Sponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
This clears nothing upThis clears nothing upPosted Nov 28, 2006 15:41 UTC (Tue) by nat (guest, #41935)In reply to: This clears nothing up by bronson Parent article: Novell's IRC session on the Microsoft deal
Hey, so I did my best to answer corbet's question. I wasn't in the discussions in Redmond where they figured out how much money goes in what direction, so I wasn't sure how to best answer him. I said that the payments were for the promises, and mentioned how other patent-related payments often happen.
What is left unanswered exactly? I'm totally open to more questioning on this.
(Log in to post comments)
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 28, 2006 19:51 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] Here's how I understand the question (and it's one I also have): You say the money is exchanging hands for patent licenses (convenants, whatever) for customers. At the same time, you say you are unaware of any patents that Novell is infringing on. So there are two possible ways to consider this:
1) Novell is not aware of any patents they are infringing on, but believe they are infringing on some (this is a reasonable belief given how many software patents there are). This implies that they also believe MS could theoretically sue their customers, and the protection is important.
2) Novell is not aware of any patents they are infringing on, and do not believe they are infringing on any. In this case, you believe MS is paying you for nothing. You say "It doesn't matter if the allegations from MSFT are true or not" but MS certainly believes it, and believes it enough to pay you millions of dollars. Alternately, MS is irrational, and just likes throwing money at you.
This means there are three possible outcomes. First, Novell is waffling and believes they did actually purchase real protection for their customers, but doesn't want to admit it to the people who they didn't purchase it for. Second, Novell and Microsoft have very different opinions about the efficacy of the contract they have agreed to, MS believing it means something and Novell believing it doesn't. Third, Novell is doing business with a company that is completely irrational.
None of these options reflect very well on Novell. So please, explain what exactly Novell is paying for, and why.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 29, 2006 2:52 UTC (Wed) by pzb (subscriber, #656) [Link] > At the same time, you say you are unaware of any patents that Novell is> infringing on. > > Novell is not aware of any patents they are infringing on, and do not > believe they are infringing on any. In this case, you believe MS is > paying you for nothing.
You seem to have confused two things. This is a bidirectional agreement. Microsoft is paying Novell for a promise by Novell not to sue Microsoft's customers. Novell is paying Microsoft for a promise by Microsoft to not sue Novell's customers.
In Microsoft's statement they said "Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on [...] whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents." This would seem to be more related to payments by Microsoft to Novell than any discussion of Novell's infringement on Microsoft patents.
This clears nothing up Posted Nov 29, 2006 10:39 UTC (Wed) by nat (guest, #41935) [Link]
Novell is paying Microsoft to promise not to sue Novell's customers. Microsoft is paying Novell (much more money) to promise not to sue Microsoft's customers.
Novell does not state in any way that Linux infringes Microsoft IP. It was enough for Novell that Novell's customers were concerned (whether those concerns are valid or not).
|
|||||||||||