| |||||||||||||
Novell sold to AttachmateNovell sold to AttachmatePosted Nov 22, 2010 15:28 UTC (Mon) by lxoliva (subscriber, #40702)Parent article: Novell sold to Attachmate
So, MSFT didn't want anyone else to control NOVL's patents, but at the same time it couldn't just buy NOVL itself: if it did, the trick they both pulled off to circumvent GPLv2 would turn into a GPL-granted license of MSFT's holy patents to NOVL's downstream, very much like that in GPLv3.
So instead MSFT gets control of the patents through this holding (read patent troll), and gets someone else to buy the corpse that distributed software that reads on MSFT's patents.
Clever!
(Log in to post comments)
Novell sold to Attachmate Posted Nov 22, 2010 16:54 UTC (Mon) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
I think the two important questions now are:
* What important patents did Novell have?
Novell sold to Attachmate Posted Nov 23, 2010 0:03 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
I expect that contracts and agreements with OIN still stand and will continue to stand for as long as those agreements were originally set to last.
It's not like when you buy a company then all of a sudden you eliminated all the original company's obligations. The good and the bad are part of what you buy.
To know for certain you'll have to look at the OIN contracts and see if there is any escape clause or whatever for pulling your patents back out. Like if Novell could buy themselves out of the OIN then it would be possible for the new patent holders to do that also.
Novell sold to Attachmate Posted Nov 23, 2010 2:33 UTC (Tue) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] Actually, I think that Microsoft may well have paid more monetary damages to patent trolls than any other software company. While they may gain from patent FUD (as in "don't implement that or maybe we might be able to sue you"), if actual patent wars break out their pockets are deep and they have a lot to lose.
What patents does Novell own Posted Nov 23, 2010 20:43 UTC (Tue) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link]
In patents, quantity can matter more than quality.
A large quantity becomes (depending on which tack you wish to take), leverage in pressing for licensing fees from others (a trick IBM knows well), or a bargaining chip in dealing with requests for licensing fees from others. In either case, the alternative is litigation, generally aimed at busting the patent. Patent busting is expensive and time consuming. Multiply that by 882 patents (a pretty significant holding).
Of course, specific patents may be instrumental in carving out market space, it'll be interesting to see what's in there and how they can/will be used.
I don't particularly welcome this development.
Novell sold to Attachmate Posted Nov 23, 2010 1:40 UTC (Tue) by garloff (subscriber, #319) [Link]
Maybe it's time to update our view on the world?
We (the OSS community) have been fighting MSFT as our arch-enemy for so long that we sometimes miss that the world has changed. Looking at how Oracle or Apple behave these days, MSFT looks almost like an open, diverse and friendly company ... We should certainly not discount them as mostly harmless, but at the same time I think that the panic displayed if MSFT is involved with anything just does not reflect who we need to care about most. Sidenote: If MSFT wanted to use this for troll attacks against Linux, they surely would have found a set up where they would not be obviously and publicly behind. They have just too mnay customers that use Linux as well who would not at all appreciate such behavior.
Just my 0.02
Novell sold to Attachmate Posted Nov 23, 2010 13:07 UTC (Tue) by gnufreex (guest, #70396) [Link]
>Sidenote: If MSFT wanted to use this for troll attacks against Linux, they surely would have found a set up where they would not be obviously and publicly behind. They have just too mnay customers that use Linux as well who would not at all appreciate such behavior.
So basically: If they do it publicly, then apologizing goes "it ain't so, they wouldn't be stipid to do that in front all those people; there must be another explanation".
If they do it secretly and some people start connecting dots, then it goes "Prove it or else you are paranoid conspiracy theorist".
Apologizing for MSFT often involves circular argument.
I would say that MSFT have already done secret attacks. For example Acacia might be funded by MSFT, because they got paid off by Redmond (under a guise of cross-licensing deal) as soon as they ended case against Red Hat(and we don't know how that case ended).
Call me paranoid.
Novell sold to Attachmate Posted Nov 23, 2010 14:47 UTC (Tue) by ccurtis (guest, #49713) [Link]
Garloff's concerns are valid.
I don't want to spawn an MSFT tirade, but it is irresponsible to hold such enmity towards a single company when there may be larger threats lurking.
The tricky thing with corporations is that they are unpredictable. MSFT, under Bill Gates, was generally anti-patent. Gates publicly warned against software patents. I don't know so much about Ballmer, and even less about whoever might preside next.
If you want to be snarky about it, MSFT isn't an innovator - they're a copier - and as such could be a great ally against software patents. But in reality, they didn't like getting sued by Apple or the other patent trolls and I think that like most engineering-minded entities, they would rather not have to deal with any of that.
The money behind the SCO suit could have been "testing the waters" as some suggest; it could be cronyism (which runs rampant in certain circles, from my experience); or it could be something as simple as "doing the right thing" (by paying for these [maybe not phony] licenses) while being mildly amused by the tempest it creates, because - hey - you've got more money than you know what to do with and it's not going to hurt your business.
So for those reasons it's valid to keep an eye on what MSFT is doing, but also to recognize that - at least for now - they may not be the biggest threat out there.
I do have to admit that I don't follow a lot of these interactions closely and so may not be adequately informed, but Oracle seems to fall into a scary "litigious bastards" camp, and doesn't seem to prefer to use its patents defensively. They also own all of Sun's IP, and we're still learning how that's going to play out ...
That being said, Patent Trolls are a _major_ threat because there is no "defensive patent" contingency that can be used against them. The embedded/small-device market is becoming extremely litigious as well, which is likely to spill over into Linux usage and growth there.
I think defending against these "pure play" patent threats is more beneficial than tirades and pages and pages of conspiracy theories surrounding MSFT. Like all amoral and schizophrenic corporations they need to be watched, but not at the expense of ignoring armies gathering at the back door ...
Novell sold to Attachmate Posted Nov 23, 2010 15:54 UTC (Tue) by gnufreex (guest, #70396) [Link]
I don't see why it is important to measure who is biggest threat? I we have to measure, I say MSFT is worse, but that is not so relevant IMHO. You are assuming that Oracle will get a free pass if people don't leave Microsoft alone. Not so. Both can be watched. (And Apple too). Both Oracle and MSFT are threats, they are both bunch of litigious bastards and none of them use patents only defensively. I don't think MSFT would go through the trouble of crating consortium and blowing up $450m only to sit on Novell's patents. Microsoft just crated a patent trolling consortium, it is that obvious. They are creating patent trolls, and their existence now only depends on how much they can squelch free software. See what ex Microsofties are doing when they leave mother ship. They do patent trolling, against Microsoft competitors. Paul Allen and Nathan Myrhwold are biggest examples, but there are more.
You seem to imply that Microsoft is using patents defensively only. I don't think that patent extortion is acceptable or "defensive only". Whey you threaten someone, that is offensive. And I think it is more dangerous to have company go around and suing/extorting GNU/Linux users and OEMs (like Microsoft does regularly), than to sue someone directly and blatantly (like Oracle did). Microsoft should either openly sue and show patents in question, or shut up.
>That being said, Patent Trolls are a _major_ threat because there is no "defensive patent" contingency that can be used against them.
That is why Microsoft is creating shell companies and breading patent trolls. They don't have guts to sue for themselves, so they are using proxies.
Please check the facts first Posted Nov 24, 2010 21:50 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] The tricky thing with corporations is that they are unpredictable. MSFT, under Bill Gates, was generally anti-patent. Gates publicly warned against software patents. Wow! Nothing can be further from truth. Here is the actual quote: PATENTS: If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today. I feel certain that some large company will patent some obvious thing related to interface, object orientation, algorithm, application extension or other crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then the have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want. The solution to this is patent exchanges with large companies and patenting as much as we can. Amazingly we havn't done any patent exchanges tha I am aware of. Amazingly we havn't found a way to use our licensing position to avoid having our own customers cause patent problems for us. I know these aren't simply problems but they deserve more effort by both Legal and other groups. For example we need to do a patent exchange with HP as part of our new relationship. In many application categories straighforward thinking ahead allows you to come up with patentable ideas. A recent paper from the League for Programming Freedom (available from the Legal department) explains some problems with the way patents are applied to software. Everyone seems to remember first sentence, but not the rest. Microsoft never was anti-patent company. At first it was ignorant, then they discovered dangers and opportunities and embraced them as useful (albeit dangrous) weapons against competition. Note how Bill Gates proposes to use the usual trick again (use monopoly power to muscle it's way into adjacent areas). So for those reasons it's valid to keep an eye on what MSFT is doing, but also to recognize that - at least for now - they may not be the biggest threat out there. You are right - but sadly not because Microsoft changed one jot (it's the same untrustworthy bully it always was), but because there are other, more sinister dangers around (Oracle is the biggest one, but Apple is serois enemy too). Remember: former best friend is often the worst enemy - and this certainly applies to Apple and Oracle. But this is temporary situation: it certainly looks like Microsoft is bound and determined to prove this old adage wrong and to prove that it can win back title of "the worst FOSS enemy".
I think it follows Posted Nov 24, 2010 23:04 UTC (Wed) by ccurtis (guest, #49713) [Link]
I thought I had posted a followup but apparently I don't know how to use the comment system properly. Sadly, I think it may have clarified my wording.
I think the full quote justifies my belief, but allow me to try to paraphrase my lost response: Software patents are a fact of life for software companies doing business these days. Bill Gates' position is actually the responsible one in the business environment we're living in: the only defense against a software patent claim is to have a large collection of patents yourself - a patent form of mutually assured destruction. The result of this is an oligarchy or an (unintentional) software cartel, but that's due to a bug in the legal system, not Microsoft's behavior wrt patents.
My comment was in relation to Novell's patents - this new company (after the merger and likely IPO in a few years) appears to be a software company, and thus would be in need of a patent portfolio. I also had a rant/warning about patent trolls because they don't participate in the cartel - they, producing nothing, have no need for patent agreement pacts or other legal defense.
[Pondering ... I'm not sure right now if software patent trolls are a long-term good influence or not at this point ... I'm thinking that patents are rarely enforcable against non-commercial infringement. It seems like OSS (GNU-style, anyway) may be effectively exempt. OSS companies, though, are for-profit. They're also easy targets for the trolls to hit first to establish their legitimacy. Thoughts for another day ...]
But back to the point: Gates' words are clearly reactionary, and not of a "here's how we use this to win" nature - they're "here's how we don't get killed". The man is afraid of patent suits not only from competitors, but also from his own customers.
I'll update my worldview when I see reason Posted Nov 23, 2010 21:00 UTC (Tue) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link]
Problem with that suggestion:
1: Microsoft have always played a scorched-earth game. Look specifically to the DRDOS/Novell trial for some choice quotes. Note Nathan "Microsoft Patent Pool Company Founder" Mhyrvold among others:
The strategic side is: ... We put a bullet in the head of our would be
I thought about it all night. Since I came here I said there were two
We need to slaughter Novell before they get stronger.
This really isn't that hard. If you're going to kill someone there isn't
http://www.maxframe.com/DR/Info/fullstory/factstat.html
2: Microsoft have sung the "different game" song before. They really haven't changed yet. I see no reason they will.
3: Microsoft have been very adept players at stacking the political deck and weilding standards (de facto and de jure) to their advantage.
4: Microsoft have waged war by proxy in the past. Wang vs. Netscape and SCO vs. IBM come to mind.
5: Microsoft are starting to show very credible signs of an end-of-growth/end-stage tech giant. A decade of flat to no growth, significant loss of buzz, and restating / rejiggering of financial statements to provide the appearance of growth/health where reality is much less certain. While I look forward to the day when they're no longer a blot and impediment to tech growth and development (and conceding that they've made for certain advances), one downside is that dying tech giants almost always become patent trolls. The one trick left in their bag is a set of patents which they can milk, and shareholder obligations pretty much require them to do so.
6: Microsoft have been paving the way to becoming a patent troll for quite some time. Aquisitions with an eye to key patents and technology, and specifically Nathan Mhyrvold's "Intellectual Ventures". I don't see this ending well.
7. Apple, Oracle, Google: Yes, size, in and of itself, is a problem in the tech world. Somewhat worse as the big players are frequently something like teenagers training hard with a high-protein diet and steroids: they've gotten to be a lot bigger and stronger than they realize. At least Oracle and Apple have some maturity, though they're not particularly acting like it (megalomaniacal, charismatic, powerful CEOs don't help). That's an "and also", not "but" to this discussion.
8: Yeah, MSFT are being public (but very cagy) about this. Seems the North Koreans recently invited western academics to tour a putative uranium processing plant. For some reason, the two remind me of one another.
I'll be really interested to see what Groklaw turns up here.
I'll update my worldview when I see reason Posted Nov 24, 2010 13:58 UTC (Wed) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link]
It is a bit silly to list events that happened 20 years ago..
We didn't make IBM run away from Linux in 2000 because IBM was _the_ evil FUD dispersing big company in 1980.
Companies and their relevance does change over time, and we should co-operate with whoever wants to be friendly with FOSS community.. regardless of their past and holding no illusions the company will remain friends forever.
That said.. still practically no OSS code commits from @microsoft.com.
I'll update my worldview when I see reason Posted Nov 24, 2010 14:33 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] When MSFT release usable, good-quality, non-trivial code that reads on their patents, under a free-derivation free-redistribution commercial-use-permitted licence that includes (or is accompanied by) an explicit royalty-free patent grant, I'll admit they might not be "the enemy".
I'll update my worldview when I see reason Posted Nov 24, 2010 15:05 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>That said.. still practically no OSS code commits from @microsoft.com.
Do they still have more code in Linux than Canonical, or has AppArmor changed that?
I'll update my worldview when I see reason Posted Nov 29, 2010 14:35 UTC (Mon) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Perhaps not: Crispin (AppArmor's original author) now works for... Microsoft!
I'll update my worldview when I see reason Posted Nov 24, 2010 15:50 UTC (Wed) by whitemice (guest, #3748) [Link]
>That said.. still practically no OSS code commits from @microsoft.com.
Eh? Microsoft has helped out both the Samba 4 and Mono projects extensively. They may not contribute to the kernel but as someone actually in a position to know - Microsoft [employees] make significant contributions to Open Source.
That 20-year trend hasn't changed Posted Nov 25, 2010 1:34 UTC (Thu) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link] And many of the people quoted are still direct players in the company and its "ecosystem" today. IBM experienced a sea-change in the early 1990s. Microsoft have seen some setbacks, but I don't think the company has collectively had the experience IBM did at the time. Changing corporate cultures is, as Barbie might say, hard. Really hard. As for Microsoft contributing to OSS: there are nine commits to the kernel source tree for 2.6.35 from Haiyang Zhang and Hank Janssen. From: log-2.6.35.gz, part of Greg Kroah-Hartman's Kernel History. Microsoft have committed a few of their own projects as OSS, and helped out in a few other ways. Oh yeah: hypocrisy is the spice of life, and companies in particular can be spectacularly inconsistent. That said, at the top, MSFT are still strongly anti-Linux from all I've seen. We're hurting them badly, where it counts.
|
|||||||||||||