Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
Novell waves its patent weapons
Novell got off to a bit of an awkward start with the free software
community; since then, the company has missed few opportunities to state
its support for the community's goals - and to back up those words with
actions. Releasing iFolder and Ximian Connector and jumping into the SCO
fray are a few examples of note. Now Novell has posted a policy
statement describing how it will respond to patent attacks on free
software. This policy may not be all that the community might ask for,
but, if Novell lives up to its words, the community may have just gained a
new, potent ally in the patent battle.
So what is Novell saying? The company makes its purpose clear at the beginning:
We believe that customers want and need freedom of choice in making
decisions about technology solutions. Those considering Novell
offerings, whether proprietary or open source, should be able to
make their purchasing decisions based on technical merits,
security, quality of service and value, not the threat of
litigation. Novell intends to continue to compete based on such
criteria.
In other words, Novell wants to make the world safe for Novell products - and their customers. Yes, this is a selfish motivation, but one should not forget that this is a corporation we are talking about here. The important point is that Novell sees litigious patent holders as a threat to its interests, and is responding in the hope of heading them off. Here is the stick intended to deter possible attackers:
As appropriate, Novell is prepared to use our patents, which are
highly relevant in today's marketplace, to defend against those who
might assert patents against open source products marketed, sold or
supported by Novell. Some software vendors will attempt to counter
the competitive threat of Linux by making arguments about the risk
of violating patents. Vendors that assert patents against customers
and competitors such as Novell do so at their own peril and with
the certainty of provoking a response.
It is a sort of intellectual property mutual assured destruction policy: if you deploy your patent weapons in a way which threatens Novell's interests, Novell will respond with "highly relevant" weapons of its own. This promise is worth something, for a couple of reasons. The first is that it is credible: Novell has truly committed itself to Linux, and is indisputably threatened by anybody who brings threats against Linux or its users. The company's own interests will compel it to respond to such threats. The other notable point here is that a threat against almost any package shipped in the SUSE Linux distribution is a threat against Novell. The announcement for SUSE Linux Professional 9.2 claims over 3500 packages. So, while Novell has not committed itself to defending any free software project, especially if Novell customers have not been directly threatened, the fact remains that the company must be prepared to step in and defend a large number of projects if its promise to its own customers is to remain credible. Anybody who considers launching an attack against any of those 3500 packages will have to include a possible response from Novell in their calculations. The patent threat, while still very real, has just gotten a little bit less scary. There is one thing which Novell did not say, however: nothing in the posted policy commits the company to not using its own patents to attack a competing free software project. We asked Novell about whether the company would make an IBM-style "no first use" declaration; we got this response back from company PR Director Bruce Lowry:
Novell doesn't intend to use its patents against open source. What
we've said today goes beyond what IBM said, both in terms of scope
(not just the Linux kernel) and in terms of potential actions.
We're saying we're prepared to use our patents to protect our open
source offerings against potential patent claims by others.
That is good stuff, and what one would have expected to hear. But it would have been nice if Novell's patent policy contained an explicit promise not to attack free software with patents. This point leads into another thing which is absent from Novell's patent policy: any sort of commitment to work toward reform of the patent system. The simple fact is that Novell, like IBM and others, appears to be happy with the patent system itself. Novell has acquired enough "highly relevant" patents to be confident in its ability to fend off attacks from others. Having gotten into a position where just about anybody in the industry is probably infringing upon at least one of its patents, Novell has no particular motivation to drop its weapons. Such is the nature of the U.S. patent system; at least those weapons are, for now, deployed in the defense of free software. (Log in to post comments)
Novell waves its patent weapons Posted Oct 14, 2004 9:18 UTC (Thu) by hippy (guest, #1488) [Link] Whilst this policy is to be welcomed, I think that it is unlikely to beeffective against a patent case brought by a 'pure IP' company. The MAD strategy of the large patent holders will work against each other but not against a player that does not itself sell any technology. When 'pure IP' companies start to rattle the cages of the big patent holders it will be interesting to see if they are still so happy with the current patent policy.
Novell waves its patent weapons Posted Oct 14, 2004 10:12 UTC (Thu) by fergal (subscriber, #602) [Link] Did Novell say what outcome they would aim for in a fight?
For example, will they consider a fight to be over when Novell customers have a free license to use the patented technology or are they going to demand that the patent be licensed to all users of GPL software using the patent or that everyone will get free license no matter how they use it?
I could see them achieving the first case without too much hassle, that's what goes on now between these big companies. The third case means that someone would have to be persuaded to just give up their patent. Would anyone do this (MS for example)? The second case while not the ideal outcome is still a lot to demand of a patent holder.
Novell waves its patent weapons Posted Oct 14, 2004 21:31 UTC (Thu) by Fats (subscriber, #14882) [Link] I'm more sceptical about the message Novell is trying to bring.First they claim that they think patents on software are good and that Novell would not be what it is today without them. Second they claim that they will not use their software patents in an offensive way. To me these statements are contradicting: you either are for patents and then you should also use them to protect your IP or you don't want to use them; if you only need them for defensive reasons it is better software patents would not exist so nobody can attack you.
Staf.
TAKE NOTE YOUNG STARTUPS! Posted Oct 21, 2004 12:50 UTC (Thu) by guest01 (guest, #25274) [Link] Your first task is not to burn through your capital on orgies of office furniture, prime location, and company lunches. Your first task is to patent something obvious (such as using one's index finger in conjunction with a mouse-like pointing device...) to build up some line of defense. Once you've got that in your back pocket you start working on your "project". Oh yea, and then you can start burning through your capital as if it were the Californian country-side.
This IS the new reality of doing business in the field of technology. It is inevitable that you're going to cross someone's patent at some point or another and you had better have something to fight back with.
Global collaboration at its best Posted Oct 21, 2004 13:15 UTC (Thu) by guest01 (guest, #25274) [Link] *tsk**tsk* *tsk*
So many guarded statements:
Companies (like Novell and IBM) stepping forward to shelter this collection of software from litigation from otherwise very rich and powerful corporations are contributing just as much (and I would argue they contribute *more*) than someone contributing a new driver or a fix for some obscure bug.
It's one thing for a bunch of developers to get together and write some of the best, most stable, high performance code that is open and works on multiple environments and architectures. It's an entirely different thing for someone to wager an enormous load of money in the defence of such software against the pounding it would otherwise face in the corporate world of high stakes, high money, and high technology.
You see? This is just the final peg in the puzzle that is open-source. Intelligent developers on the one hand contributing the code, rich companies on the other helping to defend and keep this code "free".
Would a simple "thank you" be just too much to ask?
|
|||||||||||||