Novell Offers Linux Users Legal Indemnity 271
Anonymous Coward writes "Novell today said it intends to indemnify its enterprise Linux users against possible legal action by The SCO Group and/or others. According to eWeek Novell's new Linux Indemnification Program is designed to provide its SUSE Enterprise Linux customers with protection against intellectual-property challenges to Linux and to help reduce the barriers to Linux adoption in the enterprise.
Under the terms of the program, Novell will offer indemnification for copyright infringement claims made by third parties against registered Novell customers who obtain SUSE Enterprise Linux 8 after January 13, 2004, upgrade protection and a qualifying technical support contract from Novell or a Novell channel partner."
it looks like they're only looking for sales (Score:5, Insightful)
they're just trying to make a sale. It would be better if they offered this protection to all of their customers, rather than forcing companies to buy an 'upgrade', that will most likely prove worthless anyhow,
Re:Okay, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This move deprives SCO of its *only* positive cashflow.
In other words... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure why not. What SCO's chances of winning past IBM, Redhat and the rest to actually sue a SUSE user? Isn't think like selling "The Moon landing on your head" insurance?
it seems (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, these companies get free good publicity.
Re:Just asking (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, it refutes some of them.
SCO has said "if you're so sure your code doesn't infringe on our IP, why aren't you indemnifying customers?" Novell is now doing just that and, in a way, standing up for the community as well as saying "nanny nanny boo boo" to SCO.
Re:it looks like they're only looking for sales (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO Terrorist Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
While it seems that Novell is feeding the fear of users, they're really not. It simply says that Novell is willing to spend big $$$ in legal fees to fend off SCO just as IBM is. However, they are doing this volentarily in order to make extra sales. This helps Linux/open source. Notice that they are not charging extra ($600) for this service.
Think of SCO as the terrorists of Linux. Novell is offering protection, just as if some airline started carrying on board guards. Whether or not you think it's useful, its there for those companies who are not buying into Linux because of SCO's allegations.
Business move... (Score:3, Insightful)
People might see that Novell have been part of unix development, add that to the current copyright dispute with SCO and that Novell do have some rights. This could swing it for those companies wanting to use linux but dont want the risk. They might go with suse now, get some legal protection and have the perception that novell knows SCO's claims are utter BS and have now covered you from any lawsuit SCO may or may not file.
Just a thought.
Re:ARGGHHH... (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you think a guy who's title is 'Vendor Risk Manager' is going to tell his boss to buy -LINUX- right now, with all the conflicting press?
This way Novell makes a buck, and the PHBs can 'safely' deploy. Everybody wins. We even get greater circulation of OUR product in the end!
Re:does it seem like.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Novell wins either way (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In other words... (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny. I read it exactly the other way around. The way it looks to me is Novell is saying, "Don't worry about it. If you got your Linux from us, we got you covered like a jimmy-hat."
I'd like it more if Novell said, "NOT ON MY WATCH!" but I'll take this.
Re:Looks like (Score:2, Insightful)
Novell has a different agenda. It appears to me they are simply trying to buy support contracts.
I am reminded of the story of Brer Rabbit (SCO) and Brer Fox (Novell).
"Drown me just as deep as you please, Brer Fox," says Brer Rabbit, says he, "But please do not fling me in that briar patch, " says he.
Lesser of two evils... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Novell wins either way (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you people happy with nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can only speak for my large enterprise (Fortune 50, 70,000+ employees, billons of US$ in revenue, etc.), but our biggest obstacle to buying Linux was our legal department, demanding "I can get indemnity from everyone else, why can't someone offer me indemntiy for Linux?"
Large organizations (particularly ones that have large sums of other people's money to protect) only have one issue here - it's not open source politics, it's not SCO's pump and dump, and it's not who's right or wrong - it's risk mitigation. It's a question of how much money are we going to lose if SCO is right, and who is going to protect us from this?
I, for one, am glad to see Novell offering the opportunity for real Linux indemnity - goodness knows, I've asked everyone in the industry for it.
Re:does it seem like.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, where do people think companies are going to make money? Everyone says "support contracts" but then when a company tries to sell them, people claim they are no better then Microsoft.
Why would Novell protect someone that does not purchase their support? I think it's a pretty good idea, good business practice, and throws this back in the face of SCO.
A less cynical response... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ARGGHHH... (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO sues some Linux user over alleged SCO Unix IP? Novell exercises its right to waive SCO's action, as per the purchase agreement that bought whatever feeble Unix rights SCO has from Novell in the first place.
Novell also has the right to license Unix to its own customers, again voiding any attempted SCO suit.
Re:Are you people happy with nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen the inside of a fair number of discussions on whether and to what extent to provide indemnification in contract, and the calculus is pretty damn simple.
1) How much are we making on this deal/this product?
2) How big would the exposure be (including legal fees, etc.) if we provided x kind of indemnity? (There are a LOT of different ways to structure indemnification provisions, and I don't know what Novell has in mind.)
3) What is the likelihood that we'll have to pay out?
If revenue is less than risk magnitude multiplied by exposure estimate, you don't indemnify unless you're willing to play craps with the future of your company. Period. Punto. End of story.
Now, Novell is saying it will indemnify people on a PROSPECTIVE BASIS if those people contribute to Novell's revenue stream. This is a pretty reasonable bargain. I don't think there's a CFO or institutional investor alive who would agree to let their company go BACK to the customer base and add risk to the company's profile when all of the pricing to those customers was calculated using a lower risk profile.
In other words, there's no such thing as a free lunch.
------
HEY.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Didn't SCO get a court order to.... (Score:3, Insightful)
They can try. And file enough forms and petitions and posture alot, which doesn't help the court case, but it does wonders for the stock price. They can get lawyers much smarter than you and I to fill 400 miles of paperwork, make different claims in public than you do in your court papers, and if the geeks can see through it, fine. As long as the suits can't, you might collect a bit of cash as you are burning the bridge behind you.
You might even get someone to buy you (just to shut you up) or sell some stock when the price jumps over the FUD you are spewing. Either way, you make more money that if you just quietly die as a company. As long as there is plausible deniability for whomever the puppet master is, its the most profitable way to go out of business, it would appear.
Its kinda like a pet store having a going out of business sale where they tell you that if you don't buy the puppy, they are going to shoot it with a gun. Yea, its shitty, but you buy the puppy because if they are crazy enough to say that, they may be crazy enough to do it.
And they reach their goal, selling all the puppies.
Nope (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:does it seem like.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Novell, I'd think better of you if you didn't. (Score:3, Insightful)
Novell can say over and over and over again in excruciating detail why they think that SCO is full of it, but unless and until they put their money on the line and actually stand up to take some risk with their customers, no-one will really believe them.
-----
Re:It sure as hell wan't based on VMS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:HEY.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are you people happy with nothing? (Score:1, Insightful)
Novel isn't hurting us (Score:3, Insightful)
The first group of companies doesn't give a damn about Novell's indemnification, and will happily use whatever Linux distro they want.
The second group of companies has been avoiding Linux because they're unsure. As it happens, they're probably just uninformed, but Novell will happily take their money and welcome them to the Linux fold. That means more Linux users, which is probably a good thing.
No cost to Novell for indemnity (Score:3, Insightful)
Extremely shrewd move (Score:3, Insightful)
My thoughts, for what they are worth:
There really isn't any need for indemnity, because as people have pointed out, there really isn't any need to do so. The best SCO could hope for if they brought an action against an end user, is to prevent them from stopping using linux. After all, the end user isn't the person responsible for the infringement, and SCO is unlikely to recover any costs at all from end users.
So why is it that SCO keep on demanding indemnification? Because rather than going after end users, it allows them to put pressure on IBM. If IBM indemnifies, SCO is then able to go after all of IBM's customers, safe in the knowledge that the only people who will be stumping up are IBM. They don't alienate the customers, they simply present IBM with a bill for every one of their end users who happen to be using Linux. Even if they don't believe they can win, the costs alone inherent in such a stream of lawsuits have got to be a serious pain in the arse for IBM, and I think SCO's insistance that IBM should offer this indemnification is nothing more than an attempt to goad them into taking a strategically poor position which they'll later exploit -- thereby putting more pressure on Big Blue to settle.
Now given that IBM don't actually have their own distro, it makes no sense whatsoever for IBM to offer indemnification. However, IBM will now be able to recommend Suse/Novell to those customers who have anxieties about this issue, and they've got their indemnification.
And should SCO actually try and bring an action against Suse end users, Novell can then turn around and say in court, 'What the fuck are you crackheads talking about? We own this technology. We simply sold you the rights to license it to others. The copyrights are all ours.'
Novell wins by increasing sales to those who want indemnification at little risk. IBM wins, because they can now offer customers a distro that has indemnification. SCO's evil plan fails dismally as shrewder players manage this crafty end run around their nefarious scheme.
I think everyone missed the point here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are you people happy with nothing? (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, however, it's genuinely needed.
We, the Slashdot-reading public, know that SCO is blowing smoke, and that their claims are baseless. The problem, however, isn't the techies. It isn't even Joe Average-User. It's Joe Management. They probably don't know that everything is fine. All they'll see is "SCO goes after Linux" and they'll wonder if it's safe to go for. And probably go for something else. With Novell giving this indemnity, it's not only showing Novell's confidence in SCO blowing smoke, it's them showing they're willing to put their money on the line in case the midden hits the mill.
And the main issue?
It's beyond truth and lies now. It's down to reputation - and big companies stepping up helps. And it's down to the courts.
It doesn't matter who's right or wrong any more. It's down to the lawyers, and the court, and about who puts forward the best argument.
My money's against SCO on that. And Novell have joined in to (literally) say that their's is too.
This could make all the difference between management taking a risk with Linux, or sticking with Windows.
Tiggs