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."
.. Isn't falling for the FUD and they're standing next to their partners. Given that announcement and what SCO just went through with IBM, maybe this will make Microsoft think twice before pushing the issue..
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.
Find free books.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
There's an open petition to Novell's CEO by Bruce Perens protesting the Microsoft-Novell deal, signing requires registering with your name and email address.
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....
RH - 34%,
Debian - 25%
Suse - 11 %
82% of all statistics is made up.
Something really, really bothers me about where the conversation usually goes when discussing the recent MS/Novell deal.And that's that some fanboi usually pipes up and says "Well, if MS sues Linux IBM will step up and defend us with their army of patent lawyers".
This is a very, very false hope, it's also really unlikely.
What the people who say this are forgetting is that IBM was the behemoth before MS was, and they didn't accumalate that patent portfolio just because they liek to collect stuff. IBM were royal fuckers, and just because they've been dabbling about with SuSE for a couple of years doesn't mean that they are going to take on someone with the portfolio and legal power of MS (which is large enough to put IBM in a world of pain).
IBM likes linux
but IBM LOVES patents
It's a LOT more likely that if MS started making legal threats against non-suse distributors, IBM would simply switch over to an MS-approved Linux and let everyone else fend for themselves.
IBM is not your savior, don't look in that corner for hope, it ain't there.
In short, we feel that Novell has acted in bad faith.
Bruce Perens.
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.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Calm down! I mean, this is an important issue, but you're going a bit far with an internet petition.
It's not as if everyone and their dog has such a petition on any trivial issue; they're very drastic steps in moving towards change. You should really take more gradual steps.
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
You are conveniently forgetting that this Nat Friedman was at the forefront of this deal. If anyone is part of this community, it's Nat. Need I tell you what Nat has done for GNOME? If anyone represents the community it is Nat and I am sure Miguel de Icaza was not far behind him in his support. By these attacks on Novell, you are attacking the community itself and this will likely lead to splintering it.
Besides, if you feel so strongly that Novell has acted in bad faith, why don't you just sue them instead of running yet another useless petition which is not likely to accomplish anything at all?
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
"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?
No; There is only one reason IBM plays down the patents. IBMs greatest fear is that the patent system will be shut down. They are the only company in existence which can afford to make serious money from patents. Patent trolls can't because they could easily be shut down by legislation (10s of millions is not serious money; just calculate how few lawyers you can keep on that). Microsoft can't because their patents are mostly jokes and are _all_ dependend on IBM patents. This leaves only IBM and a few telecomms companies who also have claims to early computing technology.
The thing which is most interesting is that IBM could just say "we will sue Microsoft's customers out of existence, starting from the most important and working down; stopping only when we reach our own customers, and only in the case where we consider them as important customers". They never say this and they never ever even hint at it. It almost makes you think that Microsoft's strategy is deliberately designed to bring patents into disrepute and IBM is trying to keep the whole situation calm. Think about how much Microsoft loses on patents each year (billions? tens of billions?) compared to the money they make (a few million). Do you really think they can affort to see pantents become more important?
I flew to NY to discuss this whole issue with Eben last week. First, the Novell-Microsoft is clearly outside of the spirit of the GPL and thus demonstrates bad faith on Novell's part. Is it within the letter? Novell and Microsoft say so, and obviously took a lot of time to engineer it to just slip within a hair of the letter. I think that Novell and Microsoft would like to drag us into an expensive and ultimately fruitless fight. Rather than take it to court, and spend a lot of money on something that will be ambiguous for years, we will make it very, very clear that this is NOT within either the letter or the spirit of GPL3 and LGPL3. And then a lot of stuff that Novell needs will go under those licenses, and Novell will be stuck with the entire version of maintaining obsolete forks without the help of the community.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
What if Novell was simply used by Microsoft as a proxy for buying SUSE ? Perhaps everything was already prepared when Novell adquired SUSE. It would have been certainly much more difficult and expensive for Microsoft to attempt the deal. After all, it was just three years ago. The round number (almost exactly 3 years) is also suspicious.
:o)
I'm not following this too much, so if this conspiration theory has already been aired, just mod me down. If not, I require full bragging rights for it
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
Gee, I'm glad you said that. I was just getting my Tactical Nuclear Weapon ready, and I looked at your message and thought, Gee, is this going too far? Can't we try to love each other? So, I went outside, hugged a tree, and felt much better. We'll forgo the really drastic means for now. But internet petitions are really just symbolic. The real weapon is the fact that a lot of us will never recommend Novell again for an enterprise deployment, and will not license our software so that it's usable along with the patent covenants. The petition is just an indication of our sentiment.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
"Need I tell you what Nat has done for GNOME? If anyone represents the community it is Nat and I am sure Miguel de Icaza was not far behind him in his support. By these attacks on Novell, you are attacking the community itself and this will likely lead to splintering it."
.NET for Linux? And now this "special" deal for Novell customers indemnifying them against Microsoft lawsuits?
.NET on Linux ever since the idea was suggested by Miguel and the worst fears have been verified by this new Novell/Microsoft contract.
Miguel and the Mono crowd have been splintering the Linux community all by themselves.
Miguel and the rest of the Ximian and Mono team should just pack their bags and get the fuck out. This whole deal with Novell and Microsoft was only possible with their help, and probable instigation. I've had misgivings about
Would Miguel swear on his dead ancestors graves that Mono doesn't infringe on Microsoft patents?
"Similar deals have been done in the past, in 1997 Microsoft signed a similar deal with Apple, and Apple used that agreement and the incoming monies to turn the company around.
Sun signed a similar agreement with Microsoft in 2004, which at the time I realized enabled Sun to ship Mono on Solaris (which we already supported at that time)."
That's directly from Miguel's blog at http://tirania.org/blog/ [tirania.org]
Come again, Miguel? If mono is truely Open Source and non-infringing, what did Sun actually buy from Microsoft?
Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK?
--
BMO
What I don't find is any wording that would prevent a third party from providing indemnity to those users, which is what Microsoft is doing.
Microsoft is not providing an indemnity. They are providing a promise not to sue regarding their own patents.
In contrast, companies that provide indemnities, like Red Hat, are not the holders of the patents that they are protecting you from.
So, Microsoft in this case is sort of like the extortionist who makes you pay protection money so that they won't break your store window. What Red Hat and other companies who indemnify are doing, in contrast, is much more benign because Red Hat's not out to hurt you, they're giving you some support if a third party not affiliated with Red Hat attacks you.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.