| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
microsoft paid novell, not the other way aroundmicrosoft paid novell, not the other way aroundPosted Oct 14, 2007 7:47 UTC (Sun) by njs (subscriber, #40338)In reply to: microsoft paid novell, not the other way around by paulj Parent article: Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat and Novell - Just Like Ballmer Predicted (Groklaw)
Or not. Novell is apparently paying MS a percentage of *all* Suse revenues, including for copies that Novell sold all on their own and MS had nothing to do with -- at least as far as I can tell from the last line of their SEC filing[1], which is admittedly a bit vague.
[1] http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/00007580040...
(Log in to post comments)
microsoft paid novell, not the other way around Posted Oct 14, 2007 14:53 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] If this agreement concerned any other two parties, ones not affected by contraversy and suspicion, most people'd conclude that if the Novell-like party were paying based on *all* their sales, that this was agreed because:
- The MS-like party are to spend money marketing Linux and Windows virtualisation /generally/
- The Novell-party should see a general increase in sales (to whatever extent) from such spending, beyond just those sales it sees in direct referrals from the Microsoft-like party.
That'd be the most reasonable explanation if it didn't involve MS..
|
|
||||||||||||