What would you do if Ubuntu did a Suse/Xandros-style deal?

[Stephen Howard]

?

[Stephen Howard]

Note to Ubuntu management: Please don't even think of doing something as stupid as Xandros and Suse. Any deal with MS is a deal with the devil.

[KiwiNZ]

Note to Ubuntu management: Please don't even think of doing something as stupid as Xandros and Suse. Any deal with MS is a deal with the devil.

No it is not .

[Adamant1988]

I think that if Canonical were approached by Microsoft concerning a deal that would yield better interoperability and such, that would potentially be a great thing for Ubuntu. Ignoring the 'patent issue' at hand, greater interoperability with Microsoft's products is a very desirable goal. In my opinion neither Xandros, or Novell made an error in these deals.

[steveneddy]

Ubuntu is not based in the US, so there is no deal to be made. These deals regarding the patents are for the use of US made products only.

It is my understanding that if a product is made outside of the US that they aren't really covered by patents in the US.

This is only my opinion and my way of thinking on this matter and I may very well be off base.

Hmmm - but wait - I COMPILED the program here is the US, so i that made in the US now?

[kevinlyfellow]

If so, I'm moving to either Debian or Arch... probably Debian

[Adamant1988]

Ubuntu is not based in the US, so there is no deal to be made. These deals regarding the patents are for the use of US made products only.

It is my understanding that if a product is made outside of the US that they aren't really covered by patents in the US.

This is only my opinion and my way of thinking on this matter and I may very well be off base.

Hmmm - but wait - I COMPILED the program here is the US, so i that made in the US now?

I really don't think that patents are that much of an issue, to be honest. Yes, they're a potentially ugly weapon, but i don't see either side of this problem in a hurry to unload their arsenal. Microsoft is an American company raised on American business practices, and it behaves like one. In my opinion, Microsoft is looking at the playing field and is realizing it isn't exactly level. Microsoft is paying out millions on millions a year in cross-patent agreements, and so Microsoft feels that Linux companies should at least have to acknowledge the playing field, and is making patent agreements part of their deal.

Make no mistake, if Microsoft ever tried to do what has been done with Linux (ignoring patent law to a big extent) they would be sued at the drop of a hat. I think Microsoft is just looking for a level playing field here.

[misfitpierce]

Honestly as long as microsoft has no hand in the company to affect anything it dosnt really bother me. I'd hope to w/e is out there that Ubuntu Management will not though. :)

[bikeboy]

Debian, or a polished Debian based distro. I'm already playing with Debian on another computer but have no intention of changing at this stage, Ubuntu suits my needs at least as well.

I think that if Canonical were approached by Microsoft concerning a deal that would yield better interoperability and such, that would potentially be a great thing for Ubuntu. Ignoring the 'patent issue' at hand, greater interoperability with Microsoft's products is a very desirable goal. In my opinion neither Xandros, or Novell made an error in these deals.

Interoperability is in the hands of Microsoft, GNU/Linux and its developers don't need to do anything different to allow perfect interoperation between their distros and Windows, all the information is freely available.

Now if MS would do the same, there would be no need for money to exchange hands for the sake of interoperability, even better, MS could just stick to existing standards and openly improve them if that's what's needed, then all OS's will be able to work together, at nobody's expense (literally and figuratively).

[Stephen Howard]

Seems to me that MS doesn't play nice with anyone with which it competes. I think these deals are really just another strategy to try an pin down the linux distributors to make them easier to swat sometime in the future.

[Adamant1988]

Debian, or a polished Debian based distro. I'm already playing with Debian on another computer but have no intention of changing at this stage, Ubuntu suits my needs at least as well.



Interoperability is in the hands of Microsoft, GNU/Linux and its developers don't need to do anything different to allow perfect interoperation between their distros and Windows, all the information is freely available.

Now if MS would do the same, there would be no need for money to exchange hands for the sake of interoperability, even better, MS could just stick to existing standards and openly improve them if that's what's needed, then all OS's will be able to work together, at nobody's expense (literally and figuratively).

Well, it's unfortunate then that this exchange is taking place in Microsoft's world. Microsoft, I'm sure, sees no reason to cooperate with businesses that refuse to cooperate with them. The exchange cannot be one-sided like that. Microsoft will, undoubtedly, work with companies that are willing to work with them, and using this process, will probably cause considerable damage to companies that aren't willing to do the same. At least American ones.

[Stephen Howard]

...Microsoft is paying out millions on millions a year in cross-patent agreements, and so Microsoft feels that Linux companies should at least have to acknowledge the playing field, and is making patent agreements part of their deal.

Make no mistake, if Microsoft ever tried to do what has been done with Linux (ignoring patent law to a big extent) they would be sued at the drop of a hat. I think Microsoft is just looking for a level playing field here.


If MS can get the major distros to start charging (eg in order to recover cross-patent payments), then they dramatically curtail the adoption of linux. MS wins.

[kevinlyfellow]

I think that if Canonical were approached by Microsoft concerning a deal that would yield better interoperability and such, that would potentially be a great thing for Ubuntu. Ignoring the 'patent issue' at hand, greater interoperability with Microsoft's products is a very desirable goal. In my opinion neither Xandros, or Novell made an error in these deals.

I don't think that interoperability is the issue. Actually, I think partnering with MS could be a smart thing. The real issue is the patent agreements. At this point MS is making a list of companies to point at and say, "Look, these companies made deals with us to avoid patent lawsuits, you should too. If you don't, then we will bring a lawsuit against you and drive your business into the ground." So they get to ride the free software gravy train while holding onto its current business model.

I would love it if Canonical and MS would make a deal, so long as it does not have patent covenants and its results are open. I think Red Hat would be more than happy to make a deal with MS, and they were in discussions earlier this year. But they would never make a patent pact, so a partnership never went through. MS sees FLOSS as a threat, and this is its way of trying to deal with it. In the meantime, they can claim that they are not being anti-competitive, because they are working on interoperability with other operating systems.

[blackspyder]

I'd either move to PCLinuxOS, Mepis, or go back to Fedora. but seeing as how RedHat will probably make a deal before Canonical it would be one of the former (of which I have heard great things).

[Adamant1988]

If MS can get the major distros to start charging (eg in order to recover cross-patent payments), then they dramatically curtail the adoption of linux. MS wins.

The major Linux distributions are already charging. Just because you choose not to pay for it because you don't have a server that you absolutely HAVE to keep up doesn't mean that a LOT of companies aren't shelling out good cash for service and support. Even Ubuntu has a service-fee.

I don't think that interoperability is the issue. Actually, I think partnering with MS could be a smart thing. The real issue is the patent agreements. At this point MS is making a list of companies to point at and say, "Look, these companies made deals with us to avoid patent lawsuits, you should too. If you don't, then we will bring a lawsuit against you and drive your business into the ground." So they get to ride the free software gravy train while holding onto its current business model.

I would love it if Canonical and MS would make a deal, so long as it does not have patent covenants and its results are open. I think Red Hat would be more than happy to make a deal with MS, and they were in discussions earlier this year. But they would never make a patent pact, so a partnership never went through. MS sees FLOSS as a threat, and this is its way of trying to deal with it. In the meantime, they can claim that they are not being anti-competitive, because they are working on interoperability with other operating systems.

I think that interoperability IS the issue. The customers are demanding that things work more nicely, and these are big important customers that neither Xandros, Novell, or Microsoft want to make angry. The patent issue helps ease some customer tension, but again, I just think that's Microsoft's way of leveling the playing field.

Red Hat is refusing Microsoft's terms because Red Hat is a company that doesn't play nicely with others, or do what anyone else is doing. Red Hat is one of those companies that says "We don't like your sandbox, so we're going to build our own and play in that instead" and that's exactly what they do.

The sad fact is this, Intellectual property is written into American law, it is acknowledged and it exists. American distributions CANNOT legally go and 'build their own sandbox' and expect Microsoft to play nicely with them later on. Microsoft is expecting these companies to behave like any other American business, and Novell and Xandros chose to play by the rules. Red Hat just shook it's head and said "No, either you play by our rules or not at all", well, unfortunately, Red Hat's rules aren't the ones that are written into law.

I don't think Microsoft is trying to kill anything as their own customers would probably drop them in a second if Microsoft did anything to inconvenience them, and believe me, killing the product powering their servers would be an inconvenience.

[Stephen Howard]

The sad fact is this, Intellectual property is written into American law, it is acknowledged and it exists. American distributions CANNOT legally go and 'build their own sandbox' and expect Microsoft to play nicely with them later on.

This is not right. There is no law that requires you to deal with Microsoft. If I'm mistaken, please cite the law!

If you're talking about alleged patent violations, then its up to MS to first specify which ones. Any other course of action just opens us all up to wave after wave of standover merchants. Indeed, using your characterisation, I could knock at your door tomorrow and say, "Hi, you are in violation of some patents that I'm not going to specify, so give me $500 a year for the rest of your life. I take cheque or credit card." You would presumably pay, but I wouldn't.

Until MS specifies the specific patents they are talking about, no one should hand over a red cent.

[knopper67]

Where is the GPL v3 when we need it? :eek:

[Adamant1988]

This is not right. There is no law that requires you to deal with Microsoft. If I'm mistaken, please cite the law!

If you're talking about alleged patent violations, then its up to MS to first specify which ones. Any other course of action just opens us all up to wave after wave of standover merchants. Indeed, using your characterisation, I could knock at your door tomorrow and say, "Hi, you are in violation of some patents that I'm not going to specify, so give me $500 a year for the rest of your life. I take cheque or credit card." You would presumably pay, but I wouldn't.

Until MS specifies the specific patents they are talking about, no one should hand over a red cent.

Microsoft doesn't have to give YOU the patent numbers, but I'm sure the companies that actually have to deal with this know which patents are in question. I'm sure that not all of those 230+ patents are void or useless, and just one could be a very expensive problem. Let's not forget that Vonage is in very serious peril over just 7 patents right now, and that those numbers were not disclosed to the rabid-users. Why? Because we're not involved, really.

Given the situation you present, I would of course tell you to litigate and we'll solve it from there. Microsoft is being open with the people it's talking to about these numbers, and the people who need to know, will know. Also, let's not forget that Microsoft payed Novell a nice lump sum roughly in the same manner that would have happened in a cross-patent agreement.

I'm in favor of the interoperability deals.

[kevinlyfellow]

The major Linux distributions are already charging.


They are charging for either services or they are (almost) purely for the business sector. But this effects more than businesses, because then people who just decide to make their own linux distro wouldn't be allowed to. That would be an atrocity! I should be allowed to make my own linux distro and distribute it for free if I want to!!! That is the whole purpose of the GPL: to make sure that people can do what they want with the software they recieve.

The sad fact is this, Intellectual property is written into American law, it is acknowledged and it exists.


Yes, so? Distros will abide, but we can't if MS does not tell us what we are infringing on. We are playing nice, MS isn't. They are saying "You are stealing!" and we ask, "What are we stealing?" and they say "Make a deal with us and we will tell you, but keep it under your coats, its a secret." Sorry, but that is not playing nice.

Red Hat is refusing Microsoft's terms because Red Hat is a company that doesn't play nicely with others, or do what anyone else is doing. Red Hat is one of those companies that says "We don't like your sandbox, so we're going to build our own and play in that instead" and that's exactly what they do.
...
American distributions CANNOT legally go and 'build their own sandbox' and expect Microsoft to play nicely with them later on.


You automatically assume that Red Hat is infringing on patents. There is no evidence of this to date, only conjecture from Microsoft. Red Hat will comply if they know what patents they infringe on.

Finally, you assume that patents are in the law, therefore they must be followed. But the issue with software patents is that most are trivial or have prior art. Take a look at this undeserved patent http://www.google.com/patents?id=3EUSAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,823,272

Yeah, thats right, the progress bar is patented. So, how exactly is any company supposed to deal with this kind of BS? Further, there is a patent cold war going on where people are collecting patents and no one wants to sue because then they will be sued. But, a company like MS can threaten litigation, but small companies are unable to afford to go into court against MS, so small companies need to comply to Microsoft (or any large companies) request. Its a mess... a big big mess.

As far as I'm concerned, patents for software (or the way things stand now, all patents) are unjust, and this is a case where civil disobedience may be an acceptable option.

[Adamant1988]

They are charging for either services or they are (almost) purely for the business sector. But this effects more than businesses, because then people who just decide to make their own linux distro wouldn't be allowed to. That would be an atrocity! I should be allowed to make my own linux distro and distribute it for free if I want to!!! That is the whole purpose of the GPL: to make sure that people can do what they want with the software they recieve.



Yes, so? Distros will abide, but we can't if MS does not tell us what we are infringing on. We are playing nice, MS isn't. They are saying "You are stealing!" and we ask, "What are we stealing?" and they say "Make a deal with us and we will tell you, but keep it under your coats, its a secret." Sorry, but that is not playing nice.



You automatically assume that Red Hat is infringing on patents. There is no evidence of this to date, only conjecture from Microsoft. Red Hat will comply if they know what patents they infringe on.

Finally, you assume that patents are in the law, therefore they must be followed. But the issue with software patents is that most are trivial or have prior art. Take a look at this undeserved patent http://www.google.com/patents?id=3EUSAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,823,272

Yeah, thats right, the progress bar is patented. So, how exactly is any company supposed to deal with this kind of BS? Further, there is a patent cold war going on where people are collecting patents and no one wants to sue because then they will be sued. But, a company like MS can threaten litigation, but small companies are unable to afford to go into court against MS, so small companies need to comply to Microsoft (or any large companies) request. Its a mess... a big big mess.

As far as I'm concerned, patents for software (or the way things stand now, all patents) are unjust, and this is a case where civil disobedience may be an acceptable option.

Actually, the data Microsoft used is directly from a FSF lawyer who found that the linux kernel alone was infringing on nearly 300 patents (according to RMS). Now, maybe you know something that I don't, but Red Hat uses the Linux kernel right?

That is JUST the Linux kernel, I can't imagine how many total patent violations there must be in every single application included in most linux distributions. Microsoft's total of 235+ is nothing compared to the total number of patents infringed.

Yes, you're right patents are a big big mess, the they are STILL in the United States law. If you do not like a law, you are welcome to break it, and you will deal with the consequences of your actions when you're caught.

Again, patent law is still law. Microsoft is being more than kind in it's approach to the situation because it knows litigation is not truly an option. But Xandros, and Novell both wanted interoperability with Microsoft's products to make themselves a more attractive option for consumers (== $$$$).

Now, can you honestly sit there and tell me that if you were in Microsoft's position, you would play nicely with companies that are willingly violating the law? Anyone else that did that to Microsoft would owe them millions of dollars, and they're being VERY nice to the Linux companies about this. Microsoft is saying, that if you want to play with them, you have to actually play by the rules. Unfortunately, as it stands, Microsoft's rules are written into American law, and so American distributions will comply with that.

Also, concerning your right to distribute, etc. You can certainly do that, under the GPL, by all means. But if your product gets big enough that you're starting to try to work with Microsoft for interoperability, and Microsoft tells you "Look, you're breaking the law here, we'll let that slide and cut you an agreement, and we'll work on interoperability with you." I wouldn't be surprised if you accepted the offer, because at that point, it's your consumers that are on the line, it's your company that's on the line.

[kevinlyfellow]

Actually, the data Microsoft used is directly from a FSF lawyer who found that the linux kernel alone was infringing on nearly 300 patents (according to RMS). Now, maybe you know something that I don't, but Red Hat uses the Linux kernel right?


This is the statement RMS gave (http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript#patents)
Two years ago, a thorough study found that the kernel Linux infringed 283 different software patents, and that's just in the US. Of course, by now the number is probably different and might be higher.

Yes, a study found something. But, that is no surprise. Most software patents cannot hold water given a fair trial (due to prior art and trivial patents). This is probably the case for many of the patents claimed in the study. Then there are patents which no one has complained of their use, so, they are fair game. No one ever said a company needs to enforce its patent claims, and apparently, no one is interested in enforcing those 283 patents. They are apparently letting us use them! So is Red Hat infringing on patents? No, because no single company/person has tried to enforce them. Is MS doing that now? No, because they have not told us the patents they wish to enforce. I repeat, there is no evidence that Linux actually violates any IP. There is patented software in the Linux kernel, but that does not mean that it is actually infringing on patents.

Edit: I feel the discussion is becoming too heated for these forums, and I'm bowing out. Make any arguments against mine, I'm done.

[Adamant1988]

This is the statement RMS gave (http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3/tokyo-rms-transcript#patents)


Yes, a study found something. But, that is no surprise. Most software patents cannot hold water given a fair trial (due to prior art and trivial patents). This is probably the case for many of the patents claimed in the study. Then there are patents which no one has complained of their use, so, they are fair game. No one ever said a company needs to enforce its patent claims, and apparently, no one is interested in enforcing those 283 patents. They are apparently letting us use them! So is Red Hat infringing on patents? No, because no single company/person has tried to enforce them. Is MS doing that now? No, because they have not told us the patents they wish to enforce. I repeat, there is no evidence that Linux actually violates any IP. There is patented software in the Linux kernel, but that does not mean that it is actually infringing on patents.

Edit: I feel the discussion is becoming too heated for these forums, and I'm bowing out. Make any arguments against mine, I'm done.

The operative word in this statement is 'many' not 'all', unfortunately. It only takes one patent to wreck things. You seem to misunderstand things...

Linux infringes on (read: violates) a LOT of patents. Just because no one has come after Red Hat, or crew, does not mean that they did not break the law. Even Microsoft has admitted that they are not planning on litigating because that would be a mess.

http://www.answers.com/topic/infringement

Nowhere in this definition is it stated that a company has to file charges for infringement to have taken place.

Again, I'm going to argue, Red Hat doesn't really care about interoperability with Microsoft, and therefor doesn't mind telling Microsoft to shove off. Novell and Xandros wanted interoperability and thusly agreed to the terms, concerning intellectual property.

[karellen]

I honestly don't care (and as long as interoperability would be improved I'd be happy)

[bikeboy]

I honestly don't care (and as long as interoperability would be improved I'd be happy)

That's the thing, interoperability won't be improved by ANY of these deals. The simple fact remains that MS has all the information they need to interoperate with Linux, they won't however give us the info we need for interoperability with Windows. So how is it that we need to make a deal with them to give them info they already have for free?

This is NOT about interoperability, despite the premise of the companies involved.

[smoker]

Re: What would you do if Ubuntu did a Suse/Xandros-style deal?

i would hope that this would never happen, especially after mark shuttleworth's open letter to disenchanted suse devs after novell sold their soul to the devil.

if distro after distro start to fall with obeisence to the might and threats of ms, then i will move from distro to distro till i will be using the last one standing, if need be. just because the devil offers a hand, doesn't mean it is safe to shake it...

[karellen]

That's the thing, interoperability won't be improved by ANY of these deals. The simple fact remains that MS has all the information they need to interoperate with Linux, they won't however give us the info we need for interoperability with Windows. So how is it that we need to make a deal with them to give them info they already have for free?

This is NOT about interoperability, despite the premise of the companies involved.

well I guess there are plenty of other distros to choose from (I've been a suse user, then a fedora user...and the future will tell what's going to come)

[Ozor Mox]

Actually, the data Microsoft used is directly from a FSF lawyer who found that the linux kernel alone was infringing on nearly 300 patents (according to RMS). Now, maybe you know something that I don't, but Red Hat uses the Linux kernel right?

That is JUST the Linux kernel, I can't imagine how many total patent violations there must be in every single application included in most linux distributions. Microsoft's total of 235+ is nothing compared to the total number of patents infringed.

Yes, you're right patents are a big big mess, the they are STILL in the United States law. If you do not like a law, you are welcome to break it, and you will deal with the consequences of your actions when you're caught.

Again, patent law is still law. Microsoft is being more than kind in it's approach to the situation because it knows litigation is not truly an option. But Xandros, and Novell both wanted interoperability with Microsoft's products to make themselves a more attractive option for consumers (== $$$$).

Now, can you honestly sit there and tell me that if you were in Microsoft's position, you would play nicely with companies that are willingly violating the law? Anyone else that did that to Microsoft would owe them millions of dollars, and they're being VERY nice to the Linux companies about this. Microsoft is saying, that if you want to play with them, you have to actually play by the rules. Unfortunately, as it stands, Microsoft's rules are written into American law, and so American distributions will comply with that.

Also, concerning your right to distribute, etc. You can certainly do that, under the GPL, by all means. But if your product gets big enough that you're starting to try to work with Microsoft for interoperability, and Microsoft tells you "Look, you're breaking the law here, we'll let that slide and cut you an agreement, and we'll work on interoperability with you." I wouldn't be surprised if you accepted the offer, because at that point, it's your consumers that are on the line, it's your company that's on the line.

That's all well and good and I think far more people would be able to accept Microsoft's actions if it wasn't for the fact that due to the stupid mess that you have admitted the software patent system is, Microsoft themselves probably infringe on hundreds if not thousands of patents themselves, possibly even some of those in Linux!. It's just that Microsoft are the ones that appear to be using their power in the marketplace to force the smaller companies, in this case Linux distributors, in to line.

So...

Now, can you honestly sit there and tell me that if you were in Microsoft's position, you would play nicely with companies that are willingly violating the law?

Yes, because it is damn near certain that I am too, it's just that no one can see because I do it behind closed doors.

[Adamant1988]

That's all well and good and I think far more people would be able to accept Microsoft's actions if it wasn't for the fact that due to the stupid mess that you have admitted the software patent system is, Microsoft themselves probably infringe on hundreds if not thousands of patents themselves, possibly even some of those in Linux!. It's just that Microsoft are the ones that appear to be using their power in the marketplace to force the smaller companies, in this case Linux distributors, in to line.

So...



Yes, because it is damn near certain that I am too, it's just that no one can see because I do it behind closed doors.

Microsoft actually tries to pay for patents it infringes on, it can't catch everything but it tries, and if you go to them and say "You infringe on my patent" they'll sit with you and talk, and at the end of that conversation either start paying you for it, or tell you to try to litigate.

and yes, the deal is about greater interoperability, remember the absolute FIT everyone threw because Novell's openoffice would be (in some ways) incompatible with the default? That's the interoperability deal in work, greater ability to send files between the two, connect the two, etc.

[z0phi3l]

Who here thinks Adamant1988 is just an MS employee trying to disrupt any real conversation over the matter?

Point is that until MS tells the GENERAL Linux developers what patents if any are supposedly being infringed, nothing can or will be done. If Torvald himself says the claims are bunk, adds are he's pretty accurate in what he's saying.

[Ozor Mox]

Microsoft actually tries to pay for patents it infringes on, it can't catch everything but it tries, and if you go to them and say "You infringe on my patent" they'll sit with you and talk, and at the end of that conversation either start paying you for it, or tell you to try to litigate.

I don't know how you can possibly know all of this unless you work for the company's legal department or own a company who's patents they have infringed.

Even still, your point still doesn't stand because they will not state publicly what patents are infringed, giving the countless distributors of Linux no way to make amends while giving themselves a more threatening position. Yes, you could say that's what they've done with the deals with Novell and Xandros, told them what the violations are and given them protection from litigation, but that's complete rubbish because they have threatened the Linux kernel, GNOME and KDE desktop environments, email applications and so on and these are not only used by these companies, so they are still making vague threats to hundreds more distributors and thousands of users. Either that, or they just don't understand the concept of Linux being a community built operating system. Also, why is OpenOffice on their hit list if Novell are so safe from them?

and yes, the deal is about greater interoperability, remember the absolute FIT everyone threw because Novell's openoffice would be (in some ways) incompatible with the default? That's the interoperability deal in work, greater ability to send files between the two, connect the two, etc.

I think it's great that OpenOffice can open Microsoft Office formats but, if that's what you're getting at, then I'm pretty sure it could do that long before the Novell deal. If it's something else, then I've misunderstood.

I agree that better interoperability between Microsoft and Linux can be beneficial, but I still don't see how you can call Microsoft's behaviour "friendly" when it seems to be anything but. The whole way they're going about it is just not right at all.

Whatever way it goes, if Canonical make such a deal, I'd likely switch from Ubuntu pretty quickly, probably to Debian or something Debian based. I don't think I'd feel comfortable using the distribution any more because I find this whole thing very suspicious. That's ignoring the media and the Microsoft-hating Linux fans, it's what I think.

[bonzodog]

Ubuntu is not based in the US, so there is no deal to be made. These deals regarding the patents are for the use of US made products only.

It is my understanding that if a product is made outside of the US that they aren't really covered by patents in the US.

This is only my opinion and my way of thinking on this matter and I may very well be off base.

Hmmm - but wait - I COMPILED the program here is the US, so i that made in the US now?

Yes, this is right - all code, and the servers holding the distros, are based in the UK, where there are no software patents, so Mark is never likely to need to do this, as there is no way that MS could ever strangle/sue European distros.

[happy-and-lost]

I'd go Debian. Hell will freeze over before the Debian team make deals with any such corporation ;)

[hobieone]

the deal in my my be good for linux on the standpoint of improved interoperabilty. and i would care much about if ms is truely looking for a level playing field as some suggested. but what wories me if ms is doing this to break into llinux market it self to learn about linux and possibly find a way to force out possble competition due to they are possivbly relizing to correct on going security issue issues with windows they have to goto a unix based kernel for windows? or make windows a unix based system due they possibly just relized the windows kernel they been using isn't able to be developed and advanced any further

[darksong]

If mircrosoft start charging people/companies about patents, don't they need to open up their source code to let people/other companies if they are breaking patents held by other companies?

[Adamant1988]

Who here thinks Adamant1988 is just an MS employee trying to disrupt any real conversation over the matter?

Point is that until MS tells the GENERAL Linux developers what patents if any are supposedly being infringed, nothing can or will be done. If Torvald himself says the claims are bunk, adds are he's pretty accurate in what he's saying.

I'm a proud Linux user, I'm just not an ignorant ***-hat who will bash Microsoft at every possible turn. Sorry if I don't fit the cookie-cutter mold. What I don't understand is how you feel I'm disrupting any conversation by telling another side that you don't want to hear. I'm trying to engage in the discussion, it's not my fault you don't want to hear it.

I just would like to hear fellow Linux users actually be the open-minded people they claim to be. Truthfully, some of you are every bit as ignorant and closed-minded as Apple fanatics and Windows zealots, you're just on another side of the fence.

So, before you continue a discussion about what would happen if Canonical were to strike such a deal, perhaps it would be better if you understood something about the deal? I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I do enjoy reading about the deal and I've read lawyers take on it, and Microsoft's take on it, and Novell's take on it, and the FSF's take on it. I understand about as much as I can without actually being inside on the deal.

I don't know how you can possibly know all of this unless you work for the company's legal department or own a company who's patents they have infringed.

Even still, your point still doesn't stand because they will not state publicly what patents are infringed, giving the countless distributors of Linux no way to make amends while giving themselves a more threatening position. Yes, you could say that's what they've done with the deals with Novell and Xandros, told them what the violations are and given them protection from litigation, but that's complete rubbish because they have threatened the Linux kernel, GNOME and KDE desktop environments, email applications and so on and these are not only used by these companies, so they are still making vague threats to hundreds more distributors and thousands of users. Either that, or they just don't understand the concept of Linux being a community built operating system. Also, why is OpenOffice on their hit list if Novell are so safe from them?

God, the misinformation in this post is astounding. Microsoft DOES NOT have to publicly state what patents are being infringed upon. It would be nice, but they don't have to do it. They've even said that they're not going to do that. Again, AMERICAN distributions, like Xandros and openSUSE are not even at risk of litigation, and Microsoft wouldn't sue their own customers. Microsoft is simply stating "This is an issue, and if you want to work with us, you have to meet us half-way and fix this issue". Also, please, seriously, find me an article where Microsoft actually issued a threat of litigation. Not an implied threat, or even a suggested one, I want to know exactly who they plan to litigate against and when.

Everything you just said is FUD, pure and simple. There is no hit-list, and if you had bothered to do any kind of studying about the agreement you would understand that it does not protect Xandros or Novell from litigation, just their customers.


I think it's great that OpenOffice can open Microsoft Office formats but, if that's what you're getting at, then I'm pretty sure it could do that long before the Novell deal. If it's something else, then I've misunderstood.

I agree that better interoperability between Microsoft and Linux can be beneficial, but I still don't see how you can call Microsoft's behaviour "friendly" when it seems to be anything but. The whole way they're going about it is just not right at all.

Whatever way it goes, if Canonical make such a deal, I'd likely switch from Ubuntu pretty quickly, probably to Debian or something Debian based. I don't think I'd feel comfortable using the distribution any more because I find this whole thing very suspicious. That's ignoring the media and the Microsoft-hating Linux fans, it's what I think.

Microsoft produces new formats all the time. This deal means that Novell's OpenOffice will be compatible with those formats, and so forth. At least, that's my understanding.

I'm not saying Microsoft is being 'friendly' in terms of a hug and a hand shake, but I have to think they're playing nicer with Linux distributions than they would be with any other company that infringed upon their intellectual property.

If mircrosoft start charging people/companies about patents, don't they need to open up their source code to let people/other companies if they are breaking patents held by other companies?

This is a misunderstanding. Microsoft does not need to make any code available to show that they have a patent for something Linux does. All Microsoft needs to do is supply patent numbers.

[joe.turion64x2]

I'm a proud Linux user, I'm just not an ignorant ***-hat who will bash Microsoft at every possible turn. Sorry if I don't fit the cookie-cutter mold. What I don't understand is how you feel I'm disrupting any conversation by telling another side that you don't want to hear. I'm trying to engage in the discussion, it's not my fault you don't want to hear it.

I just would like to hear fellow Linux users actually be the open-minded people they claim to be. Truthfully, some of you are every bit as ignorant and closed-minded as Apple fanatics and Windows zealots, you're just on another side of the fence.

So, before you continue a discussion about what would happen if Canonical were to strike such a deal, perhaps it would be better if you understood something about the deal? I don't claim to be a lawyer, but I do enjoy reading about the deal and I've read lawyers take on it, and Microsoft's take on it, and Novell's take on it, and the FSF's take on it. I understand about as much as I can without actually being inside on the deal.



God, the misinformation in this post is astounding. Microsoft DOES NOT have to publicly state what patents are being infringed upon. It would be nice, but they don't have to do it. They've even said that they're not going to do that. Again, AMERICAN distributions, like Xandros and openSUSE are not even at risk of litigation, and Microsoft wouldn't sue their own customers. Microsoft is simply stating "This is an issue, and if you want to work with us, you have to meet us half-way and fix this issue". Also, please, seriously, find me an article where Microsoft actually issued a threat of litigation. Not an implied threat, or even a suggested one, I want to know exactly who they plan to litigate against and when.

Everything you just said is FUD, pure and simple. There is no hit-list, and if you had bothered to do any kind of studying about the agreement you would understand that it does not protect Xandros or Novell from litigation, just their customers.




Microsoft produces new formats all the time. This deal means that Novell's OpenOffice will be compatible with those formats, and so forth. At least, that's my understanding.

I'm not saying Microsoft is being 'friendly' in terms of a hug and a hand shake, but I have to think they're playing nicer with Linux distributions than they would be with any other company that infringed upon their intellectual property.



This is a misunderstanding. Microsoft does not need to make any code available to show that they have a patent for something Linux does. All Microsoft needs to do is supply patent numbers.
And how can we know if MS is not infringing any patent if we can not see its code?

[bchaffin72]

Patents are not about code anyway. Actual source code falls under the purvue of copyright law and is NOT patentable. It is software processes and even ideas in some cases that are patentable, at least as far as I understand US laws.

[justin whitaker]

I think that if Canonical were approached by Microsoft concerning a deal that would yield better interoperability and such, that would potentially be a great thing for Ubuntu. Ignoring the 'patent issue' at hand, greater interoperability with Microsoft's products is a very desirable goal. In my opinion neither Xandros, or Novell made an error in these deals.

Agreed. Interoperability is the big key here. You guys are getting into a flame war over nothing, in my opinion.

Noone really cares what you run on your desktop. People that don't run Windows on their desktop are not really an issue for Microsoft....they can still end up as customers in another way, at the enterprise level.

Let's put this in perspective. At best, Linux desktops are 5% of world installs, and OSX is another 5%. That means 90% of PCs are running some flavor of windows, whether they are legal or illegal. Microsoft cares less about you running Linux on your laptop than they do about whether you paid for your XP/Vista install.

Where Microsoft can get hurt is when corporations take a hard look at licensing and start really looking at options for streamlining their enterprise applications. Miicrosoft has already tried lowering their prices, and still corporations are looking at open source as a real option.

So Microsoft wants a seat at the table, as well they should, since it is a good defensive move. And vendors like Novell and Xandros get that whether or not Microsoft will assert any IP claims is immaterial: what matters to global linux adoption is streamlining the interoperability between Windows and Linux servers and the enterprise applications that run on them. I'm not just talking about SAMBA, but enterprise level ERP/CRM/BI applications that can be co-located on multiple servers regardless of the operating system back end, and whether they are real or virtualized.

That's where the big play is. That's where we all have a stake in the game. If Canonical gets a call from Microsoft, they should listen.

[goumples]

I'd be gone in a heartbeat. I dont associate with windows, and I dont associate with sell-outs either.

[Adamant1988]

And how can we know if MS is not infringing any patent if we can not see its code?

Difficult to tell, certainly Linux is under much more scrutiny because the code is open. I would suppose that, otherwise, patent infringement is based on the behavior or the portion of the software in question. Which is to say, that if a portion of the software in question acts and behaves exactly as is described by your patent, there is a potential infringement.

Agreed. Interoperability is the big key here. You guys are getting into a flame war over nothing, in my opinion.

Noone really cares what you run on your desktop. People that don't run Windows on their desktop are not really an issue for Microsoft....they can still end up as customers in another way, at the enterprise level.

Let's put this in perspective. At best, Linux desktops are 5% of world installs, and OSX is another 5%. That means 90% of PCs are running some flavor of windows, whether they are legal or illegal. Microsoft cares less about you running Linux on your laptop than they do about whether you paid for your XP/Vista install.

Where Microsoft can get hurt is when corporations take a hard look at licensing and start really looking at options for streamlining their enterprise applications. Miicrosoft has already tried lowering their prices, and still corporations are looking at open source as a real option.

So Microsoft wants a seat at the table, as well they should, since it is a good defensive move. And vendors like Novell and Xandros get that whether or not Microsoft will assert any IP claims is immaterial: what matters to global linux adoption is streamlining the interoperability between Windows and Linux servers and the enterprise applications that run on them. I'm not just talking about SAMBA, but enterprise level ERP/CRM/BI applications that can be co-located on multiple servers regardless of the operating system back end, and whether they are real or virtualized.

That's where the big play is. That's where we all have a stake in the game. If Canonical gets a call from Microsoft, they should listen.

I don't think it's appropriate to bring desktop specific statistics into this threat. Desktop users are not in question here, Microsoft would not want to spend the time to hunt down all of us and sue us anymore than any other company. The big targets, companies that use Linux servers (Like, maybe Wal-Mart) along with Windows in a mixed environment are the ones who are demanding this interoperability. They are the customers that matter in this equation.

Because these companies are such big-names they won't respond well to Microsoft threatening them, because these kind of companies control the price of Microsoft's stock. Microsoft may be a monopoly, but they're certainly not immune to the effects of attacking their own customers.

[smoker]

"What would you do if Ubuntu did a Suse/Xandros-style deal?"

interestingly enough the poll is sitting at almost 70% of respondents would look for another distro (including me), i actually thought it would have been higher. maybe the FUD factory at ms is reaping benefits for them, both with the spread of alarm of illegality in linux, and the seeming ease with which some distros have signed-up for shelter under the ms umbrella. the fact that some people here are basically urging canonical to do the same dismays me, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion, which is right and proper even though i don't agree. you can wrap a pact up in fancy terms of 'interoperability' or any other 'cosy-cosy-let's-all-be-pals' title, but the basic fact is microsoft and open source are two different philosophies and they will never come to live in harmony with eachother. one day one will lose out to the other, and lose out big time...

Because these companies are such big-names they won't respond well to Microsoft threatening them, because these kind of companies control the price of Microsoft's stock. Microsoft may be a monopoly, but they're certainly not immune to the effects of attacking their own customers.

ms attacks their desktop customers everyday by doubting their honesty and checking the validity of their purchase of windows with wga/ssp. will ms one day also check, through fifth-column distros, that the version of linux you are running is one that has signed up to their peace treaty?

[Adamant1988]

ms attacks their desktop customers everyday by doubting their honesty and checking the validity of their purchase of windows with wga/ssp. will ms one day also check, through fifth-column distros, that the version of linux you are running is one that has signed up to their peace treaty?

I love your definition of attack here. There is a large difference between active monitoring and attacking. Microsoft sues (attacks) it's customers when they do something illegal (read: Pirating, etc.). I also think your view of the future is wonderfully paranoid.

[smoker]

I love your definition of attack here. There is a large difference between active monitoring and attacking. Microsoft sues (attacks) it's customers when they do something illegal (read: Pirating, etc.). I also think your view of the future is wonderfully paranoid.

maybe shouldn't have read orwell:D

[Adamant1988]

maybe shouldn't have read orwell:D

I'm a fan of 1984, and V for Vendetta is my favorite movie. I absolutely understand the concern about big-brother. I'm just not all for being paranoid.

[Ozor Mox]

God, the misinformation in this post is astounding.

Whoops, my sincerest apologies thine fountain of knowledge.

Microsoft DOES NOT have to publicly state what patents are being infringed upon. It would be nice, but they don't have to do it. They've even said that they're not going to do that.

Argh! I know that and not once did I state that they do have to make this public. My point was that by not making it public, how can they expect the problem to get fixed? And by threatening but not looking to solve the problem except maybe with a choice few companies (and their customers), I don't think they are behaving in the proper way.

Again, AMERICAN distributions, like Xandros and openSUSE are not even at risk of litigation, and Microsoft wouldn't sue their own customers.

How is this true, at least before deals are made like the ones with these companies? Why couldn't Microsoft litigate with distributors and only customers?

Microsoft is simply stating "This is an issue, and if you want to work with us, you have to meet us half-way and fix this issue".

Again, how is this possible without them specifying what needs to be fixed? Maybe I'm being stupid here, but I just don't get it.

Also, please, seriously, find me an article where Microsoft actually issued a threat of litigation.

Ohhh I get it. You think a threat on a distributor/customer is when they try to litigate and not before. That's fair enough, but many, many others see Microsoft making accusations against groups of open source projects by saying that they violate their patents as a threat, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The reason? Because it's FUD. If they really believe it to be true, they'd do something about it, but they're not. These deals do not count because they are not what they have accused of patent violations. They have accused community developed projects that cannot do something about it until Microsoft give specifics. Until then, it's FUD, is it not?

Not an implied threat, or even a suggested one, I want to know exactly who they plan to litigate against and when.

So would everyone, because then they'd be actually going through with their accusations and solving the problem. Not that this is what anyone wants, but it seems all so underhanded when they accuse but don't follow up.

Everything you just said is FUD, pure and simple. There is no hit-list, and if you had bothered to do any kind of studying about the agreement you would understand that it does not protect Xandros or Novell from litigation, just their customers.

How is what I've said FUD? I've posted my thoughts on the deals on a forum thread and you have replied. I don't see how I'm instilling any fear, uncertainty or doubt in anyone's mind. If I'm wrong, I'd happily accept it, but it's what I think right now and why I'd likely switch distros if such a deal was made with Canonical. Maybe this acronym is thrown around too much and you should think about what it actually means?

Hit-list = List of open source projects/groups they have accused of patent violation. It was just a turn of phrase.

As for the deal not protecting the distributors but the customers, I don't really understand how this works, but ok.

Oh and, because you obviously think you're very unique standing on the side of Microsoft instead of FOSS, I'd hate for you to think me a Micro$oft hat0r! ;)

So, I've used Windows for many years, and I think 95, 98 and ME were a bit crap, XP is decent enough, 2000 was rock solid and is my favourite and Vista I'm just not interested in at all...I've used Visual Basic (yeah, I know!), think Office is good though bloated...don't like IE or Outlook...IIS is reasonable...and so on... ( find FOSS alternatives to these to be much better) I just happen to find some of Microsoft's business practices a bit unusual, not entirely savoury, and somewhat suspicious.

[Adamant1988]

Argh! I know that and not once did I state that they do have to make this public. My point was that by not making it public, how can they expect the problem to get fixed? And by threatening but not looking to solve the problem except maybe with a choice few companies (and their customers), I don't think they are behaving in the proper way.

They're behaving like a business, most people don't think businesses are proper.



How is this true, at least before deals are made like the ones with these companies? Why couldn't Microsoft litigate with distributors and only customers?
Well, they did try to go to the customers, because going after distributors wasn't working. Some of the customers responded and paid Microsoft, others sent Microsoft right back to the distributor. It was a big loop, so Microsoft needed to make an attractive deal to get someone to break the loop. That's how I see it.


Again, how is this possible without them specifying what needs to be fixed? Maybe I'm being stupid here, but I just don't get it.
They are specifying where the problem patents are, just not in some press release. Then again, you need to realize that there is even language written into Novell's agreement that basically says "No, this is not an admission of patent violation". The way I look at the patent portions of these deals is that both sides get what they want. Novell can continue to say they don't see a problem, and Microsoft can finally shut up.


Ohhh I get it. You think a threat on a distributor/customer is when they try to litigate and not before. That's fair enough, but many, many others see Microsoft making accusations against groups of open source projects by saying that they violate their patents as a threat, and I'm inclined to agree with them. The reason? Because it's FUD. If they really believe it to be true, they'd do something about it, but they're not. These deals do not count because they are not what they have accused of patent violations. They have accused community developed projects that cannot do something about it until Microsoft give specifics. Until then, it's FUD, is it not?
I'm not saying that Microsoft is not spewing FUD forth onto the net, either. Their statements saying that 230+ patents in Linux infringed on their IP was really unnecessary. however, the Linux community is doing just as much of that. Very few people seem to actually want to talk about the deal, they just want to talk about paranoid delusions that Microsoft is following them.


How is what I've said FUD? I've posted my thoughts on the deals on a forum thread and you have replied. I don't see how I'm instilling any fear, uncertainty or doubt in anyone's mind. If I'm wrong, I'd happily accept it, but it's what I think right now and why I'd likely switch distros if such a deal was made with Canonical. Maybe this acronym is thrown around too much and you should think about what it actually means?

Hit-list = List of open source projects/groups they have accused of patent violation. It was just a turn of phrase.

As for the deal not protecting the distributors but the customers, I don't really understand how this works, but ok.

Oh and, because you obviously think you're very unique standing on the side of Microsoft instead of FOSS, I'd hate for you to think me a Micro$oft hat0r! ;)

So, I've used Windows for many years, and I think 95, 98 and ME were a bit crap, XP is decent enough, 2000 was rock solid and is my favourite and Vista I'm just not interested in at all...I've used Visual Basic (yeah, I know!), think Office is good though bloated...don't like IE or Outlook...IIS is reasonable...and so on... ( find FOSS alternatives to these to be much better) I just happen to find some of Microsoft's business practices a bit unusual, not entirely savoury, and somewhat suspicious.



[/QUOTE]

The wording in the agreement(s) is that Microsoft promises not to sue Novell/Xandros' customers. There was never a word mentioned about not suing the distributor, as the GPL makes that kind of language illegal right now.
As for your posts being labeled FUD. Obviously this is a matter of perspective on my part, when you start using terms like 'hit-list' and other language that suggests that Microsoft has very nefarious intents, that in my mind is no better than Microsoft saying that Linux is communist.

I am a firm believer in 'Innocent until proven guilty' and Microsoft can not be proven guilty of anything. It is all speculation. Honestly, if I were going to suggest that anything were going on behind the scenes, I feel this could be an attempt at challenging Red Hat's authority in the server market. But that's my own personal opinion and there has yet to be anything that suggests that may be true (other than some speculation by financial analysts).

[justin whitaker]

interestingly enough the poll is sitting at almost 70% of respondents would look for another distro (including me), i actually thought it would have been higher. maybe the FUD factory at ms is reaping benefits for them, both with the spread of alarm of illegality in linux, and the seeming ease with which some distros have signed-up for shelter under the ms umbrella. the fact that some people here are basically urging canonical to do the same dismays me, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion, which is right and proper even though i don't agree. you can wrap a pact up in fancy terms of 'interoperability' or any other 'cosy-cosy-let's-all-be-pals' title, but the basic fact is microsoft and open source are two different philosophies and they will never come to live in harmony with eachother. one day one will lose out to the other, and lose out big time...

What are you talking about? Open source and closed source systems interact every day, in perfect harmony. Proprietary closed systems, like corporate applications, ERP, etc. use open source components like MySQL, Apache, etc to get the job done.

Where I work, we have applications that could be coded in Visual Studio, run on Solaris, and have a MySQL backend: whatever tools are necessary to get the job done. And we are just one of many Fortune 1000 companies to do so.

You think that the philosophies are different, but really the only people that care are people that have the religion. Most companies want 2 things: they want the application done quickly, and they do not want to buy anything from a vendor that will be gone tomorrow.

Where does open or closed source come into that equation? It doesn't, unless using open source tools are the more flexible, lower cost, and fastest way to solve a business need. Most times it is, but that also means that you have to figure out how to make it play well with all your other proprietary code...most of which is built on closed source.

Look, Microsoft isn't going away. No matter how much you hate their tactics, or the closed source philosophy, they won't disappear. 1000 Richard Stallmans will not effect what happens on the corporate level. The big boys with the lawyers, Microsoft, Sun, Novell, IBM, are making the decisions now, and how that plays out will effect the open source that we cannot forsee.

In fact, I would say that their efforts with Novell and Xandros point to a new direction for the company, away from operating systems, and more towards their software as service model. I won't say Vista is a fiasco, but Microsoft is now saying that you won't see something like that again. They are moving Office online, pumping up Sharepoint's capabilities, and developing products which blur the line between platform and software.

In 5 years time, what operating system you run will be completely irrelevant. If Microsoft owns that space, from the online application, right down to the servers it runs on, then the open source movement is over.
I think Novell is right: the question isn't "Do you want to dance with the devil", but "Do you want to be made irrelevant?"

ms attacks their desktop customers everyday by doubting their honesty and checking the validity of their purchase of windows with wga/ssp. will ms one day also check, through fifth-column distros, that the version of linux you are running is one that has signed up to their peace treaty?

Wow. That's a level of paranoia that I can't even get my head around. Once per day, Microsoft pings your system to see if you need an update, and checks that it's valid. They would not need to do the second part if people were more honest and bought the software, instead of downloading it from a torrent site somewhere and cracking it.

Yes, it is annoying, and yes, it does treat people like criminals...but I recall reading that it spurred quite a few new sales of XP when UK and European installs got pinged and were found to be pirated.

Most people aren't bothered by it. To tell the truth, I hate it, even though I have never had anything to fear. Since I don't mind moving to something else, I have done so. Most people don't care.

I stand by my prior statement: noone cares what you run on the desktop. Microsoft will not come after Linux users....they know there is no money there.

[Eddie Wilson]

I love your definition of attack here. There is a large difference between active monitoring and attacking. Microsoft sues (attacks) it's customers when they do something illegal (read: Pirating, etc.). I also think your view of the future is wonderfully paranoid.

Sorry but I look at active monitoring as an attack on myself. I am a private person and I don't like anybody spying on me. And its getting worst.
Eddie

Before anything is said, I do own a legal copy of XP.

[exploder]

There is no good that will come from any kind of partnership with Microsoft. Microsoft is notorious for stealing technology from company's it partners with. Look at what happened when IBM partnered with Microsoft to create an operating system for business.
How many patents is Microsoft violating?

[Stephen Howard]

This inter-operability excuse is entirely bunk.

MS can easily interoperate with open source software - all they need do is download the source, read the data-structures & interface definitions, and then write their own gateway - not a single contract is needed. Similarly, if MS wants open source developers to inter-operate with MS-windows, MS can achieve that simply by documenting their interface - again, not a single contract is needed.

These agreements have absolutely zero to do with interoperability - they are simply setting the scene for screwing over the open source community.

[Adamant1988]

This inter-operability excuse is entirely bunk.

MS can easily interoperate with open source software - all they need do is download the source, read the data-structures & interface definitions, and then write their own gateway - not a single contract is needed. Similarly, if MS wants open source developers to inter-operate with MS-windows, MS can achieve that simply by documenting their interface - again, not a single contract is needed.

These agreements have absolutely zero to do with interoperability - they are simply setting the scene for screwing over the open source community.

You seem to misunderstand the partnership thing. They want individual people who are willing to work with them, to interoperate with them. They don't want Red Hat benefiting when Red Hat has vowed not to work with them because of the patent issue.

[bchaffin72]

So what happens if some interoperability was best served by changes to GPL code? Would Novell not then either have to distribute it for the benefit of all, or not do it at all? Not that I don't see what you are saying Adamant. Just curious how some of this would play out in the end.

[Adamant1988]

So what happens if some interoperability was best served by changes to GPL code? Would Novell then either have to distribute it for the benefit of all, or not do it at all? Not that I don't see what you are saying Adamant. Just curious how some of this would play out in the end.

Somehow I don't think that will happen, but if it goes into GPL'ed code, I suppose it doesn't matter much. Novell and Xandros will always be one step ahead in terms of compatibility.

[bchaffin72]

Open Office is distributed under the LGPL, which still reqiures publishing of modifications. So, if Novell modifies Open Office to be more compatible with Microsoft formats, they can't keep or be forced to keep those changes to themselves without violating the LGPL. They may gain a temporary advantage, but still must release such modifications for one and all, whether Microsoft likes it or not. Would this not be so?

[grundygreen]

I hope Canonilcal doesn't buckle under. Micky-$oft is just practicing legal extortion. The problem is few have the deep pockets to outlast them in court. Perhaps Nexentia will be the next step if the Linux kernel is truely compomised. But I think M$ should have put up or shut up.

Some of us are old enough when M$ was not the giant it is now. We remember all the dirty business tricks not technical prowess that made it the power it is. From anti-competative licensing aggreements with builders that shut out other OS's to destroying their business partners.
Remember Nextstep 486 vs. win 3.1.
Remember the changes to .doc just to keep competing word processors from being compatible?
What compatibility do I want? Macro Word Virii? I don't think so.
Let us not forget had the 2000 elections turn out differently the DoJ would have busted them up like Standard Oil.

[bchaffin72]

I just read this article that I think explains well why these deals are bad for everyone, including Microsoft in the end. I do think Mark Shuttleworth is right about Microsoft not being the real threat with regards to patent claims.

http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/87999/index.html

That being said, I do remember some of their tactics and dirty tricks, and have to say Microsoft at present is no friend to anyone but Microsoft, so I hope Canonical would never go for it.

[kamaboko]

Ubuntu is not based in the US, so there is no deal to be made. These deals regarding the patents are for the use of US made products only.

It is my understanding that if a product is made outside of the US that they aren't really covered by patents in the US.

This is only my opinion and my way of thinking on this matter and I may very well be off base.

Hmmm - but wait - I COMPILED the program here is the US, so i that made in the US now?

I think you need to read these before making any more comments on the topic.

http://www.training.ipr.gov/
http://www.uspto.gov/main/profiles/international.htm

[PriceChild]

I don't think this has appeared in the thread so far so here we go:

"Microsoft is not the real threat (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/118)" - Mark Shuttleworth

[moffatt666]

Well, seeing as Canonical is based in the Isle Of Man with an HQ in London, the MS patent issue is irrelevant.

[kroenecker]

Adamant1988,

You, unfortunately, aren't looking at this appropriately.

Time and time again open source developers have very aggressively expressed the desire to rid their code of anything that is patented by Microsoft. The ball is in Microsoft's court to provide the necessary details to allow this to happen. Honestly, anyone who has ever programmed probably has had a moment where they have come up with an idea that is patented by a business in the States. If Microsoft were genuinely interested in "protecting their patents," then they would happily comply.

Unfortunately, we all know that patents are nothing other than a way to drain your competition of cash when you are a hulking entity like Microsoft. At the very least this is about Microsoft wanting to be able to push everyone else around.

The real problem lies in how utterly different the worlds of open source software and proprietary software are. If this were about "leveling the playing field" as you so eagerly like to post, Adamant, then we would really be talking about having Microsoft open up their code, allowing us to pour over all of their routines in order to find patent violations. That will never happen.

So it really boils down to whose expectations you are more eager to support. You, unfortunately, don't want to support all of the developers who desperately want to stay away from Microsoft's patents.

It's really that simple.

Oh, and all of this interoperability hogwash is so ridiculous. Open standards result in interoperability.

That is also quite simple. Not aggressively business-like, but, from an engineering perspective the only genuine answer (think PC hardware).

[Adamant1988]

Adamant1988,

You, unfortunately, aren't looking at this appropriately.

Time and time again open source developers have very aggressively expressed the desire to rid their code of anything that is patented by Microsoft. The ball is in Microsoft's court to provide the necessary details to allow this to happen. Honestly, anyone who has ever programmed probably has had a moment where they have come up with an idea that is patented by a business in the States. If Microsoft were genuinely interested in "protecting their patents," then they would happily comply.

Unfortunately, we all know that patents are nothing other than a way to drain your competition of cash when you are a hulking entity like Microsoft. At the very least this is about Microsoft wanting to be able to push everyone else around.

The real problem lies in how utterly different the worlds of open source software and proprietary software are. If this were about "leveling the playing field" as you so eagerly like to post, Adamant, then we would really be talking about having Microsoft open up their code, allowing us to pour over all of their routines in order to find patent violations. That will never happen.

So it really boils down to whose expectations you are more eager to support. You, unfortunately, don't want to support all of the developers who desperately want to stay away from Microsoft's patents.

It's really that simple.

Oh, and all of this interoperability hogwash is so ridiculous. Open standards result in interoperability.

That is also quite simple. Not aggressively business-like, but, from an engineering perspective the only genuine answer (think PC hardware).

Because that is completely unnecessary. The question is not if Microsoft has the code in their operating system (Which would be a copyright infringement, not patent) it's a question of Linux infringing on patents that Microsoft has filed. Yes, Microsoft could absolutely give up the numbers and let the Linux community fix the patent errors where possible, but why should they? Again, Microsoft is only going to want to work with companies that work with them, and I think the patent issue is what's singling companies out of the mix. Novell is working with them, and Xandros is working with them. Therefor these two companies will see benefits over their competition.

The way I see it is that Microsoft is working with businesses, and businesses should be playing on the same field as Microsoft.

[Stephen Howard]

Yes, Microsoft could absolutely give up the numbers and let the Linux community fix the patent errors where possible, but why should they?

I suddenly understand Adamant1988's position, and therefore state:

I hereby advise that I have patents on methods used in this forum. I will not identify which patents they are, in what country they have been filed, whether there is prior art, or whether the method is obvious to an expert in the field. Rather, you are required to just believe me - as I'm sure Adamant does.

Everyone join the queue behind Adamant, who is presumably happily writing out a cheque right now without the slightest doubt that MY CLAIMS MIGHT FAIL ANY OF THE ABOVE TESTS AND BE INVALID...

...IN THE SAME WAY MICROSOFT CLAIMS MIGHT FAIL ANY OF THE ABOVE TESTS AND BE INVALID.

[RAV TUX]

I think that if Canonical were approached by Microsoft concerning a deal that would yield better interoperability and such, that would potentially be a great thing for Ubuntu. Ignoring the 'patent issue' at hand, greater interoperability with Microsoft's products is a very desirable goal. In my opinion neither Xandros, or Novell made an error in these deals.

I strongly agree with Adamant1988 here.

Ubuntu interoperability with Microsoft is a natural evolution that inevitably has to and will happen.

reference this forum discussion on this subject:
The Interop Vendor Alliance | Why Ubuntu won't make it (http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,156.0.html)
http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,156.0.html

(Don't be set off by the title of the thread, what I am simply saying is that Ubuntu will need to sign The Interop Vendor Alliance, to play with the big boys much like Suse, Xandros, and Red Hat have already done.)

[RAV TUX]

Debian, or a polished Debian based distro. I'm already playing with Debian on another computer but have no intention of changing at this stage, Ubuntu suits my needs at least as well.



Interoperability is in the hands of Microsoft, GNU/Linux and its developers don't need to do anything different to allow perfect interoperation between their distros and Windows, all the information is freely available.

Now if MS would do the same, there would be no need for money to exchange hands for the sake of interoperability, even better, MS could just stick to existing standards and openly improve them if that's what's needed, then all OS's will be able to work together, at nobody's expense (literally and figuratively).

Thats the point Microsoft is doing the same, I just read today in the Linux Dev/User magazine that microsoft and Novell will have interoperability between OOo and Word documents. This is needed in the real world for Linux to become a serious contender, which it is.

This is just one small step in the right direction.

[coxy]

I would probably go to Debian.

[bchaffin72]

If companies can join the Interop Vendors Alliance, which Microsoft is already a member of(as is Novell), then why the need for a separate agreement with Microsoft alone? Seems rather redundant. Red Hat is also part of this alliance, so Microsoft and Red Hat are already working together via this alliance even though Red Hat has not gone for one of Microsoft's "deals".

[Adamant1988]

I suddenly understand Adamant1988's position, and therefore state:

I hereby advise that I have patents on methods used in this forum. I will not identify which patents they are, in what country they have been filed, whether there is prior art, or whether the method is obvious to an expert in the field. Rather, you are required to just believe me - as I'm sure Adamant does.

Everyone join the queue behind Adamant, who is presumably happily writing out a cheque right now without the slightest doubt that MY CLAIMS MIGHT FAIL ANY OF THE ABOVE TESTS AND BE INVALID...

...IN THE SAME WAY MICROSOFT CLAIMS MIGHT FAIL ANY OF THE ABOVE TESTS AND BE INVALID.

This is sadly a very ignorant view of my stand. Since you obviously lack the ability to comprehend a statement that I've made multiple times in this thread, let me clarify for one last time:

Microsoft does not have to publish these patent numbers in any public form, this includes, but is not limited to: News sites, video, or public statement. Now, should Microsoft wish to litigate, Microsoft will have to make the patent numbers available to the defendants so that they can defend themselves against the charges.

Now, let's take a look at how this conversation might play out between Novell/Xandros and Microsoft (for the purposes of this skit Novell/Xandros will be played by "Linux Company"). Warning: This conversation has been dumbed down to enable easy digestion by some of the people in this thread.


Linux Company: Hey, Microsoft, our mutual customers are demanding that our products work better together, what can we do about that?

Microsoft: Well, we can agree to work together, but I would like to deal with this issue of your software violating our patents.

Linux Company: Yeah, that patent collection has some of our customers a little afraid you might choose to litigate against them.

Microsoft: Right, well, let's agree that we don't sue each other's customers over any patent issues, since It's possible you own patents that we infringe on.

Linux Company: Right, sounds like a good deal to me. I think our mutual customers will be very pleased.

And you know what? The customers were pleased, very pleased. Novell's profits went up from their free-software and everything was going peachy. The only people upset about this are the Free-Software community because Novell and Xandros chose to play by business rules instead of Free Software rules first.


So, should you be holding the patent to a software that I created/use/distribute and I either a) Know damn well that you're not lying because I have patent lawyers who can actually look this stuff up, b) need an interoperability agreement for my customers, lest I lose business to a competitor, or c) both of the above, I would be happy to strike some kind of an agreement with you to protect my customers from any potential litigation on your part. Should you choose to litigate against my company, or my users, I will certainly be willing to see how your patents hold up in court.

[RAV TUX]

If companies can join the Interop Vendors Alliance, which Microsoft is already a member of(as is Novell), then why the need for a separate agreement with Microsoft alone? Seems rather redundant. Red Hat is also part of this alliance, so Microsoft and Red Hat are already working together via this alliance even though Red Hat has not gone for one of Microsoft's "deals".

exactly.

[RAV TUX]

This is sadly a very ignorant view of my stand. Since you obviously lack the ability to comprehend a statement that I've made multiple times in this thread, let me clarify for one last time:

Microsoft does not have to publish these patent numbers in any public form, this includes, but is not limited to: News sites, video, or public statement. Now, should Microsoft wish to litigate, Microsoft will have to make the patent numbers available to the defendants so that they can defend themselves against the charges.

Now, let's take a look at how this conversation might play out between Novell/Xandros and Microsoft (for the purposes of this skit Novell/Xandros will be played by "Linux Company"). Warning: This conversation has been dumbed down to enable easy digestion by some of the people in this thread.



And you know what? The customers were pleased, very pleased. Novell's profits went up from their free-software and everything was going peachy. The only people upset about this are the Free-Software community because Novell and Xandros chose to play by business rules instead of Free Software rules first.


So, should you be holding the patent to a software that I created/use/distribute and I either a) Know damn well that you're not lying because I have patent lawyers who can actually look this stuff up, b) need an interoperability agreement for my customers, lest I lose business to a competitor, or c) both of the above, I would be happy to strike some kind of an agreement with you to protect my customers from any potential litigation on your part. Should you choose to litigate against my company, or my users, I will certainly be willing to see how your patents hold up in court.
Adamant1988, Thanks for taking the time to making this even more easy for everyone to understand.

Lets hope Canonical/Ubuntu become a member of The Interop Vendor Alliance (http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,156.0.html).

[jgrabham]

This inter-operability excuse is entirely bunk.

MS can easily interoperate with open source software - all they need do is download the source, read the data-structures & interface definitions, and then write their own gateway - not a single contract is needed. Similarly, if MS wants open source developers to inter-operate with MS-windows, MS can achieve that simply by documenting their interface - again, not a single contract is needed.

These agreements have absolutely zero to do with interoperability - they are simply setting the scene for screwing over the open source community.

That would mean they had to release the code for windows under the GPL!

[flewis7777]

I think there is another flavor in this debate: Microsoft spent 6-7 BILLION dollars to make Vista.
Linux on the other hand is using the community-development / open-source model and in comparing the two results (Windows vs Linux), one can easily see the power in open-source and the potential threat from Linux.

Simply put Vista may be the last of the Windows operating systems. They are too expensive and in the case of Vista, lots of eye candy but no new functionality. MS may go Penguin.

[smoker]

Ubuntu interoperability with Microsoft is a natural evolution that inevitably has to and will happen.

reference this forum discussion on this subject:
The Interop Vendor Alliance | Why Ubuntu won't make it (http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,156.0.html)
http://cafelinux.org/forum/index.php/topic,156.0.html

(Don't be set off by the title of the thread, what I am simply saying is that Ubuntu will need to sign The Interop Vendor Alliance, to play with the big boys much like Suse, Xandros, and Red Hat have already done.)

Hm, forgive me if i have missed something, agreeing to co-operate with ms through the interop vendor alliance is one thing, and i believe that may be a way to enhance interoperability with ms to suit the customers of some linux distros -

but, if this is the case, why are some distros making deals with ms protecting their clients from ms ip lawsuits, while still denying any ip infringements, and dressing up the deal as some kind of interoperability agreement?

[Stephen Howard]

Linux Company: Hey, Microsoft, our mutual customers are demanding that our products work better together, what can we do about that?

Microsoft: Well, we can agree to work together, but I would like to deal with this issue of your software violating our patents.

Linux Company: Yeah, that patent collection has some of our customers a little afraid you might choose to litigate against them.

Microsoft: Right, well, let's agree that we don't sue each other's customers over any patent issues, since It's possible you own patents that we infringe on.

Linux Company: Right, sounds like a good deal to me. I think our mutual customers will be very pleased.


You'll have to remind me, what does the red bit have to do with the blue bit? Its like I asked you, "What's 5+5?", and you replied, "Wednesday." The communication just doesn't make sense.

Further, the only reason that "some of our customers a little afraid you might choose to litigate against them" is that MS is spreading that FUD in order to slow Linux adoption. When companies like Xandros and Suse enter into these odious agreements, they merely reinforce the FUD.

If MS is serious about interoperability, it would be a million times more efficient for it to simply publish the data formats and interface specifications - with one stroke they inform 10,000 companies instead of just one.

[jiminycricket]

MS on the patent deals (http://mybroadband.co.za/nephp/?m=show&id=6672)

Mark: Microsoft is asking people to pay them for patents, but they won’t say which ones. If a guy walks into a shop and says: “It’s an unsafe neighbourhood, why don’t you pay me 20 bucks and I’ll make sure you’re okay,” that’s illegal. It’s racketeering. What Microsoft is doing with intellectual property is exactly the same. It’s a great company and I have great admiration for it, but this was not a well considered position.

Question: So you wouldn’t do a deal?

Mark: No, absolutely not. But the time will come when the folks at Microsoft who have a clear vision for the company as a participant in this community, rather than as a hostile antagonist, will win.

[Stephen Howard]

jiminycricket, that is a relief. I had the horrible feeling that the Ubuntu team didn't recognise that this patent FUD is a shakedown by microsoft. But it looks like Ubuntu is safe so long as Mark Shuttleworth groks it.

[Sslaxx]

Even the so-called Linux guys at M$ have been openly hostile towards it, so I very much doubt M$ will ever be anything other than a hostile antagonist... that said, I applaud Mark for not wanting to do deals with them.

[Adamant1988]

You'll have to remind me, what does the red bit have to do with the blue bit? Its like I asked you, "What's 5+5?", and you replied, "Wednesday." The communication just doesn't make sense.

Further, the only reason that "some of our customers a little afraid you might choose to litigate against them" is that MS is spreading that FUD in order to slow Linux adoption. When companies like Xandros and Suse enter into these odious agreements, they merely reinforce the FUD.

If MS is serious about interoperability, it would be a million times more efficient for it to simply publish the data formats and interface specifications - with one stroke they inform 10,000 companies instead of just one.

/facepalm.

Let me dumb this down EVEN FURTHER.

Group A wants to work on interoperability. Ok, you still with me here? Good.
Group B knows that Group A wants to work on interoperability but is kind of miffed at Group A for violating their IP.

Group B then suggests to Group A that they would be willing to work with them, provided they fix this situation with their IP.
Group A accepts.

Also, customers were afraid that Microsoft might litigate against them because Microsoft went to them first about this. Microsoft understood that cross-patent deals are illegal under the GPL, so they would not be able to get a single dime from a Linux vendor. They then went to the customers, some paid them, some sent them straight back to the vendors. Obviously, this situation didn't work for Microsoft who was seeking to make some money off of the infringed IP. It is at this point in our story that Novell wants to get an interoperability deal going for the customers, since Novell's customers (some) were worried that Microsoft may litigate against them, and that Microsoft probably refused to do the deal without the clause, Novell Accepted Microsoft's terms.

[Stephen Howard]

It is at this point in our story that Novell wants to get an interoperability deal going for the customers, since Novell's customers (some) were worried that Microsoft may litigate against them,

There's that non-sequitur again (1) Novell's customers were worried that Microsoft may sue them for using the Suse distro; (2) Novell thinks, "oh, lets increase software interoperability, that will stop a court case!" Its "What's 5+5? Wednesday" all over again.

How does having a programmer write some system interoperability code actually stop Microsoft from litigating??? It doesn't.

The real issue isn't interoperability (which can be much more efficiently achieved without such silly agreements), rather, Microsoft wants to kill off its only long term competitor - linux. Microsoft does not co-exist - they crush threats before they grow. They've proven that over and over again.

They [Microsoft] then went to the customers, some paid them, some sent them straight back to the vendors. Obviously, this situation didn't work for Microsoft who was seeking to make some money off of the infringed IP.

Funny, by your theory I'd have thought Microsoft would kiss them on the cheek and say, "Lets get our software to interoperate!", but instead you say they tried to shake the customers down for cash for alleged patent infringement. Hope you weren't handling the negotiations for any of the companies Microsoft approached, because you'd have said, "That's fine, no need to even tell me what patents you're talking about, here's a million dollars in compensation, see you same time next year."

Mark Shuttleworth himself called it racketeering, and he's right.

[kroenecker]

Adamant1988,

Let me dumb it down further for you. We do understand that Microsoft is a business thriving under the archaic business ecosystem available in the United States. We, unfortunately, don't support their business model. Period. That's it. It's that simple. I'm disappointed that these decisions have been made. Microsoft should be going out of it's way. Not the other way around. I don't know if you followed SCO, but this is a similar vein. The deals are absolutely moot because even if Microsoft sued in the future, they would be crushed by counter-suits. It would be ridiculous.

As for copyright, I wasn't referring to exact duplications of the code (although that would probably be problematic too), I was talking about patented technologies in the code. By being able to read the code we could easily determine if they are utilizing patented technology. I'm not an expert here (as you like to pretend you are) so I can't really comment about it.

As for interoperability, what are you guys talking about? Where do we need interoperability? Where? There is no way Samba will follow this route, which leaves me wondering where this wonderful interoperability that you allude to needs to take place. Besides, if they want to interoperate, all the specs are openly available. This goes back to Microsoft being the one to actually be proactive. You adamant obviously are not an engineer. And they would not have to open up any of their code if they were so gracious as to ACTUALLY use open standards.

This thread is full of BS. If science classes had managed to teach you anything, it's that simple, parsimony is always best. Everything else is someone trying to hoodwink you. (Again, just so that you, Adamant1988, can comprehend my comments, I'm speaking from an engineering perspective.)

[Adamant1988]

There's that non-sequitur again (1) Novell's customers were worried that Microsoft may sue them for using the Suse distro; (2) Novell thinks, "oh, lets increase software interoperability, that will stop a court case!" Its "What's 5+5? Wednesday" all over again.

How does having a programmer write some system interoperability code actually stop Microsoft from litigating??? It doesn't.

The real issue isn't interoperability (which can be much more efficiently achieved without such silly agreements), rather, Microsoft wants to kill off its only long term competitor - linux. Microsoft does not co-exist - they crush threats before they grow. They've proven that over and over again.

You're kind of dense aren't you? These are independent events. Microsoft's attempts to get money happened to be a barrier to Novell's desire to interoperate. However, Novell also had the understanding that it's customers were fond of the 'patent protection' idea, and so accepted the terms. This has been stated by their company through blogs.



Funny, by your theory I'd have thought Microsoft would kiss them on the cheek and say, "Lets get our software to interoperate!", but instead you say they tried to shake the customers down for cash for alleged patent infringement. Hope you weren't handling the negotiations for any of the companies Microsoft approached, because you'd have said, "That's fine, no need to even tell me what patents you're talking about, here's a million dollars in compensation, see you same time next year."

Mark Shuttleworth himself called it racketeering, and he's right.

Microsoft wants money. I'm not saying that Microsoft is the best company or most friendly. I'm saying that had this been any other set of companies, with any other set of software, they would be in court - right now. Microsoft is taking advantage of the fact that these companies need a boom to compete, why do you think Red Hat isn't doing this? They don't need it. Novell needed to compete with Red Hat, so it wanted to interoperate with Microsoft. Microsoft saw this as it's golden opportunity to deal with the IP problem it had been trying to work out.

However, I'm done trying to explain this to you. You are both deaf and blind to everything but the opinion of figures like Mark Shuttleworth. Mark Shuttleworth is a good, charismatic person, but he is not God. Mark Shuttleworth is saying the same thing that every other Free Software leader is saying: "They're like the mob". The Free Software community at large seems to be ignoring anything they don't want to see on this deal, any evidence to the contrary of their opinions.

I don't know why I'm bothering to argue with you on this, to be honest. You're the ones trying to prove corruption, conspiracy, racketeering, deceit, and evil. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

[Adamant1988]

Adamant1988,

Let me dumb it down further for you. We do understand that Microsoft is a business thriving under the archaic business ecosystem available in the United States. We, unfortunately, don't support their business model. Period. That's it. It's that simple. I'm disappointed that these decisions have been made. Microsoft should be going out of it's way. Not the other way around. I don't know if you followed SCO, but this is a similar vein. The deals are absolutely moot because even if Microsoft sued in the future, they would be crushed by counter-suits. It would be ridiculous.

As for copyright, I wasn't referring to exact duplications of the code (although that would probably be problematic too), I was talking about patented technologies in the code. By being able to read the code we could easily determine if they are utilizing patented technology. I'm not an expert here (as you like to pretend you are) so I can't really comment about it.

As for interoperability, what are you guys talking about? Where do we need interoperability? Where? There is no way Samba will follow this route, which leaves me wondering where this wonderful interoperability that you allude to needs to take place. Besides, if they want to interoperate, all the specs are openly available. This goes back to Microsoft being the one to actually be proactive. You adamant obviously are not an engineer. And they would not have to open up any of their code if they were so gracious as to ACTUALLY use open standards.

This thread is full of BS. If science classes had managed to teach you anything, it's that simple, parsimony is always best. Everything else is someone trying to hoodwink you. (Again, just so that you, Adamant1988, can comprehend my comments, I'm speaking from an engineering perspective.)

I understood the gist of what you said, and I still feel you are wrong. I'll cite a recent example for you, so I can more accurately show you what I meant: Vonage v Verizon. Verizon holds a patent on sending calls over the internet (Although this isn't the actual terminology used, that's basically what the patent does). Vonage was sued bey Verizon for violating their patent. At no point during this series of court battles did either company have to open up their code to the court to show the patent violations. Patents are on a method of doing something, and are not related to the code.

Therefor, Microsoft's code doesn't have to be open to scrutiny to show that they infringe on the patents of others. I believe Microsoft just recently was sued over the mp3 patenting issues, and lost. The point I'm trying to make is that Microsoft has no legal reason to open their code up to anyone, we all know that Microsoft violates patents and they pay very large sums of money to the holders of patents that have come forward.

No, I am not an engineer, nor am I a patent lawyer. I have however had the patent law situation explained to me, as it relates to this instance, by an individual who IS a patent lawyer (Not to mention the countless blogs of lawyers I've read on this topic).

Also, Samba is GPL is it not? Novell already is customizing their version of OpenOffice to be more compatible with Microsoft's offerings. You feel this is not possible with Samba as well?

[Stephen Howard]

Patents are on a method of doing something, and are not related to the code.

This is very wrong. A patent is indeed a description of a method, but the expression of the method is by way of lines of code. So in order to prove that a patent has been used without license, the code needs to be examined to find if there are some lines that express the patented method.

Maybe in the Vonage/Verizon case the parties agreed that the patent was in the code (very unlikely by the way), but 9 times out of 10 the alleging party is put to the proof and therefore they need to get the other party's code by way of the court's discovery process. Then they hire some software experts who comb through the code and find the lines that express the patented method. While this is happening, the other side is busy looking for prior art (thereby invalidating the patent) and hiring experts who will testify that the patented method is actually obvious (and therefore invalid).