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 205243
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: ...
by twenex on Wed 24th Jan 2007 08:39 UTC 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[7]: ...
by IanSVT on Wed 24th Jan 2007 15:03 in reply to "RE[6]: ..."
IanSVT Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Agreed. But political bickering on message boards or blog sites doesn't exactly factor into a businesses due diligence. It's more along the lines of, does Software Package A do what we need it to do? How does it compare to Software Package B? Not what does linuxrules_microsoftsux431@gpl4life.org think about Software Package A?

Yes, that's a bit over the top, but you get my point.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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