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.'"
We believe that customers want and need freedom of choice in making decisions about technology solutions. Those considering Novell offerings, whether proprietary or open source, should be able to make their purchasing decisions based on technical merits, security, quality of service and value, not the threat of litigation. Novell intends to continue to compete based on such criteria.
Good, I like to hear that. It's nice having some of the "big dogs" on the side of Linux. But they seem to contradict themselves when they say:
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.
Seems like a threat to anyone out there thinking about possible litigation to me. Now, I doubt that there is any serious issues w/the Linux kernel code when it comes to IP but what if someone did have a legitimate claim? Someone like Novell making open threats like this might have them think twice.
Just a thought.
Woot for Novell, I think. It's interesting that they're only defending *their* open source software, but at least it is a step in the right direction.
I wonder what would happen to the world if more Free Software projects started patenting *their* stuff. I figure if you patent your software, you should have to make it open source.
Just some thoughts.
"Software is like sex; it's better when it's free." -Linus Torvalds
From Novell's website (emphasis _not_ mine) --
/me thinks it could be IBM, especially considering that they both have a bone or two to pick with His Highness Darth McBride.
:-)
As with all purchasing considerations, customers should keep software patents in perspective. In reality, open source software poses no greater risk of patent infringement than does closed source software.
Well, that's a smart statement. Coming from a company like Novell, I'm sure that it would make other companies take notice.
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.
Hmm, whom could the others be?
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.
Brilliant! Simply brilliant. We now have atleast two big players (other than RedHat) who are prepared to offer legal support to Opensource, which is a great thing indeed!
Novell has previously used its ownership of UNIX copyrights and patents to protect customers against similar threats to open source software made by others.
We are a corporation, and therefore cannot legally say FUCK YOU! to SCO. However, we'll put it in such sweet-coated words hoping that the idiots over at Utah get what we mean before we haul their asses to court.
Yay! for Opensource
heh heh. I wonder if they had any organization in mind when they said that.
This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
use the system to defeat the system. now that novell is going open, they look back and see how much non-free content they've accrued over the years and wonder how they can use it to fight for oss instead of against it.
the only thing novel has to worry about now is making sure this doesnt come back to haunt them... you can't play the devil's game without giving him his due at one point or anther, and patents are the devil.
BLING BLING. Meet the architecture that's changing everything.
Good to see a company holding a large patent portfolio openly announcing that it will basically nuke any target big enough to hit (includes most software companies) that attacks Linux.
Only in a Slashdot fantasy can a Slackware install turn into several hours of sex . . . . .
So I geuss an agressive patent portfolio is only good when its on the side of Linux?
Steal This Sig
Sounds nice... Don't know if this could eventually turn against OSS, but it sure does sound nice to have one of the bigger company's supporting OSS this way. I'm against software-patents (as in "a scrollbar" or "task-grouping", I'm sure there are even worse examples out there), but if they do turn legitimate in the EU, it sure counts to have some defense on the side of OSS. Go Novell!
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.
so instead the "enemy" sells the "infringed" patents to a shell company (*cough: IP company) that itself makes no use of any patents Novell has.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
My inner slashdotter is telling me I like open
source put hate patent law. I'm so confused.
How am I supposed to Karama Whore this one?
Oh well must try my best. I'll just say w00t and
hope it's enought to appease the moderation god's.
Open Source has two very vocal and very visible advocates -- IBM and Novell. There's a strange contrast here between the big mainstream companies and the original "just for fun" ideas of Linux.
There's a part that want to see Linux dominate the global market...and those simply happy and content to be using it. I'm torn between wanting its ultimate success and being wary of "selling out" to the corporate world.
I guess that's one of the things the GPL is great for -- it allows Linux to take any direction people want it to go and still be perfectly Free.
It almost feels like a socialist slogan -- what's best for all of us (Linux community) is in reality the best for you as well (IBM/Novell).
I for one welcome our new SUSE-maintaining overlords.
Software companies often generate and cross license patents in patent pools. This type of activity defends against other companies who actually build products and have many patents (though not against the IP firms with nothing to offer but litigation).
Novell's step is a different way of accomplishing this. Would be interesting if the open source movement itself started developing patents to play a role in patent pools.
But there is a but...
Seeing is believing here. On a patent attack Novell will be tempted to cross license the issue, but for Novell customers only, not for Open Source users and distributers in general. It would be nice to see a company like Novell champion the defense of Open Source, and if they do it would be beneficial to the world in general, but how far will they go in a direction that will help competitors like RedHat as well as themselves?
Maybe RedHat and Novell will team up against attacks (RedHat already has a fund to protect Open Source over fraudulent copyright claims). That would really be beneficial, not least to RedHat and Novell!
Web Sig: Eddy Currents
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)
Novell's running a class act here and they deserve our support so if you're in a position to select a distro for your company, take another look at Novell's offerings. If you download an Enterprise eval version 9, you get 30 days free installation support for it. You can't beat that.
Money for nothing, pix for free
Overall, it's quite positive for open source. BUT:
Among other things, Novell would seek to address the claim by identifying prior art that could invalidate the patent; demonstrating that the product does not infringe the patent; redesigning the product to avoid infringement; or pursuing a license with the patent owner.
This paragraph came from the Novell statement about how they would deal with a patent infringement claim. The last bit "pursuing a licence with the patent holder" might not get you what you want. Imagine if your OSS program ends up being only usable by users of SuSE/Novell Linux, because they bought an exclusive license for the patent...
David
What follows is the heavily PR'ed Novell letter, interspersed with the layman translation. Marvel at its simplicity and at the bully-like tone of it:
...don't be afraid: nooo Linux ain't bad, it's aaall good. It's soft and furry and you can sleep with our products at night. So...
...since our very survival depends on Linux and we still have old patents and stuff that are so vague we could slap a lawsuit on any badmouther's face in less time that you can say "disestablishmentarianism",...
...if you so much as hint at dissing our new shiny products, we'll sue your ass off with our old patents and...
...you better believe it cuz we're fucking serious about it! You better remember that...
...we fucking did it before with that old canard Unix so it's fucking true!
* We believe that customers want and need freedom of choice in making decisions about technology solutions. Those considering Novell offerings, whether proprietary or open source, should be able to make their purchasing decisions based on technical merits, security, quality of service and value, not the threat of litigation. Novell intends to continue to compete based on such criteria.
We don't make Netware or NDS products anymore, we don't have the money. So now we jump on the Linux bandwagon and make Linux-based products, and you better believe it's just as good as our old shit. But...
* As with all purchasing considerations, customers should keep software patents in perspective. In reality, open source software poses no greater risk of patent infringement than does closed source software.
* 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.
* In the event of a patent claim against a Novell open source product, Novell would respond using the same measures generally used to defend proprietary software products accused of patent infringement. Among other things, Novell would seek to address the claim by identifying prior art that could invalidate the patent; demonstrating that the product does not infringe the patent; redesigning the product to avoid infringement; or pursuing a license with the patent owner.
* 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. We urge customers to remind vendors that all are best served by using innovation and competition to drive purchasing decisions, rather than the threat of litigation.
* Novell has previously used its ownership of UNIX copyrights and patents to protect customers against similar threats to open source software made by others.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
They should give an opinion on lawsuits from patent holding companies, who don't produce any product and are simply used to attack by proxy and are basically immune from counterattacks. IANAL, but a good workaround might be to attack whoever sold the patent to the holding company.
They're on our side now, but what if they turn against us?
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I work in a shop that has Novell as the core controller for email and network authentication. There are plans for migrating to Linux servers with Novell services and ultimately Linux workstations using Novell services.
Some of my peers express hesitation on these moves where I assert "What is Novell but a set of services? They needn't be tied to any particular OS so why not a particularly useful, flexible and free one?" Hell, for that matter, Microsoft could easily do the same thing -- hosting their services on a Linux or BSD host server system to create an ultra-stable server system that can do one hell of a lot more than it does now. (Then they really WOULD have Windows Services for Unix!)
I think this statement goes a long way to ease any potential fears of Novell customers who are moving to their Linux-based products and I think that is their primary target. It's not enough for them to say "if you get sued, we'll pick up the bill." They have to take up a pro-active stance against anyone who would think about making such a move... and so that's clearly what they are doing.
Now I don't read this as them defending the whole of the OSS community, but it's still a rather large umbrella of protection they are suggesting here... potentially larger than they might at first realize? It boggles the mind to think about it, but it's a very reassuring move on Novell's part.
If this stuff keeps up, people will scoff at Microsoft for running a "proprietary operating system" when all others are running something that is more open, trusted and established.
Alas, it's pure marketing nonsense; FUD as bad as any that MS has ever been accused of putting out.
Consider:
As with all purchasing considerations, customers should keep software patents in perspective. In reality, open source software poses no greater risk of patent infringement than does closed source software.
Now this is a pretty bold assertion. But they seem to back it up..
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.
Right? Right? Well, no. not really.
The patent issue in OSS is "third party infringement" that works as such:
- Company P has a patent on X.
- OSS Developer A unknowingly uses X in his OSS product L.
- Company BigCo uses L. P notices that BigCo uses L and claims that because the source for L is "open", that BigCo has a legal duty to check to see that no patents are violated. P sues BigCo.
Contrast this to the case where product L$ is not OSS and so BigCo feels secure that even if there is some infringement, it could not have reasonably known about it (so P sues A$)The Novell claim does nothing about this third party problem except in the perverse and unlikely situation where invention P just happens to be actually based on some of Novell's prior art in the first place (and probably a few common variants of that, too). Great.. nice to see that Novell would fight for this, I guess. But that hardly seems worthwhile making an announcement over.
So how is this FUD? (or rather some weird inverse of FUD, where you're falsely trying to instill certainty and comfort). Plainly, because Novell has done nothing to address the fundamental problem of OSS and Patents but has claimed nevertheless that patents are not an issue.
N.B. In the final analysis, they might not be an issue. But do you want to be the first BigCo that gets sued by some P? I think it's reasonable for BigCos to sit out and wait until some other BigCo pays the legal bills to get that question solved..
IIRC, Novell retained ownership of the Unix Patents (if they aren't all already expired) when they transfered the buisness to old SCO. Since Linux is mostly implenting stuff that UNIX has already done, Novell should be safe. Basically, any functionallity that Linux implements has probably already been implemented in UNIX. therefore one of two things come into play 1) Novell already owns it, or 2)The person who asserts it would have to show why they didn't assert it for UNIX also at sometime over the last 30 years of UNIX's existance.
Another thing to remember is that Novell was the big deal in networking and networked apps back in the late 80's-early 90's, so they probably hold a lot of IP from their old netware days.
Under the GPL, you CANNOT distribute a work if you cannot give people the rights to *redistribute* it.
:)
So, any license they negotiated would allow everyone, not just Novell, to use the GPL'd work in question.
Now then, it's true--other licenses like the BSD license do *not* have this requirement, so we could get stuck with something becoming "Novell-only" (though even then, other entities could license the patent or use it in venues where the patent isn't recognized). But that's one of the reasons the GPL coerces you to make the software itself free for *all* and not just for yourself
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.
Patents in the software world today are like nuclear weapons. You want a powerful arsenal in order to ensure that no one attacks you. By the same token, you are wary of attacking anyone else because neither of you will come out well.
So if Novell is positioning their patents to defend open source, it's morally the same as if open source just went nuclear. Or more accurately, made a defense pact with a nuclear power - open source can help Novell compete, and Novell can protect open source. Indeed, in IBM's countersuit to SCO they drew their patent sword, IIRC. Granted SCO attacked IBM specifically, but if IBM decides to say "be nice to the open source community or we might decide to check you out for patent violations" that would go a long way toward keeping things quite. Open source would be given, in effect, honary membership in the patent superpower standoff. People who might consider trying to use patents to crush open source *cough*Microsoft*cough* might be forced to think twice. Legal costs for any fight of this type are really quite scary, to say nothing of the time lost. Considering how fast the software business moves, it wouldn't be surprising to me if most lawsuits are technologically irrelevant by the time they get finished.
This is a solution I hadn't considered to the patent problem, and one I'm not wild about because a) the fundamental problem doesn't get fixed and b) it depends on the good will of companies. By the same token, however, of those companies ARE making $$ from open source it is most definitely in their self interest to keep the vultures off the open source community as a whole, and I suppose in today's society there really isn't much we can count on except self interest.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
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.
The fact that they might both be referred to as "intellectual property" does not change the fact that they are two completely different ball games.
All your patent are belong to MS...
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