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.
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.
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!