Novell Responds To Microsoft's IP Claims

Azul writes "Ron Hovsepian, Novell's CEO, has posted an open letter to the Community, where he explicitly states Novell's disagreement with Steve Ballmer's claims of Linux infringing on Microsoft's intellectual property. From the letter: '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.'"

Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ...

[Josh Lindenmuth (1029922)]

Isn't the following statement in effect confirming Ballmer's ascertation that Linux users are violating Microsoft's patents?

"In this agreement, Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement. The intended effect of this agreement was to give our joint customers peace of mind that they have the full support of the other company for their IT activities."

If Novell did not believe that Linux users were accountable to Microsoft for using these technologies, why would they look to protect these users? Sure, it's great to offer this indemnification clause for the largest of corporate clients (who have at least some reason to be cognizant of the risk of MS litigation), but by doing so he seems validate Ballmer's views.

I can see it now ... The next big legal battle will be Microsoft vs. the world.

Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ...

[civilizedINTENSITY (45686)]

"Isn't the following statement in effect confirming Ballmer's ascertation that Linux users are violating Microsoft's patents?"

Consider the symmetry of the contract:

Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement

Therefore, using your assertion, it must be equally true that Microsoft is admitting that stollen Novell code is in Microsoft's codebase.

;-)

Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ...

[ldj (726828)]

The best move would be for users to ditch distributions that do not provide patent indemnification or to seek out third-party indemnification. If anything, Novell ought to be cheering Ballmer for steering more people in their direction.

I think the best move would be for people to revolt against the silly software patent insanity and refuse to play that game. The sooner we bring the software patent stew to a boil, the sooner we can move towards a balanced and healthy legal system in which to grow new technologies.

Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ...

[QuantumG (50515)]

I agree with you, but I say the probability of infringing code is almost certainly very close to 1. You can't write anything that is non-trivial without stepping on a patent claim these days, and Microsoft likely owns at least one of them. The problem is that this meme competes with another meme, which I like to think of as the "irrational other player" meme. Everyone loves to think of Microsoft (and lawyers in general) as being insane. So rather than say "what would Microsoft have to gain by suing me?" and basing rational decisions on that, they say "I don't want Microsoft to be able to sue me" which, if you're writing or using software these days, is an impossible task.

Re:Novell might actually be fueling MS's case ...

[Fnkmaster (89084)]

And for a company that broke even last year on an operating income of $100M and has a total market cap of about $2B dollars, that payment was not at all a trivial matter. Hovsepian would have been remiss to his shareholders to not sign it. Patent cross-licensing agreements are pretty damned commonplace.

I think the Novell guys probably realized there was some bad PR potential, but didn't see anything particularly bad in the agreement and saw lots and lots of greenbacks, plus the opportunity to use MS as a distribution channel. This seemed like a sweet deal when they looked at it. I just don't think they realized quite how negative the reaction would be.

Deal Novell Out

[Frosty Piss (770223)]

Novell is feeling the backlash of their decision to cozy up to Microsoft, but this is just spin, it means nothing. The business arrangements that Novell made with Microsoft are what counts, and they still stand. It's time to deal Novell out of the Open Source pie, we must not allow them to taint Linux with "Microsoft IP".

Re:Deal Novell Out

[strider44 (650833)]

On the contrary. I think this is a great tactic of dealing with Microsoft: Take a few hundred million dollars from them and at all the parties say "I'm not with him!" Lets face it, Novell's been paid a few hundred million dollars to give the impression that there are patent problems with Linux, yet they've spun around and said "We don't think there are patent problems in Linux" and started talking about how Microsoft got the better of the deal by licensing Novell's patents!

For some reason this really tickles my funny bone.

That's bullshit.

[khasim (1285)]

Maybe, but corporate clients need interoperability, and this relationship will eventually provide them with a greater degree of Windows/Linux interop than they have today (while providing them with some of the legal protections they desire).

Microsoft has 100% access to the source code for Windows AND for Linux. If Microsoft wanted "interoperability" then Microsoft is in the best possible position to just do it.

And Microsoft can release any specs at any time so Linux could implement "interoperability" improvements.

The fact that Microsoft does not do either should tell you all you need to know about the "interoperability" bullshit.

Let me get this straight.

[khasim (1285)]

The problem is, you're wrong.

So Microsoft has released the specs to allow Linux to interoperate with Windows? Tell me more ...

Now, granted, these are not the keys to the Windows kingdom, but it's a step in the right direction, and Microsoft should be encouraged to get as many specs out into the Open as possible, as soon as possible.

So by "interoperate" you mean ... "not interoperate"

And by "you're wrong" you mean ... I'm actually correct.

Come back when Microsoft opens up NTFS or Active Directory, okay? Or even when Microsoft has 100% support for ODF, as a default option, out of the box.

Like I said, Microsoft has access to all of the Linux code AND all of the Microsoft code.

Microsoft can open any spec it wants, whenever it wants.

Any other talk about "interoperability" is pure bullshit.

What the fuck?

[khasim (1285)]

Our interest in signing this agreement was to secure interoperability and joint sales agreements, but Microsoft asked that we cooperate on patents as well, and so a patent cooperation agreement was included as a part of the deal. In this agreement, Novell and Microsoft each promise not to sue the other's customers for patent infringement. .....
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.

So you signed a deal with Microsoft ... over patents ... that you claim do not exist?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Here's a free clue, you idiot. That last company that talked about "protecting" end users from being sued was ... SCO.

You might want to look at how beloved they are at the moment.

So in other words...

[strider44 (650833)]

Microsoft just wasted a few hundred million dollars? Congrats to Novell...

Encouraged...

[TropicalCoder (898500)]

I for one feel at least encouraged by the fact that obviously Novel is very sensitive to criticism over this. I would like to even believe that they are reading Slashdot. If nothing else, that would be a very positive development. If major players and decision makers begin reading Slashdot and become sensitive to it, that would be a very positive thing for us all. Though the first few comments to this latest news show considerable skepticism, many others in previous discussions had come to the conclusion that there is really nothing to worry about.

Microsoft Bites Back - MS PR response to this

[samrolken (246301)]

They've agreed to disagree, or so they say.

We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov0 6/11-20Statement.mspx [microsoft.com]

Groklaw's reaction ...

[Augusto (12068)]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200611202 03431766 [groklaw.net]

In that case, with all due respect, you should not have signed an agreement called a patent cooperation agreement that gives Microsoft the opportunity to say the things Mr. Ballmer has been saying. I believe that is obvious now. And you should have considered the GPL, its importance to the community, and considered what paying royalties means in that context. And we hope you will fix this.

And MS ...

Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents....

We at Microsoft respect Novell's point of view on the patent issue, even while we respectfully take a different view. Novell is absolutely right in stating that it did not admit or acknowledge any patent problems as part of entering into the patent collaboration agreement. At Microsoft we undertook our own analysis of our patent portfolio and concluded that it was necessary and important to create a patent covenant for customers of these products. We are gratified that such a solution is now in place.

Corporate Mentality

[chill (34294)]

The bigger the corporation, the more lawyers work for it. Novell, while just a shadow of what they once were, still thinks like a big corporation. Threat or not, they knew that many of their corporate customers -- you know, the paying ones -- had their own lawyers whispering in their ear. It was worth a certain amount of money to them to not have to put the effort into figuring out if they were violating patents or not. The perception was there and that money now gives the perception of safety.

What the suits didn't understand is that while Linux is moving more and more into the corporate space, at its core it is still a community driven project. They drastically underestimated that community's dislike and distrust of Microsoft.

Good luck to them trying to serve both masters.

question about the threat

[astrashe (7452)]

My gut reaction to this deal is very negative.

I really like a lot of what Novell has done on the desktop, and some of the mono desktop apps are pretty terrific. But I sort of feel like I ought to be moving toward KDE now, and distancing myself from anything mono.

The question I have, though, is about the patents. Either MS has patents that can be used to attack linux or they're pulling another SCO on us.

So much of the argument against Novell hinges on the fact that they're enabling MS with this deal. As I understand the argument, it says that corporate customers will buy Novell, to be safe from potential lawsuits. If MS can pick off a critical mass of commercial users who are willing to pay, they can start to sue other people without damaging relationships with their large corporate customers. Even non-novell customers will have a way out -- they can buy Novell.

If MS has these patents, do we really believe that fear of alienating their customers is enough for them to refrain from suing people? Couldn't they sue IT companies -- linux companies, IBM, etc., without damaging their relationships with large corporate customers? And aren't those large customers so locked in that they really don't have anywhere to go if they're alienated, anyway?

To me, this really isn't about Novell. I don't pay them, and I don't code for any projects, so I understand that they don't really care about me. It would be irrational for them if they did. But this sort of burns the bridge to Novell and mono as far as I'm concerned. That's done.

But how big is this threat? Is this the beginning of legal threat spanning years and years. with fronts opening up in legislatures, in anti-trust enforcement agencies around the world, etc.?

Is this real, or is this a bunch of baseless stuff that's going to dog us for years?

If a free OS that's built from scratch by volunteers can't be allowed to exist in the current intellectual property law environment, what then? Does this mean we either have to give up and finally take on the intellectual property framework at some really fundamental level?

Dead Licence Sketch

[NZheretic (23872)]

A customer enters a Novell Office.
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, I wish to register a complaint.
(Novell does not respond.)
Mr. Praline: 'Ello, Miss?
Novell: What do you mean "miss"?
Mr. Praline: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to make a complaint!
Novell: We're closin' for lunch.
Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this Linux Distro what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.
Novell: Oh yes, the, uh, the Novell OpenSuse Linux...What's,uh...What's wrong with it?
Mr. Praline: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. According to the terms of the GPL you can no longer distribute it, that's what's wrong with it!
Movell: No, no, it's uh,... part of the service agreement.
Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a violation of the GPL when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.
Novell: No no it not violated, it's , it's cirumvented'! Remarkable OS, the Suse Linux, idn'it, ay? Beautiful eye candy with GLX
Mr. Praline: The eye candy don't enter into it. your in violation of the GPL.
Novell: Nononono, no, no! it's just slightly cirumvented!
...

Unfortunately CEO cannot be trusted

[mattr (78516)]

I gave the man the benefit of the doubt, even though I am extremely angry at Novell, and read his letter. It is very well written and makes the reader think, "Oh, that's all right then". But it isn't. He is not acting in a vaccuum and this is not a textbook case study (yet). Why?
1. Novell obviously needed cash quite badly, enough to risk a PR backlash.
2. Microsoft was a key driver behind SCO and this is their next highly visible move against Linux.
3. Microsoft has linux people in-house. If they wanted linux they could make their own distro for free, plus hiring a team to add interoperability which presumably should be easy since they would be the only team on the planet with the inside knowledge of how to do that.
4. Of course, this expert knowledge would be copied by other distros if it was GPL, so they wouldn't want to do that.
5. And, they wouldn't be able to easily infect other distros a la SCO, which is another reason.
6. Finally, if they distribute GNU/Linux under GPL then they are finally saying everything is already under the GPL. (possibly including nonencumbrance by patents but IANAL).
7. Novell cannot leash the dragon once it begins to rampage. In fact, this patent agreement clearly removes potential weapons of OSS-friendly vendors like IBM against possible future SCO-like lititgation from Microsoft. It means that Novell may likely enter the role of indeminifying vendors and users against Microsoft litigation (if the patent agreement allows that).
8. Novell's CEO claims their actions prove they are honorably. I am sure he would like to think so. However if actions are louder than words, then surely this deal with Microsoft proves Novell is only in business for Novell, especially if it means all other OSS vendors get poisoned by their actions.
9. It also proves that Novell's CEO is intellectually and/or ethically unfit for his position due to his blithe ignorance of SCO and Microsoft's role in SCO, smoking gun and all.
10. The only reason imaginable is that Novell is really on the brink of bankruptcy and some threat from Microsoft would push them over the edge. Possibly Novell has some proof of OSS in Windows but who will ever know? Novell's actions cast a pall of smoke and brimstone over all OSS-related activities, projects, and products they have.
11. Unfortunately this makes me and lots of other people very scared of what may end up in Suse and strongly suggests that Novell will be Microsoft's key tool for attempting again to destroy Linux and the OSS world, no matter what Novell ever says.
12. That is why Novell cannot be trusted, and anything they ever contribute to OSS projects must be painstakingly analyzed and thrown in the garbage at the least worry. Even so, there is no way to be sure anything they offer will not be either a fragment of patentable data, or a fragment of a potential vulnerability to either access from microsoft or attack by a windows virus. It would be a much different story if Microsoft was going to provide all necessary documentation and experienced OSS programmers could plan how to interface with those APIs for best performance and security. Of course the same goes for anybody who ever thought of buying Novell or maybe making a contract with Novell. I don't see how anybody can ever trust Novell again.

Dear Novell

[div_2n (525075)]

As a member of the Linux community, I personally am disappointed by your maneuvers. While I can only speak for myself, I feel confident others share my sentiment.

Let's not beat around the bush on this. Your actions reek of the proprietary and closed mindset--not open source. It is clear this is a deal meant to benefit you first and foremost. While your customers may (or may not) benefit, the community at large seems to be left pissing in the wind. This is profoundly confusing since the vast majority of the Linux product you purport to protect has been written and continues to be written by that community and not your engineers.

While I'm not anyone famous, I am one of surely many decision makers looking for well supported open source solutions. I had been considering you for several projects and would have considered you in the future. Given that you push your idea of what is best for the community despite fairly blatant protests to the contrary from prominent community members, I cannot include your products in any projects until you correct your course of action.

Until that day comes, good luck making deals allegedly protecting a product with a company that has shown enormous contempt for and a desire to kill off that product. I find it overwhelmingly ironic that the market dominance you enjoyed long ago was taken by the very company with which you are now spooning. I guess you didn't learn your lesson the first time around.

Re:Give Novell a Break

[cryptoluddite (658517)]

Alienating Novell sends a signal that Microsoft's patent extortion will not be tolerated by the community. It says that, should Microsoft press patent claims, that companies and people using Linux will retaliate -- with countersuits, civil disobedience, lobbying, bad PR, and whatever else.

You can bet that Novell is only coming out with this "open letter" because of the pressure they are feeling. Contracts being canceled or not renewed, bile and bad PR everywhere, FSF lawyers looking into filing suits, etc. They are probably getting the most pressure from SuSE developers, who can't be at all happy about being periahs.

The best step for the OSS community would be for Microsoft to document their protocols and formats. For instance if we had documentation on how NTFS lays out the filesystem we'd have a safe r/w driver in under a month. This Novell-MS deal is bunk. The European trustbusters have already done more than this deal ever will.

What "right direction" is that?

[khasim (1285)]

Microsoft licenses proprietary code.

Linux is under the GPL.

Is the "right direction" for Linux to become a little bit proprietary?

If not, Microsoft has 100% access to the source code. Microsoft can be as "interoperable" with Linux as they want to be. Any time they want to be.

Microsoft can release whatever specs it wants, whenever it wants.

Now, why don't you go listen to Ballmer talking about how Linux users owe Microsoft money before you start talking about the "right direction" and "working together"?

Rule of thumb...

[Ungrounded Lightning (62228)]

A rule of thumb when dealing with Microsoft.

Microsoft ALWAYS shafts their partners.

I've watched it happen repeatedly with big-name and little-guy companies here in the valley, and seen news of it elsewhere.

Cutting a deal with Microsoft is an invitation to big trouble and I fail to see how companies keep falling for it. (Perhaps there IS something to the PHB stereotype.)

Cutting a deal with Microsoft for (limited) licensing of their patents is an invitation to accusations of IP infringement - and the first shoe has just dropped.

But (like reading Microsoft source code) it's also an invitation to accidentally contaminating the open-source code base with actual Microsoft IP.

I expect THAT to be the second shoe - with Microsoft first FUDding up the customers, then going after Linux ala SCO, but with their ducks correctly aligned before filing the first suit.

Woot! Woot! Clue Train in the distance

[stox (131684)]

Dear Novell Executives:

How many company's have entered into collaborations, with Microsoft, that did not end up with a rectal aperture far exceeding that of goatse? How many did? So, do you actually fell that lucky? Talk about a long shot. Well, I'm sure you are all busy packing your golden parachutes, and will be long gone before the fecal matter hits the rotary device.

Re:trouble ahead?, trouble behind.

[grub (11606)]

Unlike with Windows, I doubt Microsoft could pull it off though ... the Linux advocates are too anti-Redmond to adopt a M$ linux clone.

The advocates (zealots?) wouldn't be the target market. MS would market it to the MCSEs and other who are MS-centric as 'Linux Done Right', offer full MS support, ease of installation and a sole-source supplier (MS themselves).

It would make MS billions of dollars.

Re:fine print and silver

[myowntrueself (607117)]

they've sold the community for 30 pices of silver.

Except that in the case of Judas the 30 pieces of silver were a legal requirement; had he refused the money then his evidence would have been inadmisible under the Law.

The idea was that in order to prove that the evidence was given in good faith, the witness had to accept payment.

In Novells case, I don't think this holds...