Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
"...organized by Microsoft Corporation..."
And MS gets "certain [Novell] IP assets"
Posted Nov 22, 2010 16:22 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
And MS, via CPTN Holdings LLC, gets "certain intellectual property assets" of Novell.
If that means patents, then Mono could become a big problem.
Posted Nov 22, 2010 16:36 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
Actually, the impact of this isn't immediately obvious to me.
Holdings companies don't do development, so we're not talking about copyright and probably not trademarks. US$450 million is a reasonable sum, and first paragraph mention in the press release suggests that these are serious assets.
Could it be something to do with removing Novell patents from the OIN pool?
Posted Nov 22, 2010 17:20 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
Posted Nov 22, 2010 22:03 UTC (Mon) by armijn (subscriber, #3653)
Posted Nov 22, 2010 23:27 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
Posted Nov 23, 2010 1:19 UTC (Tue) by linuxrocks123 (guest, #34648)
Posted Nov 23, 2010 1:31 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
When they started the organization they sang a very different tune than they do today, which included the patents of members. I think there is a lot about OIN that is not on the web site.
I always felt that most industry-sponsored patent defense activities around Linux were more about defending software patenting than Linux. I doubt we can even get a straight answer from OIN on this issue.
OIN lacks credible success story
Posted Nov 24, 2010 17:31 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
I'm not aware of the OIN having deterred anyone from asserting patents against anyone else. The OIN would like to make people believe so, but there isn't even one credible, verifiable success story. There has been some litigation involving Linux regardless of the OIN. When the OIN became involved with the TomTom case, everything that was known about the outcome wasn't any different from how comparable disputes ended.
OIN is all sorts of things including a patent pool
Posted Nov 24, 2010 17:43 UTC (Wed) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
In this blog post I outlined the three functions of the OIN. It buys up patents at auctions; it wants to serve as a deterrent (mutually assured damage); and it tries to establish a plurilateral cross-license agreement. All three of those activities are related to the concept of a "patent pool".
The problem is just that the OIN doesn't appear to have had a verifiable positive impact in any of those areas.
Posted Nov 22, 2010 16:59 UTC (Mon) by SEMW (guest, #52697)
Besides, it's not like Microsoft doesn't already hold a ton of patents (on .NET) that directly apply to mono. How could a few more change anything? What assurances we have against Microsoft suing are based on things like the Community Promise, not a hope that they don't have enough relevant patents. (And the patents Novell donated to the Open Invention Network were, well, donated. They presumably can't be undonated).
Posted Nov 22, 2010 17:43 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
"certain [Novell] IP assets" == 882 patents
Posted Nov 22, 2010 18:04 UTC (Mon) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
Another interesting item from the Patent Purchase Agreement section of the 8-K: "Also on November 21, 2010, Novell entered into a Patent Purchase Agreement (the Patent Purchase Agreement) with CPTN Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and consortium of technology companies organized by Microsoft Corporation (CPTN). The Patent Purchase Agreement provides that, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Patent Purchase Agreement, Novell will sell to CPTN all of Novells right, title and interest in 882 patents (the Assigned Patents) for $450 million in cash (the Patent Sale)."
Looks like this is just patents, not dusty file cabinets full of historic UNIX copyrights. Optimistically, maybe it's just MSFT trying to protect their Active Directory business from Novell's directory-related patents.
Posted Nov 22, 2010 19:26 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510)
Posted Nov 22, 2010 18:24 UTC (Mon) by whitemice (guest, #3748)
and to Python, PHP, glibc, X11, gcc, scheme, Java, GNOME, KDE, D-bus, Apache, Perl, firefox, pidgin, empathy / telepathy, vala, etc....
Posted Nov 22, 2010 20:24 UTC (Mon) by gus3 (guest, #61103)
Novell sold to Attachmate
Posted Nov 22, 2010 17:25 UTC (Mon) by daniel (subscriber, #3181)
I would tend to think that once again, Microsoft treads near the border of illegal trust making activity, on the wrong side of it.
Posted Nov 23, 2010 5:55 UTC (Tue) by Tashlan (guest, #17277)
$10 million for the setup.
$450 million for the real move.
and then it begins...
SCO / UNIX copyrights ...
Posted Nov 25, 2010 1:38 UTC (Thu) by kmself (subscriber, #11565)
The copyright angle is dead.
The purpose of the SCO v. IBM suit was to sow FUD. From conversations I had at the time with at least some tech execs (not particularly clueful ones, but then, that's probably the majority), it was at least somewhat successful.
I continue to give strong kudos to IBM for defending the case as strongly as it did, this has been a huge benefit to all of us in the Free / Open Source software communities.
Posted Nov 23, 2010 1:05 UTC (Tue) by rodgerd (guest, #58896)
Posted Nov 25, 2010 0:01 UTC (Thu) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds