't commonplace this would probably not work.

"That is utter nonsense. By that logic, no end user could be harmed for using counterfeit MS Windows, for example, after all, what does he know..?!"

That is completely different from patents. Are seriously suggesting that every consumer should do in-depth research of every product he or she purchases? How is it possible, at the time of purchase, for an end-user of software to know if that software infringes on any patents? This is simply not a reasonable expectation. Please give any evidence where an *end-user* of a product has been successfully sued *in court* for patent infringements in a product they had purchased.

Ballmer a muppet? Are you trying to say that someone has their hand stuffed squarely up his rectum to operate his head and neck when he's talking in public? He and Dubya have the same problem.

Mahna, Mahna!

Actually, Japanese grammar is very clean and easy to learn.

Nonetheless, you are correct about the poor editing in this article.

You'd think Novell would have learned their lesson from the last time they got together.

O frabjous day!

Careful, I have a patent on that phrase ;-)

Edited 2006-11-28 22:28

It's a nice refreshing change from much of the FUD and hysteria that has been flying around,

The article itself dips pretty heavily into FUD, or at least slander and pejoratives. See the bit on XML file formats, for example.

"Reason #1 - one less corporate distro once Novell goes out of business!

YYYyEEEAAaaaaYYYYY!"

I modded you up as you should not have been modded down in the first place!

"Yes, this comment includes personal attacks/offensive language"
not offensive

"Yes, this comment is off-topic"
on topic

"Yes, this comment is spam or includes advertisements"
no ads

"Yes, I disagree with this user/opinion"
I do disagree with your opinion. MS NEEDS competitionto stay out of the monopoly courts. Here in europe where council after council seem to be switching to linux they have to remain compatible or lose the stranglehold they currently have.

i wish people would use the mod down system as it was intended, its happening to often

"Yes, this comment is off-topic"
on topic

No, it wasn't on topic. It was trolling and yet another attempt at sh!t-disturbing.

He made an inflammatory statement given the nature of the thread, offering absolutely nothing in the way of context or explanation and then followed it up with his usual surprise and implied a big, "who, me?" when finding himself modded.

It's basically symptomatic of a growing problem on this board. There's nothing wrong with posting counter-opinions, disagreeing with content, disputing claims, stating your mind etc. as long as it's in context, on-topic and not intentionally flame-baiting just to see what kind of a response you can generate. It's sad that you have to read through 20 posts of juvenille attention-seeking crap back and forth in order to find interesting or informative opinions.

Still, I didn't mod him. A point wasted on a troll is a point that can't be given to somebody worth modding up, so I have to save my negative mods for the really obnoxious posts.

The one thing I will agree with is that mod points are often abused on well written or well argued posts simply because people disagree with the poster's opinion. That's a shame. (I've also got a pet peeve with people who criticize or insult a poster's grammar or spelling, it seems intolerant of the fact that many participants here come from countries where English is not the national language, but I digress...)

And OT trolling deserves a neg.