Sun's Schwartz Speaks Out on Linux, SCO

An anonymous reader writes "In an interview with eWeek Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's executive vice president for software, states: "We do not believe that Linux plays a role on the server. Period. If you want to buy it, we will sell it to you, but we believe that Solaris is a better alternative, that is safer, more robust, higher quality and dramatically less expensive in purchase price.". Also: "IBM is being so hypocritical. If the issue is a non-issue, why don't they indemnify their customers?""

Comments

Does Sun indemify users against third party claims

[NZheretic]

Read Sun's EULAs, I bet that either Sun absolves itself of any liability or the agreement contains loopholes like Microsoft's licenses.

In comparing the Microsoft EULA to the GPL, Microsoft's EULAs are pretty uniform when it come to exluding themselves from liability...

http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/comparing_the_ gpl_to_eula.pdf

ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT.

Analysis
....

Also, Microsoft disclaims that this software will not infringe on the intellectual property rights of others. This is a potentially serious issue, as has been recently shown through the legal dispute between Timeline Inc. and Microsoft. Timeline has won a recent ruling which exposes all Microsoft SQL Server developers to a serious patent encumbrance.

The Timeline Inc case bring up an important issue; while no vendor can expected to identify all potential patent violation when developing software, when the vendor does purchase and license technology from a third party, the vendor should insure that the end user/develop is not put at further risk.

Even Microsoft's May 27th changes which apply only to customers under enterprise licensing contracts, which Microsoft claims grants greater immunity, contains loop holes which greatly negate Microsoft's liability.

https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/contr actupdates.asp
https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/mba. doc

The new section 6 clause contain exceptions

Our obligations will not apply to the extent that the claim or adverse final judgment is based on (i) specifications you provide to us for the service deliverables; (ii) code or materials provided by you as part of service deliverables; (iii) your running of the product, fix or service deliverables after we notify you to discontinue running due to such a claim; (iv) your combining the product, fix or service deliverables with a non-Microsoft product, data or business process; (v) damages attributable to the value of the use of a non-Microsoft product, data or business process; (vi) your altering the product, fix or service deliverables; (vii) your distribution of the product, fix or services deliverable to, or its use for the benefit of, any third party; (viii) your use of our trademark(s) without express written consent to do so; or (ix) for any trade secret claim, your acquiring a trade secret (a) through improper means; (b) under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (c) from a person (other than us or our affiliates) who owed to the party asserting the claim a duty to maintain the secrecy or limit the use of the trade secret. You will reimburse us for any costs or damages that result from these actions.

Loophole #1
"(ii) code or materials provided by you as part of service deliverables"

This would effectively still indemnify Microsoft against most of the Timeline Inc patent claims, as it is the developer/end user's code ( even visual basic code ) which would be in violation of Timeline's patent claims.

Microsoft has a history of licensing third party code and patents in such a manner that still leaves developers and users exposed to IP threats. Even going back to the LZH/GIF Unisys patents,

http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw/

"Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to software developers or third parties

economics

[Mungkie]

i love making offtopic posts:
i saw this the other day: some muppet head and it made me think of something about government tax systems ruining the market system that i wont go into here. -> goats

but anyway what people who "want to get rich" need to think about it what people "with money" want and need and then produce it cheaper and better than anyone else. What they must then do is make sure that they trap their customers into a cycle of buying more products or services from you.

If people dont buy your product its your own fault, you either dont have a good enough product, dont sell it cheap enough, have not forced your current customers into sufficient dependence, or aren't a good liar.

The market is king., living on welfare is VERY comfortable in most first world economies. You should only work if you're enjoying it. a sense of humour always helps.