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.'"

trouble ahead?, trouble behind.

Driving that train, high on cocaine.
Casey Jones is ready, watch your speed.
Trouble ahead, trouble behind
And you know that notion just crossed my mind.

With a beginning like this, who knows? They got the O.J. special and book release canceled!

Goodness, if the heads of the two "agreement" corporations are on pages so far apart for this deal, how can this possibly work? Reminds me of the IBM/Microsoft marriage for work on OS/2, which Microsoft continued to claim was blissful right up until the time they got enough ideas for their own Windows replacement and unceremoniously dumped IBM. Too bad, too... OS/2 (while not my fave) was a pretty decent system for its time.

Re:trouble ahead?, trouble behind.

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.

They already did: it's called Bee Esss Deee

Although I'll give them credit for a lot of code, good old BSD is the well from whence many operating systems drink.

Given re-invention of code, or code I can 'steal', I'll look at good code and glean the best from it any time. So did Microsoft. So did IBM. So did Novell. It's the sincerest form of flattery, after all.

What's the problem?

I don't really see the problem with all this. Microsoft and Novell can say and do anything they like about patents, but it doesn't make a patent problem arise where there was none, nor does a lack of agreement make one disappear if there was one. Novell got a few hundred million bucks out of MS, and it doesn't affect anybody else one whit. Why not let em have it?

Rule of thumb...

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.

Re:trouble ahead?, trouble behind.

Casey Jones is ready, watch your speed.

Is this a commonly misheard lyric or something? It's "Casey Jones you better watch your speed.".

The lyric as you wrote it doesn't even make sense.

Re:trouble ahead?, trouble behind.

Some of us think OS/2 is still pretty decent, at least given its age. :-)
I'm glad it's working out for both of you. :)

Woot! Woot! Clue Train in the distance

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.

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

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 ...

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 ...

There are very few original ideas and what original ideas there are are already in the queue to have themselves patented. The only reason you think that software patents shouldn't be given the same amount of respect as any other patent is because you work with software every day.

Two-things: You're correct, there are few "original" ideas. And I would say any idea that isn't original (or is blatantly obvious) shouldn't be patentable. Technically you're not supposed to be able to patent an obvious or non-original idea, but regular slashdot readers will remember a litany of patent cases where the idea was obvious, unoriginal, or described something so broad and vague as to preclude all possible competition. If that rule was enforced, I wouldn't have a problem with software patents. But you actually make the point of the GP-poster who I think was pointing out (correctly) that there are WAY TOO MANY patents for software being issued, to the point that it is stifling creativity rather than encouraging it.

Secondly... You're comparing apples and giraffes... A patent for a TV-set is a patent for a device and the device alone... and not even for the whole device, but for parts of the device... They don't have a patent on the idea of viewing video over a cathode-ray-tube, they have a patent on an implementation of technology to ACHIEVE the viewing of video over a device in your home. If you can create a TV-set that works without the patented technologies you would be free to sell it without any license from anybody. This is as it should be--if your TV-set works better than the patented model then the patent has achieved its goal--it allowed the orginal inventor to get something for his work, while enticing you to evolve the tech to the next level. The key is, you have to PRODUCE something that WORKS in order to get a patent.

Software patents, as they've been used to date, are doing just the opposite. Software patents are being granted for basic, "helloworld.c" implementations of broad and complex concepts... "Software" developed not to create a marketable or usable product, but for the pupose of acquiring a patent that can later be used to hijack a successful competitors profits. "Oops, we realized a patent we filed a few years back might apply to your product. Please pay us several billion dollars." The patent-related-extortion of RIM comes to mind... Rather than create real products and patenting the original/unique components of THOSE products, they're instead setting up dozens or hundreds of projects whose goal is to achieve a patent, and not to actually bring any workable product to market. Instead of giving consumers access to MORE technology, as more of these bogus astroturf patents get filed, the effect is actually opposite: Innovators who can't afford to pay high licensing fees (or patent-search fees to an attorney) simply can't relase their products in any way that they can easily profit from, for fear of being sued into destitution by an "inventor" (whose "invention" was written as a fifty-line C program by a CS-grad student) who suddenly comes out of the woodwork waving a patent your search didn't find, and wanting half of your profits.

In fact, the RIM case should really underline the absurdity of the patent-situation in the software world, because the patents RIM was sued over were eventually invalidated, but RIM still was out several hundred-million from a settlement they made, and from attorneys fees. Even INVALID patents can be worth hundreds of millions of dollars with the right lawyer and low-enough ethical standards for yourself. THAT stifles competition, and THAT is just plain broken.

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

Let's say you started a company that builds televisions. Do you think you could build a television without encroaching on a patent held by any of the other television makers?

No, but... I wouldn't expect the people who buy the televisions I build to be liable for the patent infringement I do.

In no sane world should the _users_ of Linux systems be liable for patent infringements. The individual people who committed the infringing code may be, but the users shouldn't be. Simply possessing the infringing source code shouldn't be counted as infringing.

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

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 ...

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.

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

"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.

;-)

Deal Novell Out

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".

That's bullshit.

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.

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.

Re:That's bullshit.

People say that Microsoft doesn't innovate, but those same people complain that they are being locked out of Microsoft technology if they don't use Microsoft products. Seems a funny argument.

There's nothing funny about it - it makes perfect sense even if you believe that Microsoft doesn't innovate. One of the reasons people say that Microsoft doesn't innovate is that MS has a history of buying or in some cases acquiring in more underhanded ways, innovations from other companies. In such cases, there may be innovations that one would want to interoperate with, but they don't originate with MS. Secondly, the desire to interoperate with MS software has nothing to do with whether MS software is innovative. So long as significant numbers of people use MS software, other people will have an interest in interoperating. For example, I may have to deal with documents that people send me in MS Word format, but that doesn't mean that I think that there is anything innovative or otherwise attractive about that format. I'm stuck with other people's choices.

Re:Deal Novell Out

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.

Re:Deal Novell Out

I work for SUSE/Novell and my job involves working on GPL'd software.

Do you really think that Microsoft is going to be handing us source code to their proprietary applications? Seriously? Because that's not ever going to happen and I'm not sure what makes you think that it would. I mean, this is Microsoft we're talking about. They don't even like to share source internally from what I hear, and none of us have any interest in seeing closed source in the first place.

Do you really think that any of us engineers, us "jerk-off[s] from Novell", are going to intentionally harm Linux? Seriously? The same Linux that many of us use at work and at home, the same Linux that many of us have been using for upwards of sixteen years? No, we're not going to intentionally "open the flood gates for M$ litigation" because that doesn't make any sense. I know, I know, you're enjoying the hysterics and you don't actually know what's going on so you're stirring up the pot all the same, but, really, why would we do that? Honestly, ask yourself, why would those of us who get to have the dream job of writing open source software intentionally poison Linux? Calm down.

Re:Deal Novell Out

Is there any strong evidence that Microsoft was actually behind the SCO incident?

Sort of.

It's been known for a while that to help out with the lawsuit SCO recieved a massive cash injection to the tune of $40 million or so from Baystar Capital. Baystar is a VC company that controls a lot of Microsof money.

Since the time of the investment until a few weeks ago, the offical line was that Baystar acted on its own, and the fact that it was Microsoft capital being used to bankroll SCO's legal team was a mere coincidence.

But then maybe a month ago, the court heard testimony that not only did Microsoft know about Baystar's investment into SCO, but that the investment was at least encouraged (at worst, ordered) by Microsoft.

You can find all the relevant court documents, commentary, and links on Groklaw.

Not quite a smoking gun, but very compelling evidence that Redmond was putting its money where its mouth was, at least in a roundabout and obfuscatory way. There are no serious suggestions that what Microsoft did is actionable, yet it is pretty clear that they were up to their same old dirty tricks

Hmm...

Who notices a typical CYA mentality here? Have the cake and eat it, too?

Give Novell a Break

It does no one any good to alienate Novell. Seeing the open source community and MSFT working together is a step in the right direction.

Re:Give Novell a Break

If some highly infectious disease infects your leg, I'm pretty sure the doctors will advise you to amputate it.

Re:Give Novell a Break

No, its really more like kissing a whore on the mouth that you already knew had multiple STDs, and then wondering why no one will go out with you when you brag about it. MS antitrust issues (past and present) as well as their history of screwing "partners" makes this a much better analogy.

Re:Give Novell a Break

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?

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"?

What the fuck?

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...

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

fine print and silver

even giving them the benefit of the doubt, they should have read the fine print.

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

Re:fine print and silver

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...

Agree and Disagree?

Novel seems to be essentially saying that they agree and disagree at the same time on a topic which was part of their formal agreement. This may make sense to a lawyer or CEO, but seems highly illogical to me. Furthermore, it seems safe to say that any business agreement with Microsoft ultimately benefits only Microsoft, the people over are great at that. I may dislike many aspect of the Microsoft Corp. but they are darn skillful business men. I'm just happy that I don't use Suse.

Empty words

What matters is what Novell agreed with Microsoft, and that says it all.

Novell can say all it wants, but you can't fool everybody all the time. This makes this company look either totally naive and stupid, or blatant liars.

Encouraged...

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

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 ...

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

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

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?

Re:question about the threat

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?

Err, wouldn't Microsoft suing IBM over patent infringement be the legal equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot with a bazooka? IBM, according to their own website (http://www.ibm.com/news/us/en/2006/01/2006_01_10. html), has more patents than any other tech company and they've been around since long before Gates was in diapers--I would hazard a guess that Windows infringes on far more IBM patents than Linux infringes on Microsoft's. I'm not saying Microsoft wouldn't have the balls (and lack of brains) to try this, but the resulting shitstorm would likely take 10+ years to resolve and could very well result in the downfall of M$ or patent law reformation... and I'd be overjoyed to see either. And even if M$ somehow prevailed, I'm willing to bet a significant portion of the EU and Asia would say "fuck you!" if asked to pay royalties on Linux.

Somebody who is doing something about it...

Read the interview Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal [theregister.co.uk].

Alright that's the legal piece. There's also www,boycottnovell.com [boycottnovell.com] and the Samba disapproval. Other links and ideas welcome.

Why would microsoft do this?

I was kept wondering how on earth did steve balless say that linux is infringing microsoft's patent? Did he really know what the heck he is saying? Linux is the kernel not the whole system. I dont think novell even owns THE KERNEL! I am very very pissed. and yet I am still using windows :(

EV1Servers?

What's next? EV1Servers announces a deal with Novell?

Dead Licence Sketch

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!
...

What this is really about...

Microsoft has a handful of patents could apply to open source. They'll give you a patent for putting the OK button on the bottom right of the diagbox because the eye scans it first. There have to be some.

As big a gun as Microsoft is, it needs a few things in place in order to be able to leverage its IP. First, there are a couple big companies with massive patent portfolios that could be leveraged to counter-attack Microsoft software (since there are enough ridiculous patents that nobody with much software could avoid violating something). Second, they need to be sure they have a defense against anti-trust action (we weren't trying to eliminate competition your honor, you see, we even made an agreement to protect users of that system who were willing to join in a mutual respect of our rights as innovators: we didn't attack our competitor, only a group of vendors stealing our IP).

In one action they have made Novell a pawn. Novell may or may not see the fallout and simply have sold out. Perhaps Novell jumping at the opportunity to become the only Linux show in town and eliminate their biggest competitor. Perhaps they were only considering the additional clause an added bonus. Whether Novell was witting or simply misdirected the effect is the same, Microsoft has their glowing halo in case of anti-trust and one of the two big guns has been disarmed should Microsoft attack.

At least IBM is still out there.

OT: Site WTF?

Hmm.. i just saw that the linux-topic-image [slashdot.org] is a gif. And a non-transparet too. What the... I mean it's no big deal, mut i thought slashdot is on the forefront of technology. So why is this so png with alpha-transparency.

Don't tell me about the IE6-"bug". (To me a bug has to be unintentionally, so it really isn't one.)
There is an easy and high-performant workaround with the directx-filter-css-extension usable for the ie stylesheet... if you really care to support IE on an it-experts site's subsection about linux. ;))

Unfortunately CEO cannot be trusted

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.

Follow the money

MS agreed to pay Novell M$200 and in a face saving gesture, Novell agreed to give M$40 back.

Obviously MS is the one with the guilty conscience.

Sad...

...to see Ron just flapping in the wind... ...I wonder how many users he's lost already.

sigh.

Dear Novell

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.

Simple translation

The simple translation for all this rhetoric is as follows:

MS: uhm, er, oh yes, there are IP issues to be cleared up, but we have _agreements_ to provide protections for our customer bases.

Novel: There are no IP issues, we simply wish to be paid fairly for surrendering to the borg^H^H^H^H constant unrelenting pressures of Redmond, and in an attempt to bail out our stock holders, we have to pretend that this pig's ear is a silk purse.... er, we have worked out a reasonable agreement with Redmond to protect our customers.

MS needs to listen, Ballmer needs to retire...

Watching MS over the years, they have had good moments, and bad moments, done good things and done things that make your skin crawl...

The sad part of this is the 'business' model that Ballmer and his crew use as an Ideal are at the heart of almost every failed and every skin crawling activity MS has done.

MS was a good company at various times after the past 30 years, but if you notice those fleeting moments, Ballmer and his 'ideals' were the recessive thought mechanism in the company at those times. The 'older' Gates ideals and people emulating him are a lot less likely to hae ever pulled a lot of the crap MS has done in the past 15 years.

This new Linux scare from Ballmer is just another mark in the 'oh crap he did not say that' box. I'm sure there are technologies in Linux that come from MS, even if you take distributions that read FAT32 drives, but on the same note, MS has also taken a lot from the *nix community and it would be so petty to drive the market into this type of war.

Ballmer's words remind me of Oracle's CEO (Ellison) a few years back, at every event or launch, instead of telling us how great their software was, he spent most of the time complaining about MS,and yet MS's products were slammin them in the market because they just worked better. If he or his people would have just spent more time making their products 'better' then could of actually been on stage showing us how much better they were, rather than only pitching how awful MS was.

Maybe ol' Steve is a nice guy, but he is just not helping MS. MS needs to put back in power 'idealists' that believe in 'consumers first' thought and not how they can squeeze the extra nickels out of their business models.

Even look at Vista, in a lot of ways it is a revolutionary OS if you look at the intelligence it implements and the architecture, yet marketing and the 'business' people don't get the genius from the development teams, and will have trouble selling it.

This is evident with the marketing and business people creating five freaking versions of Vista for consumers. It creates more confusion and is less profitable and could hurt the 'standard windows' base because of the differences. It would have been better for MS to have just added $20 to the cost and do only one version. In fact the Vista release like XP is in contradiction to the 'design' ideals of the NT group in having a shared code base to 'reduce confusion'. (Of course the code base is still shared, but the confusion is artificially added by the business and marketing people.)

My two cents for today...

Acknowledgments

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 his company agreed to a deal with Microsoft in order not to be sued, but that's not an acknowledgment of patent infringements? You should be glad he's not a president or a foreign affairs minister of some nation...

Read!!

Most folks haven't realized that Novell made a deal to protect MS customers and vice versa...there's no protections implied between the companies with regards to patents, they still can either sue or not sue each other.

And to be honest, to say that Linux does or doesn't infringe on any patents out there is quite naive. It'd be the same to say that Windows doesn't infringe on any patents is equally naive. To be quite fair, there are probably quite a few (300 some odd patents) which could be infringed upon with regards to Linux and Novell has just been forthright enough to try to protect their customers from that concern.

They haven't hurt the community in the process, they haven't unGPL'd anything, etc. They have however, made a deal with the devil, and surprisingly (note the sarcasm), have seen the devil continue on with the FUD which most are falling for.

The truth is MS can't really pursue it without major retaliation and to vilify Novell is nothing but silly and naive...so please read the accurate information before spouting rhethoric and continuing the spread of FUD...you're doing nothing but helping MS with this.

TFL

Too Fucking Late...
and...

Them what lies with dogs, gets fleas...
or do you disagree with that too?

$400M to say we got nuthin.

Microsoft has lawyers. Lots of them. If they have IP that's infringed and they know it, they have to sue to protect it or they lose it by neglect. If they had something, the money would have gone the other way. So, they haven't got cause for a suit or they'd have to sue.

What Microsoft does have is a fat wad of cash. That is exactly what a company like Novell that backdated Waaay too many stock options needs. The bonus is Novell gets $400M to promise to not sue a company they've got no grudge against.

The sad part for us is that Novell must now and forever be a leper. They've done great deeds in the past. There was great hope for their future. They're trying to fight the FUD now but you can't unring the bell. A shame they had to get weak kneed in the end. It's also sad Ballmer gets to say things like "Gee, that's a nice linux webserver you got there. Be a shame if one of our IP lawyers had to have it admitted as evidence." Makes you wonder if he was shaking down kids for their lunch money in school. I hope Novell's development teams have litte trouble finding honest work before the end.

The upshot is that we've got $400,000,000 worth of proof that Microsoft's got nothin. Nothin, that is, except a metric ton of coupons good for one free SLED install they couldn't unload even as wrappers for free ice cream cones. Can you imagine the sales call? "Yeah, I got this coupon for a Linux install we can sell ya, but after five years if you're still running it we have to sue ya. Oh, and our BSA thugs will be around regularly to make sure you don't exceed your linux quota, k?" They'll have to paper the halls of One Microsoft Way with expired coupons. The companies that adopt Linux under Novell's indemnity will discover that Linux is rock solid, swift and sweet. When they realize Microsoft's always had nuthin, they'll migrate painlessly to a distro that's less tainted. Perhaps this is the dirty trick that convinces them to get all the way out of business with these creeps.

I blame Ransom Love for this whole mess, because he killed Unix. Him and all the chowderheads that think this indemnity nonsense has more value than six inches of used dental floss. It's a bad thing to be mugged at the point of a lawyer. It's cowardly to be blackmailed with lawyers that have nothing.

Micro$oft life lessons.

Dear Novell,

Working with Micro$oft life lessons:

1. When you lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
2. When they make the bed, watch for the short-sheet.
3. The words to that song they're humming: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.

We'll talk more later.

That Microsoft icon...

With Gates on the way out, isn't it time to retire the Borg icon? How about an airborne Aeron?

Frim TFA

This agreement is at the heart of what IT users demand -- to deploy both Linux and Windows, and to have them work well together
First off, what is an "IT User"? Is it the IT/SA, or is it the end user?

Customers told us that they wanted Linux and Windows to work together in their data centers
Which customers? Why were they "currently" having this interop problem? They seem to work fine for me. Did MS just recently change something that broke CIFS and LDAP?

but Microsoft asked that we cooperate on patents as well
Asked or insisted? Why didn't you have two seperate agreements. One for the non-existing interop problem and coupons no one asked for, and one for the patent deal that MS asked for so they can screw you later.

some parties have spoken about this patent agreement in a damaging way
Yes, those parties are Novell, and Microsoft. I'v actually found everyone else to be quite reasonable.

We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents
I feel a disturbance in the force, as if a million voices suddenly cried out "WE TOLD YOU SO!!!!!"

Our stance on software patents is unchanged by the agreement with Microsoft.
You havn't really told us your stance yet. You have quite a few software patents, so I guess you're fine with them. You sign cold-war agreements with MS, so you seem to be willing to leverage them. So really, what exactly is your stance?

BBH

Novell is playing with the devil

I admire Novell for disagreeing with Ballmer. They signed with the devil himself in order to collect some money and stay solvent. I'm betting they knew this was coming and that they could defend Linux by disagreeing and not toeing the Microsoft party line.

So they have in effect got a bunch of money from Microsoft and now they're screwing up Microsoft's FUD agenda. Microsoft's FUD here is only effective if Novell plays along and they are not. Interesting outcome - MS ended up financing a linux distributor and their FUD is ineffective. I didn't see this turn of events coming but I like it. You know Ballmer is throwing a few chairs about now.

Here we go again.

And again all the posts that are +5 are those that say the same thing over and over again.

The deal is done. Live with it. At least Novell tries to answer the questions people have. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't. People asked that they wanted the details of the deal, so they gave them. They gave a lot of promises.

The IRC meeting will most likely also just be a lot of copy-cats yelling: Yes, but you signed a deal with M$ and we are so anti-M$ that we don't care about anything else.

So instead of yelling that it is so bad, come up with a realistic alternative what you want and what questions you want answerd. Be at the IRC meeting and/or see that your answers are asked on the site if you can't be there.

It is very much fun to react emotionaly, yet it is only spreading the FUD further, no matter who started that FUD.

The useal links:
http://lists.opensuse.org/archive/opensuse-announc e/2006-11/msg00004.html [opensuse.org]
http://dev-loki.blogspot.com/2006/11/call-to-dump- suse-linux-wtf.html [blogspot.com]
http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS4287912423.html [linux-watch.com]
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2168151/novells- opens-microsoft [vnunet.com]
http://en.opensuse.org/Meetings/Status_Meeting_200 6-11-08/transcript#The_Novell.2F_Microsoft_deal [opensuse.org]

Microsoft's IP in Linux?

Here is my conspiracy theory....

Novell, who made it a point to clearly prove that they still owned UNIX (part of the whole SCO thingie) has sold the alleged IP to Microsoft with a clause that Microsoft can't sue Novell or their customers about it.

So, in short.... maybe it is SCO all over again...

OTOH... maybe it's Novell pulling a prank on our favorite jokesters in Redmond... selling the alleged IP because MS wants it, but being fully aware that said IP is not in Linux.... In turn, now that the IP was sold to Microsoft for some other product that Novell still owns, they now had to pay a license fee for the IP to Microsoft... it all gets twisted together all over the place, but it might make sense.

MS: Do you have the code SCO was suing about
Novell: Yes
MS: How much you want for that?
Novell: We can't sell it...we still use it in other products
MS: We'll buy it, and promise not to sue you for using it.
Novell: OK, but we need big bucks.
MS: Yay... now we can sue Linux users

(MS Departs and heads back to their corner in hell)

Novell: (joking amongst themselves) Ha ha, that code isn't even in Linux, so even if they do sue about it, it's no problem.

As long as

As long as we're talking about the topic of "Linux infringing on MS Intellectual property" we're on the right track. Loaded question, loaded topic, like "when did you stop beating your wife" implying many things. No matter how you argue, or what answer you give, you accept the premise of having beaten your wife.

Too little to late

"We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents...Our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property," Hovsepian said in the letter.

Instead of hiding this announcement on a web site, call a press conference and state that Microsoft is full of shit. Ballmer shows he has balls in going public with his retarded rants. Why doesn't Novell come out publicly and make sure everyone knows the truth?

From a pissed off ex-SuSE user.
Enjoy,

No better than Cuban et al

What needs to be understood is that this is Microsoft's - and especially Steve Ballmer's MO. Not much different than that infernal Mark Cuban. They spout off in the press and the moronic masses believe them - why? Well because they are who they are and no other reason. No proof, nothing to backup a claim, just lay down your crap and walk away to let it stir.

That is all Ballmer is doing here, no more, no less. He's trying to lay the groundwork for doubt in Novell's motivations to sign up, thinking everyone will just go along with him because, well he is who he is and most folks have no clue about anything in this arena.

K.

Sun and other companies do the same dance with MS

I'm crossposting this from my comment at Groklaw.

Sun Microsystems did exactly the same thing in 2004, except it took a lawsuit to get the settlement out of Microsoft.

Under the 10-year pact with Microsoft, the software company will pay Sun $700 million to resolve antitrust issues and $900 million to resolve patent issues, the companies said. The companies will pay royalties to use each other's technology; Microsoft is paying $350 million now, with Sun to make payments when it incorporates technology later.

FromSun settles with Microsoft, announces layoffs [groklaw.net]

Note especially this bit in the linked article which sounds quite a bit like the original press release: The goal of the technical collaboration between Sun and Microsoft is to improve interoperability between the companies' respective products, according to Sun.

I think it is tremendously inconsistent to be pounding Novell for this agreement and not pound Sun or any of the other many companies that have do-not-sue covenenants over patents. The only difference as far as I can tell between this most recent deal between Novell and Microsoft is the extension to end users.

The most likely scenario is that Novell is sitting on software patents (my guess is that it has something to do with Active Directory) and floated a feeler into Microsoft that they were considering a lawsuit. In return, I'm guessing that Microsoft offered to settle right up front rather than go through yet another lawsuit. On the agreement itself, there is probably a meeting of the minds. The only disagreement comes from the spin. Microsoft likes to construct deals so that they can put a their own unique spin. Like when they settled with Apple quite some time ago, instead of a simple cash payment, Microsoft bought 150M of non-voting Apple stock. On its balance sheet, Microsoft lost no money on this settlement so that they could spin to investors that they lost nothing. They're doing the same thing here by requiring that Novell return the licensing deal.

All the people out there taking a hard line against Novell ought to be taking the same hard line against Sun, IBM and Apple (just to name a few of the companies that have similar deals with Microsoft).

The Real Reason?

I'm thinking the real reasons for all of this are in two sentences in the open letter:

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.

and

We have stated our commitment to use our own software patents to protect open source technologies.

Microsoft knows that they have infringed on Novell's patents, and, if they were to launch a patent attack on Linux, Novell would defend. Now, Novell can't. Microsoft's disarmed one of the big guns Linux has against a patent war. Watch for them to cozy up to IBM next.

Legal PR

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. 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.

Statements of "intent" in an open letter to a "community" (AKA a "Press Release" or "PR") have no legally binding weight. "Intent" cannot be proven, or more importantly, disproven. And that's human intent - corporate "intent" doesn't even exist in theory, except as a fallacious figure of speech.

Novell has a significant patent portfolio, and in reflection of this fact, the agreement we signed shows the overwhelming balance of payments being from Microsoft to Novell.

Since our announcement, some parties have spoken about this patent agreement in a damaging way, and with a perspective that we do not share. We strongly challenge those statements here.

If the agreement doesn't explicitly state the itemized valuation of the patents vs other business engaged under the agreement, then that claimed "reflection" has absolutely no legally binding reality. Maybe Microsoft just paid way too little for a great deal on Novell patents, and quite a lot more for Novell's cooperation with the overall strategy based on the agreement. Which would let Microsoft spare Novell (and its customers) when MS sues Linux developers, distributors and users for violating patents itemized in the agreement, which covers only MS and Novell. Driving most Linux business to Novell, but at a risk that Novell will alienate customers and generate countersuits, perhaps from large companies, including competitors like IBM, with its own army of lawyers and arsenal of actionable patents. If I were Novell, I'd demand a big payoff from MS to ensure my risk costs were covered. Even if a successful strategy would hand me nearly the entire Linux market. Because I'd next have to face the costs of being the sole remaining Linux competitor to Microsoft, which would have its own Linux to "embrace and extend".

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.

Our stance on software patents is unchanged by the agreement with Microsoft. We want to remind the community of Novell's commitment to, and prior actions in support of, furthering the interests of Linux and open source, and creating an environment of free and open innovation. We have a strong patent portfolio and we have leveraged that portfolio for the benefit of the open source community. Specifically, we have taken the following actions:

* We have stated our commitment to use our own software patents to protect open source technologies. more +
* We have spoken out against EU legislation that would liberalize the standards for granting software patents. more +
* We offer indemnification to our Linux customers accused of intellectual property infringement. more +

These statements mean nothing legally binding. They're PR. Maybe they're true. Maybe Novell's current execs expect to get money from Microsoft just because MS will now operate under a license without violating Novell's patents. And don't expect to cooperate with any of Microsoft's usual "embrace, extend, exterminate" strategies. But those plans can change. Those execs chan change, or change their minds, especially if MS pulls out other pressure. And maybe they're jus

On the "Community"

The single most important thing that needs to be clarified here I think is that the element of Linux's userbase which refers to itself as the "Community," (uttering the word with a hoarse, high-pitched shriek is necessary to approximate the word's usage when used by members of said group) are exactly that demographic which Novell (and anyone else sane, for that matter) are least likely to want to have anything to do with.

I've known numerous people who use Linux and work on Linux related projects in any entirely peaceful and positive manner, who did not identify themselves as members of the famous "Community" at all, and who if asked, generally quietly confessed to feeling as much revulsion for it as I myself do.

Let us also be clear on exactly what this "Community" is:- It's a cult, and it's also generally the first thing any of Linux's detractors draw attention to...because they well know that there in fact *is* a genuine problem here. Before one of the very lemmings that I'm actually talking about here pipes up and accuses me of being "disingenuous," as they have in the past, I would also encourage them to go and study the definition of the word cult. I know what it means...When you do, if you're honest, you'll see some parallels. The attitude exhibited by the Debian project in relation to the Iceweasel flap, as one example, can entirely without hyperbole be described as cultic.

Another area where Novell require education is that they seem to be labouring under the genuinely tragic misconception that the "Community" consists of people remotely interested in any form of diplomacy.

They are not. If there is one thing Richard Stallman has taught this group well, it is simply to make demands of anyone they see fit, and then expect that they will be fulfilled to the letter, without being willing to compromise on even minor points. Stallman and the proponents of this kind of radical inflexibility seem to believe that it is the product of superior moral integrity; it is not. It is a documented symptom of the particular neurological affliction known to science as autism, which Stallman has himself admitted that he most likely suffers from. Diplomacy itself is also an art form which was developed and is practiced exclusively among the neurotypical population; Autistic individuals have consistently shown that they are utterly devoid of capacity for it.

That, then, is my central assertion here...that in the context of Linux, the word "community" does not refer to anything which is redeemable or desirable in any way, but instead refers simply to an aggressive, self-righteous, Marxist, radical group of chronically autistic cultists, who have come to believe that they can force the entirety of the rest of humanity to conform with all of their demands, as long as said demands are repeated with sufficient persistence and volume. If Novell believes that with such a group there can be anything remotely approaching sane, rational dialogue, I fear that they are in for an unpleasant awakening.

The Open Invention Network

In 2005, we co-founded Open Invention Network ("OIN"), "an intellectual property company that was formed to promote Linux by using patents to create a collaborative environment." Novell's substantial contributions to OIN were made to benefit not only ourselves, but also other Linux vendors, distributors and developers, and anyone else willing to commit not to assert their patents against Linux.

Really, the importance of OIN cannot be overstated. Together with other initiatives like the Graphical Landscape Open Invention Network ("GLOIN") and the Desktop Windowing Architecture Language Implementation Network ("DWALIN") it is one of the most important contributions to practical system interoperability today. Others, like the Open Retrostructuring Initiative ("ORI"), the New Open Retrostructuring Initiative ("NORI") are considered less influential, mainly due to the constant need for further revisions - but these led to the Definitive Open Retrostructuring Initiative ("DORI"), which was much more successful. Their file standardization efforts, the Basic Office File Utilization Recommendations ("BOFUR") and Basic Infrastructure File Update Initiative ("BIFUR") have made many strides (although small ones, some would say) toward greater interoperability. Likewise, the Free Information Layer Initiative ("FILI"), which outlined mechanisms for accessing metadata in different file types, went largely unnoticed until it was adopted by KDE with the KDE Information Layer Implementation ("KILI"). Novell's efforts with the Border Access Layer for Interprocess Networking ("BALIN") and Border Object Marshalling Bidirectional Update and Recovery system ("BOMBUR") held great promise in terms of the ability for different systems to interoperate over networks, even with different applications communicating through their interprocess communication interfaces. Their research work in Textual Heuristic-Operated Redundant Information Networks ("THORIN") was perhaps the most ambitious and successful project in its early phases, though unfortunately the project was killed before it could achieve widespread acceptance.

Microsoft's contribution to all of these is the Boldly Innovative Litigation Braintrust Organization ("BILBO") - but some say that it's a trap, and that Microsoft's efforts here are essentially painting them as thieves. But even those who are less hostile toward Microsoft generally agree that it's a very small effort without much promise.

Microsoft is two faced?

No! You think?

You'd also think that Balmer would have more sense than announce his strategy to get ONE linux provider on board with false promises and immediately go on the attack with all of the other linux providers.

You'd be wrong.

The , uh, agreement. (bargain with Satan?) might have been for one thing but Balmer didn't even read it. It didn't matter to him anyway.

He figures he'll find co-mingled code if he's got to get his M$ minions to do it for him. And then he'll sue all of the providers and keep them tied up in court and away from the keyboard for years.

Why Novell/SuSE Linux? (Volkerdink wouldn't be much of a victory, now would it?) They're closely affiliated with IBM and if he can keep Novell/SuSE and IBM tied up (why else the original support for SCO?) long enough, they'll lose (lose in court or lose interest, it doesn't matter. As long as they lose...)

We should sue Microsoft

For stealing every idea they see as a threat :

All the way, down to things stolen lots of years ago like the mouse idea which was stolen from xerox, Copying Linux/Mac styles+ideas in every O.S.
I think in the after Vista OS they will came to think that the SHELL of linux is actually cool, so they will make a shell of their own (not like cmd, something which is actually useful).
I'm just hoping Google will release their Linux based O.S A.S.A.P to shut Balmar's mouse or mouth, it depends who you ask.

Next step ...

SuSE ---===> MS-Linux?

Re:Balmer beat it and eat it, Al Gore invented IP

Next thing you know M$ will claim it invented and owns rights to all dookie.

I can see it now... in an Invader Zim-esque outburst:

"From this night on the name of Ballmer will forever be synonymous with dookie!!!! Bwaaaahahahahaahaaaa".

Re:Suse no more

If-you were-a sysadmin-at a-large university, I would think that your grammar would be a lot better, and that your reasoning for dumping SuSE for another solution would be more sound than basing it on some of the FUD spewing from Bald^Hlmer's mouth. Also, you would not even remotely consider NOT accepting security patches in the interim.

What is your migration path? What assurance do you have that Microsoft won't sue you because applications you choose contain patent-infringing toolbars or support double-clicking or triple-clicking objects? The hyperlink was recently patented, despite almost 70 years worth of prior art (far longer if you include tables of contents, footnotes, and indexes in paper books). There is NO avoiding patent infringement, and as the customer, NOT the producer, there is an infinitesimal chance that the university.

In short, I call bullshit. You do not work at a university. You are at the very best, a freshman in college, but far more likely a pimple-faced high school student coming here just to troll.

Let's correct your post:

s/I run a large academic server with Suse Linux./I have a spyware-ridden pirated Windows XP box in my dorm and I know nothing about Linux/

I corrected your typo. Such typos are understandable on such a site as this.

You see, a real administrator would have a more sound reason to dump platforms based on a) a press release followed by b) a balding madman's rant, and not only that, that administrator would not be making a unilateral decision, but would be working with other departments to carefully evaluate user needs to determine the best possible migration path.

Re:Boycott the Xbox 360

Nonono, they lose money on each one sold. Let's buy them out, then install Debian on them. Redistribute them as OSS PVRs. We could do it with the XBox, the 360 is only a matter of time.

Re:Ok... Until now there isn't Patents Violation

Ever since Goethe wrote Fauste we have known it was fiction. Why should we see Novell's spin on this deal with the devil any differently. I for one will, from this point forward, look at Novell as the company playing with Mephistopheles.

Re:Suse no more

I run a large academic server with Suse Linux.
We will not re-new the license. We will not
accept any updates from Novell/Suse as they
are, in our opinion, contaminated with M$ code
and are trojans for the Gate's monopoly.

Firstly, that's a lousy fucking poem. It doesn't even rhyme.

Secondly, what do you mean by a "large academic server"? Is it
a) A box which serves large academics.
b) A large box which serves normal sized academics.
c) Something you made up to make you sound like a sysadmin when you are in fact a 14 year old virgin whose systems experience extends to both XBox and PS2.

Re:...Waiting for the other shoe to drop

I waiting for the final announcement from the Samba team for Novell to pull Samba from Suse. No my guess is that the Samba guys will just license it under GPLv3 soon as its out. Then no more legal patches or updates for Novell.

Re:Suse no more

We will not accept any updates from Novell/Suse as they are, in our opinion, contaminated with M$ code and are trojans for the Gate's monopoly.

Uh, the source is right there for you to look at (OpenSuSE [opensuse.org]). Download OpenSuSE and show me anything that even looks like infringing code, will you?

The squirming note from their CEO: come-on guys trust us! doesn't pass the sniff test.

What have you been sniffing lately? Looked like a straightforward proposition to me - one which benefits both Microsoft and Novell; but I see no real direct impact on OpenSuSE's quality - either it grows to keep pace with other Linux distributions or not. Talk to me when Novell actually does something evil, will you?

They knew what they were doing, why they were doing it and had a long time to decide whether to do it.

As opposed to your "large academic server's" users, who will log in one day to find that their sysadmin has changed their system without any design, testing, software migration or other considerations first. If you are a Computer Science major, please change majors now - I recommend Business Management, or perhaps Art?