Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 23rd Jan 2007 20:41 UTC, submitted by WillM
Novell and Ximian Retail giant Wal-Mart Stores is contracting with Microsoft and Novell - Microsoft's preferred Linux partner - to build out the company's Web operations, according to a Wal-Mart executive. On Tuesday, Microsoft and Novell are expected to announce that Wal-Mart is the latest customer to purchase both Microsoft software and support certificates for Novell's Suse Linux Enterprise Server.
Thread beginning with comment 205191
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: ...
by milles21 on Wed 24th Jan 2007 03:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: ..."
milles21
Member since:
2006-11-08

You are completely wrong in your statement wal-mart could still be held responsible because they were infact running their business on the platform. That is why idemnification exists. You may want to brush up on your law. Think SCO, and Daimler-Chrystler

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[5]: ...
by twenex on Wed 24th Jan 2007 08:39 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

You are completely wrong in your statement wal-mart could still be held responsible because they were infact running their business on the platform. That is why idemnification exists. You may want to brush up on your law. Think SCO, and Daimler-Chrystler

No, it is YOU who is completely wrong. You can't be held liable for using a product by someone who has used a technology in that product, which is patented by someone else.

Dunno if you've noticed, but the SCO cases are dead in the water for precisely that reason. The people who actually paid SCO for the "rights" to use Linux must be feeling pretty stupid. They certainly look it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: ...
by tspears on Wed 24th Jan 2007 14:41 in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
tspears Member since:
2006-05-22

you can be held accountable, that's why businesses practice due diligence before adopting technologies. If they can't prove that they researched beyond the sales rhetoric the other company fed them, they will be held responsible.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Patent vs. copyright
by glarepate on Wed 24th Jan 2007 18:58 in reply to "RE[5]: ..."
glarepate Member since:
2006-01-04

IANAL, but there is a lot of confusion on IP and liability:

End users are not liable for the distributor's copyright infringements. (Die SCO, die!)

Patent holders CAN sue end users for using patented technology. That is why Microsoft paid to defend SQL server users and admins who created new queries that violated the patent holder's rights. That is what indemnification is about.

In practice end users are normally not sued by patent holders because there is no money in it. They normally go after the distributor or any institutional-sized end users.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: ...
by looncraz on Thu 1st Feb 2007 18:52 in reply to "RE[4]: ..."
looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Yes, but it requires proof that Wal-Mart had been made aware of the infraction prior to signing the agreement or using the product.

Of course, that may just be Texas state law, as that is most all I am familiar with in business ( as I am a Texas SBO ).

--The loon

Reply Parent Score: 1