Ballmer Invites Patent Talks with Competing Linux Vendors

[plb]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2050848,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616

[Spif]

As far as I know, Linux doesn't violate any of Microsoft's patents.

If the EU ever adopts that aweful patent system, I'm moving to Norway...

[OffHand]

A few nasty quotes from good ol' steve... I hate that dude and I hate MS.

The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. "If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes," Ballmer said.

"I suspect that [customers] will take that issue up with their distributor," Ballmer said. Or if customers are considering doing a direct download of a non-SUSE Linux version, "they'll think twice about that," he said.

Competing Linux vendors "are certainly welcome to get involved to quickly provide these covenants not to sue," he said. These vendors have other incentives besides pressure from their customers and the worry about legal action, Ballmer noted.

[MetalMusicAddict]

As far as I know, Linux doesn't violate any of Microsoft's patents.

If the EU ever adopts that aweful patent system, I'm moving to Norway...

Look HERE (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1630082,00.asp).

[Spif]

I simply don't get why Balmer is still CEO of MS. Can anyone mentioned another president of a huge company that get away with continually lying to customers?

Hate is too strong a word for me to describe my feelings towards Balmer, but I certainly don't like him at all...

Look HERE (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1630082,00.asp).

More proof that the patent system could have been designed better by brain dead monkeys. It doesn't make sense you can have patents that won't work in a court. That is just such a waste of time and money...

[aysiu]

Moved to Windows talk.

[OffHand]

Moved to Windows talk.aysiu, I think you moved it to the wrong forum. We are not talking about windows here (although it involves windows/ms)

[blastus]

The distributors of other versions of Linux cannot assure their customers that Microsoft won't sue for patent infringement. "If a customer says, 'Look, do we have liability for the use of your patented work?' Essentially, If you're using non-SUSE Linux, then I'd say the answer is yes," Ballmer said...Competing Linux vendors "are certainly welcome to get involved to quickly provide these covenants not to sue," he said. These vendors have other incentives besides pressure from their customers and the worry about legal action, Ballmer noted.


This would be tolerable except for the fact that it sounds more like an empty threat from a school kid bully and a bribe for protection from the bully to go along with it. I think patent infringement lawsuits against Linux was proven ineffective by SCO.

One of the key goals of the collaboration effort is to build file format conversion technology that will provide greater interoperability between the OpenDocument and Open XML file formats. Novell and Microsoft are not trying to develop a file format that is optimized to work only with a particular version of Open Office, Ballmer said.

I really get tired of this kind of double speak. OpenDocument is not a file format optimized for OpenOffice.org, nor is it only for OpenOffice.org. However, the MS Office XML file format is obviously a format optimized to work only with Microsoft Office and its license proves it.

Both Ballmer and Hovsepian stressed that the signing of the collaboration agreement won't reduce the competition between Microsoft and Novell or between the Windows and the Linux development communities.

Ballmer said developing greater interoperability between Windows and SUSE Linux will actually increase the intensity of competition because it will make it easier for Microsoft to sell its technology into enterprise data centers with a mix of Linux and Windows server technology.

So competition will increase (against Windows) because it will be easier for Microsoft to market its technology in certain areas? If anything, competition will increase against SUSE Linux because it will be easier for Microsoft market its technology.

Microsoft has joined into this Windows-Linux collaboration projects because "customers want it" and because "if we're interoperable we are going to take more business from Linux," he said.

Novell is cooperating for exactly the same reasons, Hovsepian said.

Finally, a somewhat honest statement from Ballmer if by some chance his definition of "interoperable" truely means two-way interoperability not just from Linux to Windows.

[skirkpatrick]

Microsoft has joined into this Windows-Linux collaboration projects because "customers want it" and because "if we're interoperable we are going to take more business from Linux," he said.

Novell is cooperating for exactly the same reasons, Hovsepian said.

So, if I read this correctly, Hovsepian is saying that Novell is cooperating so that Microsoft can take more business from Linux?

[nalmeth]

Wow, all of this leaves a funny taste in the mouth.
And it smells too. It's like a truckload of dead fish is trailing these events

Can anyone explain why Novell customers aren't at risk with this deal, but Ubuntu/Red Hat users are (yeah right). The licensing is the same. How do they discriminate users that are using a lot of the same software under the same license?

[K.Mandla]

And it smells too. It's like a truckload of dead fish is trailing these events
+1. I don't trust that guy for a second.

[FineE]

The GPL can come back and bite Microsoft hard.

What is to stop someone from purchasing one copy of SUSE Enterprise Server. Paying for it including the royalty to Microsoft. Then obtain all the source code from Novell for all GPL and LGPL parts of SUSE Enterprise Server. This is the purchasers right under the terms of the license. Now contribute all the Microsoft indemnified source code back to all the original projects, also allowed under the GPL and LGPL. It seems to me that in a very short time all GPL and LGPL code in SUSE Enterprise Server is indemnified by Microsoft regardless of who distributes it.

Even better don't get the product directly from Novell but get it from Microsoft by using one of the coupons they purchased from Novell.

[kripkenstein]

The GPL can come back and bite Microsoft hard.

What is to stop someone from purchasing one copy of SUSE Enterprise Server. Paying for it including the royalty to Microsoft. Then obtain all the source code from Novell for all GPL and LGPL parts of SUSE Enterprise Server. This is the purchasers right under the terms of the license. Now contribute all the Microsoft indemnified source code back to all the original projects, also allowed under the GPL and LGPL. It seems to me that in a very short time all GPL and LGPL code in SUSE Enterprise Server is indemnified by Microsoft regardless of who distributes it.

This is the tricky part of the agreement. You're right that if Novell have a patent license from MS, then according to the GPL that license will be transfered when you take that code from Novell. However, obviously Microsoft don't see that as an option, so the license must be non-transferable, which means that Novell violate the GPL - which would make all of Novell's Linux business vanish.

What seems to be the case is that Novell do NOT have a patent license. They have a sort of 'shake on it' deal where they won't sue MS and vice versa, without stating the actual patents. This MIGHT not violate the GPL. But even if it doesn't, the GPL would still have the important following effect: if MS sue someone ELSE, and Novell then claim to have a patent license ("We are safe from such lawsuits!"), then they are in violation of the GPL. So, don't expect to see such lawsuits.

Really, the take-home message from all of this is that the GPL's patent clause may be saving Linux from a cruel demise at the hands of MS. Yet more reason for improvements to that patent clause, which is one of the goals of the GPL3.

[FineE]

Actually my take is that Novell does have a patent license, and it protects anyone who directly or indirectly legally gets the code form Novell from litigation from Microsoft. Otherwise Novell would be exposed to a huge legal risk by distributing the code under the GPL What is interesting is that there is no requirement for either Novell or Microsoft to reveal the full extent of their agreement, so Novell can say that their customer's are protected, not lie and not be in violation of the GPL.

Can Microsoft sue? In my opinion yes, but they would need to establish that the defendant did not legally obtain either directly or indirectly the code from Novell. Given that nature of FLOSS this in my opinion will be soon next to impossible to establish for code whose license is compatible with the licenses in the Novel GNU/Linux distribution. The latter for the most part means the GPL and LGPL. This is actually a major victory for GNU/Linux, the GPL and the FSF. By the way RedHat has already responded to this deal by offering legal indemnification

http://www.redhat.com/promo/believe/

and

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6132552.html

There are in my opinion some losers here also. BSD and its derivative Apple's Mac OS X come to mind here. No GPL license compatibility with Novell and consequently no protection from Microsoft litigation over patents. At the same time Microsoft has likely strengthened is patent position with the Novell deal vis a vis BSD and its derivatives.

[kripkenstein]

There are in my opinion some losers here also. BSD and its derivative Apple's Mac OS X come to mind here. No GPL license compatibility with Novell and consequently no protection from Microsoft litigation over patents. At the same time Microsoft has likely strengthened is patent position with the Novell deal vis a vis BSD and its derivatives.

That's a good point. I blogged (link is in my sig) a similar conclusion myself just yesterday, that while GPL code is now safer than ever, non-GPL code is less safe. Or at least non-GPL code without a good patent clause. Thing is, this isn't a problem just for BSD, it's also a problem for Linux, since Linux distros ship with BSD code, for example OpenSSL. So Microsoft may try to damage Linux by suing the non-GPL code portions in it. If Ubuntu, for example, is suddenly unable to distribute OpenSSL, then it is in trouble.

[beameup]

There is underlying evidence that Microsoft possesses WMD's (Weapons of Mass Deception) on their Redmond campus. Maybe we should get the CIA involved! :twisted: :twisted:

[kuja]

True enough, though I don't see Microsoft sueing over the BSD code, personally, because the BSD license is corporate friendly. Even Microsoft uses BSD licensed code (ftp for example, if I remember right).

[spockrock]

that steve balmer

[handy]

The inequity of M$ being able to litigate perceived patent violations found in freely available Open Source code, whilst no one is allowed to see their closely protected closed source is bazaar to my mind :confused:

A major reason why M$ will not open their code, is most likely to protect M$ from ALL the law suits! ](*,)

[AlphaMack]

that steve balmer

This Steve Ballmer? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dbCmnRztK1Y)

[spockrock]

This Steve Ballmer? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=dbCmnRztK1Y)

hahahhahaha, classic, just like the bill gates runs like a girl.

[funkyade]

A major reason why M$ will not open their code, is most likely to protect M$ from ALL the law suits! ](*,)

Absolutely. Without having access to the code, you wouldn't be able to prove how much they have stolen, copied, or whatever... It would require a lawsuit just to get them to release the code under a court order which means making sure there is due reason for that initial suit in the first place, and then another lawsuit regarding the code...

The whole deal stinks...!

[beameup]

Yep, the smell is rising.

Novell layoffs rumored:

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS5912159164.html


That Ballmer clip makes my stomach turn. Thanks for that! :-D

[handy]

Apparently back in 1997, when Bill paid out Apple & so graciously gave Apple $150,000,000, buying 51% of the company but having no vote in running it, it was because Apple busted M$ for stealing their code & using it. IP strikes again.

Steve (Jobs) made Bill an offer that he could not refuse...

Obviously M$ wanted Apple around.

[RJARRRPCGP]

A few nasty quotes from good ol' steve... I hate that dude and I hate MS.

I hope that Microsoft gets sued again! :evil: