Slashdot Mirror
Novell to Defend Open Source Using Patents
bbsguru writes "As another step in its transition to an Open Source developer, Novell has thrown the considerable weight of its patent portfolio in support of the movement. A letter from Novell North American President Ron Hovesepian to all of their channel partners today said, 'This initiative is aimed at any vendor that tries to mislead customers using intellectual property rights.'"
The difference is that a company like Microsoft says "we don't like you and will sue you for patent infringement" whereas Novell is saying "if you sue us we'll sue you back". Big difference.
The difference is that a company like Microsoft says "we don't like you and will sue you for patent infringement" whereas Novell is saying "if you sue us we'll sue you back". Big difference.
Well, that's what I thought until I noticed a particular word (emphasis mine):
As appropriate, Novell is prepared to use our patents, which are highly relevant in today's marketplace, to defend against those who might assert patents against open source products marketed, sold or supported by Novell.
That doesn't seem like they are going to fight once litigation is started. That words leads me to believe that they would start litigation if anyone even brought up the idea that their IP was being used w/o permission in the kernel.
So I geuss an agressive patent portfolio is only good when its on the side of Linux?
Steal This Sig
Also, I should point out, so that people can understand how far the document goes, that Novell's threat is not useful against companies with which they have already executed a patent cross-license. These could include most of the large companies in the computer industry and might include Microsoft. And of course the document is not a promise to act against anyone. Novell still gets to decide who they sue.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
It's been pretty clear for a while now that Novell wants to be a part of open source success. They announced their big enterprise server package last week (see http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2004/10/p r04068.html), which is driving continual SuSE upgrades and taking advantage of a bunch of Open Source work. They are making SuSE rock really hard, and it has what is so far my favorite package management tools. And anyway now they are 10 months ahead of schedule with their Enterprise stuff, thanks in part to the magic of open source.
Of course, none of this is helping to make the Netware client less of a beast on Windows.
---------------------
Rate free iPod offers: RateTheOffers.com
(Flat screens and Desktop PCs too)
I think that's aimed at anyone planning an SCO-style FUD campaign, where they weren't actually suing people (for the most part), just using the threat to scare them. Your company comes out making SCO-like claims about products from Novell, they'll club it into submission with a truckload of patents. Remember, as SCO demonstrated, it doesn't take an actual lawsuit to scare people away from a product or into paying "protection money" - the threat alone is often enough. Until you make the mistake they did and sue IBM - which is rather like challenging a statue to a staring contest: you'll die long before it blinks...
Did anyone notice that moments after the FAT patent was invalidated, we started to hear of a Microsoft-specific format for USB "disk" devices? I think they still would like to close out that path of interoperability for us.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
They're on our side now, but what if they turn against us?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Its a start. It would be nice to see some kind of statement about use of Novell's patents by open source software to go with it.
In answer to your other question some folks do use patents and open source together. It isn't an ideal world and it cuts out anyone with under about 10 million US to play the game. In the Red Hat case we've published a patent promise which we hope would be a model for others to follow (or improve upon!)
IBM have also provided various patented technologies for free GPL use including key scaling technologies like RCU.
The main use, today, for a huge patent profile, is to cross-license it with other companies as protection against them suing you for patent infringement.
I.E. Sun goes to IBM, they both agree to cross-license their patents. Now, Sun doesn't have to worry about being sued by IBM, IBM doesn't have to worry about being sued by Sun. They both are free to sue some third company that isn't part of the alliance.
What I read from Novell's statement is basicly:
"If you attempt to go after any open source product we support, we will pull out our huge portfolio of patents and bury you in litigation for each and every infringing use of our patents we can discover. Our patents are many and powerful, mess with us and you will die a horrible and slow death by lawyers. You won't even be able to afford your funeral. So back off the FOSS projects, unless you think you've got bigger guns."
Useful, as long as no one they've already cross-licensed with is involved.
Now, the opponents of Open Source are able to point to us and say, "Look, these people want us to give up OUR software patents so they can steal OUR innovations, while at the same time they support the use of software patents whenever it suits THEIR purposes."
It makes us look like a bunch of fucking hypocrites, which we are, if this stupidity actually goes forward.
Boooo, Novell. You really don't get it, do you?
I don't get it, this is common English usage of the word "might" to refer to potential future acts. The normal reading of this is "to those who might sue us, we intend to defend our open source inventory with the full weight of our patent portfolio." 'Defend' is the operative word. You're completely twisting into a first strike policy read as "we intend to sue first anyone who might some day sue us". It's a ridiculous, doomed to failure legal position for a company with such long experience in litigation to assert.
Hmm.. seems like a concrete example of what Terry Pratchett calls 'anti-crime' like: breaking-and-decorating.
======
In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
Really what this sounds like is giving the Open Source guys some weapons in the Patent Cold War, where almost any company could start a litigation WWIII.
While it's a sad statement, it's probably good to have at this point. Without it, it's only a matter of time before MS or someone else tries to litigate RedHat or similar to fiscal obilivion.
I'd prefer the market weren't in this situation, mind you (And Novell probably does too), but all things considered, it's probably a good thing to have.
Now, let's just hope Novell stays relatively beneficent.
~D
This sig has been enciphered with a one-time pad. It could say almost anything.
Reprint from:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2004-0
Seems a bit of a no-brainer. Patents will be used to suppress free development more and more vigorously, maybe at least until people get so annoyed there's a revolution or something (paper-pushing career bureaucrats sometimes forget that the geeks are the ones that build the weapons, in the end...)
If Europe is stupid enough to allow software patents (and they may well be...), then Microsoft may go on a patent offensive. People thinking "oh IBM will then too" are missing the point - that would be the "chicago prison shuffle" - Microsoft may send Linux geeks running to IBM, but then they'll just be controlled by IBM's patent portfolio, and IBM will then innovate (as in bring new technology to market) in a controlled, slow, understandable by MBA jackasses pace, and the IT industry oligopoly can go back to being a cosy feudal system where Microsoft feels at home - even if they have to compete, it's with comprehensible, corporate enemies, not a massy swarm of globally-distributed and loudly bickering free people that innovate whenever they feel like it and, it must seem to Microsoft, totally at random in catastrophe curve adoption patterns (what? they have antialiasing? Last year they had crappy 1-bit fonts!?!) - only patents can give the old guard power to slow that sort of thing.
"Choice of Masters is Not Freedom". I don't trust IBM much more than I like Microsoft. Recognise that software patents, so helpfully identified by the Open Source community as "something that can kill or cripple open source" in the 1990s, will be used to do just that, unless we stop them!
Now replace IBM in the above by their proxy, "Novell"
DO NOT TRUST Novell.DO NOT TRUST IBM. They are not your friends. Whether it's Microsoft's or IBM's or Novell's patent portfolio, control is wrested away from us, the citizen developers, by software patents. Software patents themselves are WRONG. Always remember that.
All your patent are belong to MS...
From TFA:
"Consistent with this belief, Novell will use its patent portfolio to protect itself against claims made against the Linux kernel or open source programs included in Novell's offerings, as dictated by the actions of others."
"As appropriate, Novell is prepared to use our patents, which are highly relevant in today's marketplace, to defend against those who might assert patents against open source products marketed, sold or supported by Novell. Some software vendors will attempt to counter the competitive threat of Linux by making arguments about the risk of violating patents. Vendors that assert patents against customers and competitors such as Novell do so at their own peril and with the certainty of provoking a response."
This is a clear and straightforward warning that Novell has the ammo to take any potential SCO-wannabe down. It speaks specifically of using Novell's software patents against those who try to assert patents of their own. IOW, if you try to stop open-source via the court system, Novell will take the same tack against you.
Is a world without software patents preferable? Of course. And if/when we get to that point, Novell's software patents will be just as invalidated as Microsoft's, so Novell's statement won't matter. But until that day, there is an obvious benefit from a deterrent to future submarine-patent companies that think that they can litigate themselves into the penthouse.
Its interesting how the SCOduggery aimed at Linux has forced Novell to embrace exactly the fundamental principle of patents upon which they were originally built. A patent is a way to protect an invention without secrecy: in fact, a patent requires disclosure of all details required to build a copy of the invention, and registers that invention, in that form, with the government. The government is then able to protect the invention from copies for long enough for the inventor to have a chance to recoup their investment. And other inventors can tell whether they are inventing something already invented - both to prevent serendipitous competition, and as a guide to the inventions available for use. Simple, until patents are abused by Congress and their bribers^Wcontributors, offering patents and copyright protections on secret designs, or not even implemented (like intangible business processes or mathematics), and extending patents on the basis of profitability, rather than recoupability.
Open Source is exactly the way that software would be protected, consistent with the original sound principles of patents. In the online market, temporary artifical government-created monopolies on inventions aren't the key to protecting investments in inventions; upgrades, service and community support are the key. Open Source is IP protection in the service of art and science, as specified in the Constitution, rather than the corporate welfare the PTO has become, a pernicious hybrid of corporate socialism and monopoly that is choking innovation to feed a few aging inventors.
--
make install -not war
If someone has a legitimate claim against some open source code used by Novell, and can prove it, Novell would likely agree to seek a license or would redesign the offending product. You don't sue, or fight a suit, when you know you'll lose.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"