Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Novell Responds To Microsoft's IP Claims

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Mon Nov 20, 2006 10:38 PM
from the just-can't-help-themselves dept.
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.'"

Related Stories

[+] Ballmer Says Linux "Infringes Our Intellectual Property" 820 comments
Stony Stevenson writes "In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property." From the ComputerWorld article: "In a question-and-answer session after his keynote speech at the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) conference in Seattle, Ballmer said Microsoft was motivated to sign a deal with SUSE Linux distributor Novell earlier this month because Linux 'uses our intellectual property' and Microsoft wanted to 'get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation.'" His exact wording is available at the Seattle Intelligencer, which has a transcript of the interview. Groklaw had an article up Wednesday giving some perspective on the Novell/Microsoft deal. Guess we'll have something to talk about in 2007, huh?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • trouble ahead?, trouble behind. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by yagu (721525) * <yayagu AT gmail DOT com> on Monday November 20 2006, @10:40PM (#16924876)
    (Last Journal: Wednesday August 15, @03:36PM)

    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.

  • 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.
  • Deal Novell Out (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) on Monday November 20 2006, @10:43PM (#16924906)
    (http://www.nojailforpot.com/)
    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 by Josh Lindenmuth (Score:1) Monday November 20 2006, @10:56PM
      • That's bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday November 20 2006, @11:07PM (#16925122)
        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.
        [ Parent ]
        • Re:That's bullshit. by SpaceLifeForm (Score:2) Monday November 20 2006, @11:42PM
        • Re:That's bullshit. by Daltorak (Score:2) Monday November 20 2006, @11:45PM
          • Let me get this straight. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:01AM (#16925456)
            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.
            [ Parent ]
          • Is there a legally binding agreement not to sue if by HiThere (Score:3) Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:07AM
          • Re:That's bullshit. by The Faywood Assassin (Score:1) Tuesday November 21 2006, @10:26AM
          • Re:That's bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)

            by belmolis (702863) <billposerNO@SPAMalum.mit.edu> on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:49AM (#16925812)
            (http://billposer.org/)
            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.

            [ Parent ]
          • Re:That's bullshit. by Chemicalscum (Score:3) Tuesday November 21 2006, @08:18AM
          • Re:That's bullshit. by RedHat Rocky (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @10:22AM
          • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
        • Re:That's bullshit. by RAMMS+EIN (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:12AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:Deal Novell Out by jedidiah (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @10:36AM
    • Re:Deal Novell Out by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday November 20 2006, @10:57PM
    • Re:Deal Novell Out (Score:5, Insightful)

      by strider44 (650833) on Monday November 20 2006, @11:07PM (#16925116)
      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.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Deal Novell Out by hawkbug (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:47AM
        • Re:Deal Novell Out by strider44 (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @02:23AM
        • Re:Deal Novell Out (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:38AM (#16927836)
          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.

          [ Parent ]
      • Re:Deal Novell Out by jrumney (Score:3) Tuesday November 21 2006, @05:35AM
    • Novell sleep with dogs, and picks up fleas by walterbyrd (Score:2) Monday November 20 2006, @11:13PM
    • Re:Deal Novell Out by no-body (Score:2) Monday November 20 2006, @11:39PM
      • Re:Deal Novell Out by james b (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:03AM
        • Re:Deal Novell Out (Score:5, Informative)

          by spisska (796395) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:45AM (#16925770)
          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

          [ Parent ]
        • Re:Deal Novell Out by no-body (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:12AM
      • Re:Deal Novell Out by mattpalmer1086 (Score:1) Tuesday November 21 2006, @09:30AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Hmm... (Score:2)

    by cultrhetor (961872) on Monday November 20 2006, @10:43PM (#16924908)
    (Last Journal: Monday October 23 2006, @01:43PM)
    Who notices a typical CYA mentality here? Have the cake and eat it, too?
  • Give Novell a Break (Score:2, Insightful)

    by roberthudock (1023421) on Monday November 20 2006, @10:44PM (#16924920)
    (http://www.ebglaw.com/)
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by pembo13 (770295) on Monday November 20 2006, @10:53PM (#16925002)
      (http://www.pembo13.com/)
      If some highly infectious disease infects your leg, I'm pretty sure the doctors will advise you to amputate it.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:Give Novell a Break by EvanED (Score:2) Monday November 20 2006, @11:16PM
        • Re:Give Novell a Break (Score:4, Funny)

          by civilizedINTENSITY (45686) on Monday November 20 2006, @11:36PM (#16925302)
          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.
          [ Parent ]
          • STD-riddled whores? by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Tuesday November 21 2006, @02:42AM
          • STDs by Jaxoreth (Score:1) Tuesday November 21 2006, @03:14AM
        • Re:Give Novell a Break by SpaceLifeForm (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:00AM
        • Re:Give Novell a Break by mrchaotica (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @03:21AM
    • Re:Give Novell a Break (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cryptoluddite (658517) on Monday November 20 2006, @11:01PM (#16925054)
      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.
      [ Parent ]
    • What "right direction" is that? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday November 20 2006, @11:01PM (#16925056)
      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"?
      [ Parent ]
    • Nope, you are 100% wrong by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Monday November 20 2006, @11:03PM
    • Re:Give Novell a Downgrade, like Credit Suisse by Freed (Score:1) Tuesday November 21 2006, @01:37AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • What the fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Monday November 20 2006, @10:44PM (#16924928)
    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... (Score:5, Funny)

    by strider44 (650833) on Monday November 20 2006, @10:46PM (#16924938)
    Microsoft just wasted a few hundred million dollars? Congrats to Novell...
  • fine print and silver (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phrostie (121428) on Monday November 20 2006, @10:50PM (#16924978)
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by myowntrueself (607117) on Monday November 20 2006, @11:19PM (#16925200)
      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...
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:fine print and silver by Ambush (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:20AM
    • Re:fine print and silver by sanguinemoon (Score:1) Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:32AM
  • Agree and Disagree? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pembo13 (770295) on Monday November 20 2006, @10:51PM (#16924984)
    (http://www.pembo13.com/)
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Augusto (12068) on Monday November 20 2006, @10:52PM (#16924996)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    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.
    • Re:Empty words by SpaceLifeForm (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @12:07AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Encouraged... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TropicalCoder (898500) on Monday November 20 2006, @10:59PM (#16925050)
    (http://www.tropicalcoder.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday July 25, @02:09PM)
    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.
  • by samrolken (246301) <samrolken@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday November 20 2006, @11:01PM (#16925060)
    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 ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Augusto (12068) on Monday November 20 2006, @11:01PM (#16925062)
    (http://slashdot.org/)
    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 (Score:5, Insightful)

    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 (Score:5, Informative)

    by astrashe (7452) on Monday November 20 2006, @11:06PM (#16925100)
    (Last Journal: Friday March 26 2004, @04:22PM)
    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 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by foreverdisillusioned (763799) on Tuesday November 21 2006, @03:06AM (#16927106)
      (Last Journal: Thursday November 10 2005, @01:30AM)
      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.
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:question about the threat by RAMMS+EIN (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @04:21AM
    • Re:question about the threat by AaronW (Score:2) Tuesday November 21 2006, @11:40AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Freed (2178) on Monday November 20 2006, @11:09PM (#16925130)
    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? (Score:2, Informative)

    by op3r (940060) on Monday November 20 2006, @11:09PM (#16925132)
    (http://www.op3r.com/)
    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 o