Home Page
11.21.2006 (previous | next)
I Thought This is What You Wanted

IPcentral readers may have heard Microsoft executive, Steve Ballmer’s claim, that Linux infringes some of his company’s patents. The statement obviously put more fuel in the fire among various FOSS sentiments about Microsoft working with Novell, despite it being hard to see who loses from the partnership. FOSS developers have another option for safeguarding their work form infringement claims. Customers can feel more secure from IP assertions. Resulting interoperability between Linux and Microsoft technologies will benefit the industry. It seems like folks who don't like seeing Microsoft and Novell as pals are those who view others' gain as their loss.

CNet has a great article outlining commentary on the developments, including remarks by Novell that its agreement with Microsoft does not pose any kind of admission of Linux containing code that infringes Microsoft’s patents.

(Novell’s) Hovsepian … took issue with comments made by CEO Steve Ballmer last week that Linux "uses our patented (IP)."

The deal between Microsoft and Novell calls for the two companies not to sue each other's customers over patent issues... But that patent provision, Hovsepian said, did not amount to an admission that Suse Linux infringes on Microsoft's patents.

"We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft (IP). When we entered the ...agreement ...Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents…"

Now, legal certainty is a funny thing. Whether Linux infringes Microsoft's patents is up for the courts and USPTO to decide, not Steve Ballmer. The fact that the FOSS community takes such issue with an otherwise routine disagreement over possible patent infringement, that does not necessarily deter from the partnership between the two competitors, shows their inability to handle ambiguity and contradiction; in other words, the realities of the commercial landscape.

I admit some of Microsoft’s early gestures towards the FOSS community were unfriendly. However, looking over the past year, Microsoft has extended its hand to partner with FOSS entities or to work for interoperability standards. Companies like Red Hat even commended Microsoft’s FOSS efforts, until now, when one of its competitors got a good deal and it got left as a pouting adolescent out of the big tent. Hey, don’t complain about the rain if you choose to stay outside.

In the Microsoft statement released Monday, Microsoft called the legal aspect of the deal an effort to "put in place a new (IP) bridge between proprietary and open-source software."

...Microsoft has tried to forge similar legal and technical agreements with other Linux distributors... However, there is no deal with ...Red Hat. The day after the announced Novell deal, Red Hat responded with a statement saying that it will not pay an "innovation tax."

Even commentary from the Free Software Foundation suggests that Red Hat, well, may be boiling red mad, because of its competitor’s gain.
Eben Moglen, the attorney representing the Free Software Foundation, which created the (GPL) used by Linux, said Microsoft's deal with Novell puts Red Hat at a competitive disadvantage.

"Either customers desert Red Hat to go to Novell, to get safety, or Red Hat will be forced into a similar deal with Microsoft," Moglen told Reuters.

Several industry observers are more optimistic about the Microsoft-Novell pact.
Raven Zachary, an analyst at The 451 Group, said in a recent interview that the agreement gave new prominence to legal protection… "Indemnification was a hot issue a few years ago, and now it seems to be back... I think it elevates the level of fear."

Another analyst said the companies' verbal barbs are far from shocking… "This shouldn't surprise anybody," said Brad Reback, a CIBC World Markets analyst. "It's just corporate posturing, and the agreement remains intact."

Patent attorney Bruce Sunstein, of Bromberg & Sunstein in Boston, shares that sentiment. He noted that both companies stand to gain from the agreement and, as a result, have a strong incentive to keep it in place ... "Microsoft mainly wants to sell licenses...and if (Microsoft leaders) can find a way to do that and sit in the Linux environment, that's good for them… Fundamentally, they're not interested in patent litigation... they're interested in selling licenses."

Many FOSS supporters hail the need for interoperability in the technological environment, and more certainty under patent law, for their movement. But what efforts have they put forth towards these goals? What do they propose? In the latest debacle, marked by calls from various FOSS enttities for Novell to renounce its partnership with Microsoft, and claims that Novell is unfairly beating its rival Linux distributions, some FOSS segments have shown themselves to fall onto their own swords, unwilling to consider perhaps the most step to date made by "proprietary" and "open" entities to achieve what even they regard as critical goals.

posted by Noel Le @ 2:59 PM | Free Culture Movement

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment | Post a Comment(4)


Comments

Well, obviously both Novell and Microsoft mis-read the ethos of the Free Software Community.

Again it is demonstrated that FOSS is a phenomena that is more complex than can be understood by looking at only one of its many aspects or only one of its parts.

MS still does not get it, but I was surprised Novell could be so dimwitted. I really thought they new what they were doing when they bought SuSE, as a long time (since October 1998) user of that distro, I appreciated its design and its implementation that allowed automatic processes but did not do so at the expense of control-ability.

In any case, the communnity has held together, and is much more cohesive than MS or anyone at IP Central recognizes, since they really haven't saought to understand, but to detract and mis-represent FOSS advocates.

This deal will be remebered for guarenteeing the success of GPL version 3.0, and MS should have been able to forsee this coming about from their deal with Novell.

Stupid Microsoft.

Posted by: enigma_foundry at November 21, 2006 10:01 PM

I have yet to see a convincing argument made as to why patents should apply to non-commercial work. I fail to see the justification for why a group like SAMBA should have to pay the patent system the time of day when making a free product outside of normal commercial ventures. Now, if Novell gets very heavily involved, that I can understand. However, why should a pure or mostly pure FOSS be held liable? (as defined by the presence of at best only a minority of paid staffers and only coverage of basic costs by corporate sponsors with no profit motive for the group).

Posted by: MikeT at November 22, 2006 10:36 AM

Enigma, MSFT approached other Linux distros, so they can't complain that Redmond is giving privilege only to some in the Linux community and not others.

MikeT, the patent debate is a bit broader than this deal, which I don't see Samba hurt by. I see your point that "non-commercial" FOSS entities should not be held under patent law, but even if there is no profit motive in such entities, their actions in distributing FOSS development may render them commercial.

Posted by: Noel Le at November 22, 2006 11:18 AM

"Enigma, MSFT approached other Linux distros, so they can't complain that Redmond is giving privilege only to some in the Linux community and not others."

Don't think that has anything to do with my points made above, at all.

Posted by: enigma_foundry at November 22, 2006 5:42 PM








 
IPcentral WebLog

Blog Main

IPcentral Blogosphere Archives

Search the Blog

Recent Posts
  - IP and Marginal Cost
- Academics and Copyright
- More on Jammie Thomas from DOJ
- More Studies of Downloading
- Facebook, MySpace, and Network Externalities
- Copyright and the University: An Academic Symposium
- Tyler Cowan on Chinese Movie Piracy
- More WHO Antics--Roger Bate Reports
- Patents, Meds, and the Developing World: Clips & Links
- Jermaine Dupri's Gripe with iTunes
Archives by Month
  - December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
  - (see all)
Archives by Subject
  - Academia
- Access: Commons, Fair Use, Orphan Works, Public Domain
- Accounting
- Analog Holes
- Antitrust
- Art
- Aspen
- Big Tent
- Biotech
- Books
- Comments from Readers
- Counterfeit
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- DMCA
- DRM & Watermarks, etc.
- Economics, Game Theory & Public Choice
- Enforcement & Remedies
- Free Culture Movement
- Games
- General
- Infrastructure
- International
- Internet: P2P, Search Engines...
- Legislation and Legislators
- Liberty and IP
- Markets: Business, Investment & Innovation
- Media: Video, Music...
- Patents
- Pharma
- Physical Property
- Prices, Terms, and Licensing
- Privacy and Security
- Radio
- Software
- Spectrum & Wireless
- Standards
- Supreme Court
- Tax-Funded IP
- Telecom
- Theft of Service
- Universities
Links
 

Site Feed

  - Atom
- RSS 1.0
- RSS 2.0
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.


 
Home Page