Slashdot Mirror


IBM Weighs In On Novell — Microsoft Deal

Azul writes "In an interview, Scott Handy, IBM's VP of Worldwide Linux and Open Source, has stated IBM's position on the recent Novell-Microsoft agreement. According to Handy, Novell has been quite clear that they had never agreed that Microsoft had any proof of Microsoft patent violations in Linux." From the article: "'IBM has long supported interoperability between Windows and Linux. As supporters of open source and open standards, we applaud any effort to bridge this gap.' ... Looking ahead, Handy said that despite the outcry in some circles about Novell's deal with Microsoft, IBM will be making 'No change in our partnership with Novell ... IBM has two strategic Linux partners, Red Hat and Novell. This has served us very well for seven-years. Over 90 percent of the Linux server market now belongs to those two companies and the industry has consolidated around those two leaders,' he added."

15 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. IBM is safe by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    IBM can afford to shrug off Microsoft's FUD campaign, because they have enough patents in their own portfolio to defend themselves. It's pretty sad, though, that every company has to build up a stockpile of bogus patents in order to be safe from patent predation by other companies. You also have to wonder how much of a chilling effect this is going to have on efforts like Samba.

    1. Re:IBM is safe by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure. All the developers of the Samba team are just going to pick up and move to another country. Right. Or maybe the Samba team will pick up developers from another country where patents are no big deal. It's not like they need all those senior developers like Tridge and Jeremy Allison, and Andrew Bartlett...nope. They can just come up with a new set of monkeys. After all programmers are interchangeable, right?

    2. Re:IBM is safe by oohshiny · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IBM can afford to shrug off Microsoft's FUD campaign,

      If it really is a "FUD campaign" (and it is), then so can you.

    3. Re:IBM is safe by Ant+P. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, but the main server hosting locations are.

    4. Re:IBM is safe by msobkow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If it by some miracle turns out that Microsoft has a valid patent that some Linux code infringes, there are few potential impacts to the average business or developer:

      • You have a budget like IBM's, suitable for lobbying an ICBM of lawyers back at Microsoft.
      • You have sufficient budget to fight the patent and ride it out.
      • Your budget is so small Microsoft couldn't be bothered suing you.
      • You just use OSS and the problem is up to your distro packager.

      Yep.

      It's FUD.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  2. As I said before... by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Insightful
    According to Handy, Novell has been quite clear that they had never agreed that Microsoft had any proof of Microsoft patent violations in Linux
    It doesn't matter what anyone says, what matters is the text of the agreement between the two companies and whether its contrary to the GPL and what Microsoft will do based on it.
    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
  3. yes, but define market? by Blymie · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Over 90% of the Linux Server MARKET, eh? Well, first, define server? Is that only a nice IBM piece of hardware, or some other big player piece of hardware? What about SuperMicro, and the middle ground players?

    As well, define market? What part of the marketplace does Debian have? None, really, not if you define marketplace as something you can track via sales.

    I believe these specifications are out of whack. 90%? From where I sit, it's 90% _non_ Redhat or SuSE....

    1. Re:yes, but define market? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I believe these specifications are out of whack. 90%? From where I sit, it's 90% _non_ Redhat or SuSE...."

      Look, I don't mean to put anybody down here - but when an IBM exec weights in about Linux's market distribution I'd give it a tiny bit more weight than when some random person on Slashdot does.

      The few large server-based businesses of which I have any behind-the-scenes knowledge are all running Red Hat Enterprise Linux. One used to run CentOS ("free" Red Hat), but switched to RHEL after their customers demanded support for the OS itself.

      The real business world - the one IBM is concerned with - is quite a bit different than the Go-Daddy / Dreamhost / Fat Cow world of tiny hundred-hits-a-month websites.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:yes, but define market? by Blymie · · Score: 2, Insightful


      But that's really the point, isn't it? There is no "real" business world. You sell, you buy, you run a company from your home or a billion dollar enterprise, you're in business. IBM and others tend to act elitist, as if you must do $x in sales per month to count in such a world.

      Frankly, a single server in some guy's basement, selling porn on Debian stable, is still a server. That is part of the server market. Someone with two boxes in a colo and a supermotherboard system -- servers. IBM didn't specify "only fortune 500" or "500+ server installation sites"... and that is the error in question.

      It is not an accurate look at the "server" market.

    3. Re:yes, but define market? by leerpm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Market share in this sense is usually defined by share of overall sales.

  4. say != do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Are IBM about to get butt-fucked by MSFT in the OS market for a second time, dragging us all with them? I hope not.

    This is the real play MS are making, that IBM will not endanger their software patent portfolio to fight. IBM could make a similar patent deal involving some random windows reseller, that would send a message. This just shows that they are not willing to risk their own software patent revenue. Marshall Phelps must be laughing real hard at the way he's single handedly destroyed the US software industry!

  5. the Novell deal doesn't matter by oohshiny · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It makes little difference what the text of the Novell deal with Microsoft says. Microsoft paid a net of several hundred million dollars to Novell. With that, it is pointless for Microsoft to argue that Novell paid money to license Microsoft's patents. Heck, if Microsoft pays me $240m, I'll go a step further and actually admit to infringing on Microsoft's patents, provided Microsoft gives me the same perpetual license they have given Novell.

    Microsoft can pay other people to sign contracts until their bank account is empty and it's meaningless. The only thing that means anything at all (and even then, not much) is if someone admits patent infringement and then pays Microsoft a substantial net amount of money to license the patent.

  6. Re:Please, Stop This by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Nat, rather than being at the forefront of the deal, is the person assigned to spin this to the Free Software community. I'm sure his heart is in the right place. But he has a contract, both for his individual employment and one related to the sale of Ximian. I don't believe he has much choice what to do.

    There are folks in this same deal who aren't as tightly bound, like Jeremy, who is Samba team leader and also a Novell employee. Jeremy disapproved of the deal in public.

  7. Mild and pragmatic, but... by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "We have never seen any need for patent protection for Linux, and we don't see any need for it now. If legal claims exist, they should be resolved between vendors and not involve end-user customers." -- Scott Handy

    This statement betrays a fundamental disconnect: Scott forgot to mention the developers, the real engine of the community.

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
  8. Re:Debian is the second largest GNU/Linux distro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, that's just a percentage of webservers, not the overall server market.