Slashdot Mirror
Novell/Microsoft Deal Punishment for SCO?
An anonymous reader tipped us off to an article on the Information World site looking at the Novell/Microsoft deal from a new angle. Article author Tom Yager is of the opinion that the deal is Microsoft's punishment for throwing in with SCO. The very public announcement was made, in his opinion, as a stopgap measure against a future lawsuit on Novell's part. From the article: "Novell has exhibited the patience and cunning of a trap door spider. It waited for SCO to taunt from too short a distance. Then Novell would spring, feed a little (saving plenty for later), inject some stupidity serum, and let SCO stride off still cocksure enough to make another run at the nest. That cycle is bleeding SCO, which was the last to notice its own terminal anemia. When it became clear that SCO wouldn't prevail, Microsoft expected only to face close partner IBM. Microsoft did not brace for Novell, an adversary with a decades-long score to settle with Redmond. Through discovery, Microsoft's correspondence with SCO is, or soon will be in, Novell's hands, and it's a safe bet that it will contain more than demand for a license fee and a copy of a certified check."
Make it sound like a bunch of children or something. I assure you, it's strictly business.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
My personal opinion was that Novell should not have accepted such a deal, and that the end result would bring a major shock wave all through the world. With todays growing number of lawsuits, the continued smack talking (like Palmer did earlier last month) and other things, I feel this may be a turn for the worst.
Another growing concern that I have, is that the GPL may have to go rounds with all of this, and everyone who has contributed over the years, many many useful tools and services that plays an active role in a linux OS. Here's hoping that these fears are not made into reality....
Just me
Can we stop treating this as some kind of corporate soap opera? I'll be happy when Slashdot can once again focus on the technical features of SuSE Linux or other Novell software, together with how well it respects the freedoms of its users. Those are things we can have some knowledge of and discuss sensibly, rather than speculating and fanboying.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
No, that makes no sense when their deal will expire in 5 years. If that was the intent, they'd have signed some form of permanent, non-revocable license (see IBM's licenses with SCO).
That way, no matter who ends up purchasing whom or whomever's patents, the deal is still safe (again, look at IBM's licenses with SCO and how many companies they were passed through).
... what can adequately be explained by incompetence. In this case, SCO's incompetence, and utter lack of any kind of sane case. What might look like Novell slowly but surely bleeding SCO dry could just be SCO's braindead stubbornness in pursuing their case, or lack thereof.
I don't really know the legality and details of the SCO case or the MS/Novell agreement, but this sounds way too clever and complicated for the average corporation to pull off. If Novell is so smart and crafty, why can't they do a better job competing against MS in the marketplace? Does Novell's business acumen lie only in creating clever trapdoors in risky legal deals? It sounds more like the author is writing the plot for a corporate-legal thriller than any analysis of reality.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I'd like to see the GPL upheld in court once and for all. A valid license is a valid license, and it'd be nice to see at least some of the FUD surrounding it smacked down via a court ruling.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
I guess this guy has never read/heard of groklaw... He probably thought SCO really had something 3 years ago, and now he's on the IBM/Novell bandwagon. Discovery in the IBM case is over and if there was evidence of Microsoft correspondence they would have found it already. PJ's take on the Novell/Microsoft contract is pretty much the opposite and she has a legal backround with OSS experince as well. He's grasping at straws.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." ~The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan
...it would have been entirely one-sided, not give and take like the actual agreement was.
Does that mean that someone is going to wake up next to a horse's head?
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
This is not what happened. What happened was that Microsoft offered Novell a deal, and Novell took it, and Novell will die from it. The deadly spider is Microsoft.
Every day I read some news about Microsoft and Novell, IBM, etc. What's the big deal? Their "agreements", or whatever, don't change anything we can see. Even if they agree not to step on each other's grass, they keep doing it anyway, because of their "Shark" methods (or just plain western capitalism). Then they sue each other, and the cycle starts all over.
But hey! I don't see the news about their lawyers having dinner together or going to some party. But they do! They take their eyes out in court, but outside they are friends. It's just lawyers justifying their salary. They make a big circus out of it to get a juicy paycheck.
All of this, because these operations are published in slashdot, where people don't understand a thing, but they talk anyway, as if Novell signing with SuSE will change SuSE linux or something. Well, if it does, just get a new distro.
The actual meaning for this (getting published in massive media) is so that "investors" (the ones that don't know jack about corporate operations) will buy/sell more stock of one of these companies. They're just stirring the water to make it less boring.
And Microsoft, the most patient and cunning of predators (especially on the Web), coaxes Novell out if the herd with promises to treat it like a pet, not as meat. Then MS attacks the herd, suing the rest of the Linux distributors for patent infringement, including infringement of the Novell patents MS licenses under their Novell deal.
Then MS finds another way to kill and eat Novell, once Novell can't rely on safety in numbers of Linux distributors. Like MS incorporating a "Linux mode" for either "migrating" Linux source code to Windows, or just a reverse "Wine" (Line-ux, anyone?) that runs Linux apps with a (secret) Linux -> Windows API.
The MS/Novell deal looks good to Novell when it discounts the value of its own competitors in Linux vendors, and the collective value of their threat to Linux, instead greedily eying the entire Linux industry for itself. That greed could be its downfall when it ignores the Linux community, blinded by the Linux product for which MS will kill it.
--
make install -not war
And SCO redacts all kinds of stuff.
The evidence for SCO being an M$ sockpuppet could all still be there, waiting to come out in trial.
And there will be a trial in SCO v. IBM. Even though SCO's case has been reduced to its true essence (nothing...), IBM's counterclaims all still stand.
Microsoft is more like a roach trap, rather than a spider. Not only will Novell die from the poison, but it's potentially bringing back that poison to everyone else in the open source community before it dies.
Put simply, code from Novell must now be considered "contaminated", whether it actually is or not. It's just not worth it for any open source project, especially the major ones like the Linux kernel, OpenOffice, GNOME, GCC, X.org, etc., to accept code contributed by Novell.
We really don't know how their deal with Microsoft legally affects code produced there. As such, it's in the best interest of protecting everyone else in the open source community to avoid anything coming out of there. There's just too much uncertainty, and the stakes are far too high.
What is the author smoking?
That was the stupidest (Is there such a word) article, I've ever read.
And these guys get paid for writing such tripe...?
Jester
Microsoft getting screwed over by Novell? Does that mean my old copy of DR-DOS is still worth something?
I thought it was Microsoft paying Novell $348mil, no?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Read the end of the summary of the story you linked to: Novell will make ongoing payments totaling at least $40 million over five years to Microsoft.
Yes, Novell did get hundreds of millions of dollars from Microsoft. But Novell ends up paying a lot back to Microsoft, as well. That's one of the reasons many of us are damn suspicious of this whole situation.
Novell also pays MS $40 million a year over the 5 years of the deal: $348M - (5 * $40M) = $148M, Novell net gain. Or so it seems.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
I understand that novel does not violate the GPL, because they did not license the patents from microsoft, instead microsoft licenses the patents to novel customers. Since microsoft is not distributing the software to them, the GPL does not apply to them.
BUT WAIT, Microsoft is distributing the software, didn't they receive 70,000 copies of SuSE? unless they plan to just throw them in the attic, or use them internally, they will be distributing those copies, and thus are restricted by the GPL. If they put any restriction on the people receiving the GPL code (other than those specified in the GPL itself), then Microsoft is indeed in violation of the GPL.
So I don't understand, how microsoft can use those 70,000 copies without violating the GPL. Can anyone explain that to me?
Parent is exactly right.
I've been trying figure out a way to describe the Novell/Microsoft situation for weeks.
Write this one down because this is exactly how the corporate mind works and how Microsoft's game will play out.
Writer doesn't have a clue. Microsoft doesn't get "punished" by anyone.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
...as somehow a clever trap that Novell has come up with. It isn't. Novell are stupid and incompetent. Just face it.
They have been slapped around, mainly by Microsoft eating their Netware share away, in recent years and they're making zero headway against Red Hat, and Hovsepian and the executives in charge have no idea whatsoever how to arrest the slide. Many customers have given them mixed messages that the problem is that Novell's software doesn't interoperate with Microsoft's - which of course is intentional. Rather than think their way through this and start making their software better they got down on their knees and begged to Microsoft, and that's exactly what Hovsepian's laughable phonecall was. The Microsoft deal was simply a desperate way of saying to Microsoft "Pretty please, stop?! Will you interoperate with our software so our customers will stop throwing away Netware and eDriectory? We'll give you anything you want." There wasn't even any known attempt at circumventing the GPL, as many people have also said. That was merely a side-effect thrown in by Microsoft.
Novell are desperate.
That's it. Anyone who is trying to portray there deal with Microsoft as anything else doesn't know anything about Novell's situtation, doesn't know anything about their customers and has never touched an environment that uses Novell's software or products with a tenf foot bargepole.
Why ever not? They received several hundred million dollars from Microsoft, without giving Microsoft anything or committing to anything.
In the end, Microsoft ends up giving several hundred million dollars to Novell. All the taking is "virtual"--a small face saver for Microsoft that has no real significance.
I think you are all missing the point.
Let's consider facts:
1. Vista is probably THE last version of Windows (have you read latest news?). Developing OS like Windows is a way to nowhere and last years of Vista developments proved it.
2. If not Windows AfterVista then what? Nowadays nobody can afford to build an OS anew from scratch. Not without providing an ocean of usefull software on the top of it.
3. Simply accepting Linux and becoming one of many distributors? Oh! no! It's not Microsoft's way, and there is always this infernal GPL mechanism. No, no, no and again NO!
If you were B.G. what would YOU do?
How can you embrace Linux (or UNIX) without violating GPL part? Oh, and remember(!), your customers CAN NOT even think or doubt the superiority of your proprietary software over this Linux toy, otherwise you are out of business - so making an agreement (any agreement) with the main owner of UNIX copyrights and one of biggest Linux distributors, it makes sense.
At least you earn another five years of searching the way to enter this business the way YOU want to.
I can already see (and smell) the ads: Microsoft X - Much Better Then Linux!
I only hope I'm wrong! Please, tell me I'm wrong!
Then MS attacks the herd, suing the rest of the Linux distributors for patent infringement, including infringement of the Novell patents MS licenses under their Novell deal.
MS won't sue anybody for patent infringement because they know it's pointless. I mean, who are they going to sue? You? Me? RedHat? Fedora? My cat? Even if they have a valid and enforceable patent, it will be worked around within a day of them filing any lawsuit.
Furthermore, the Microsoft/Novell deal doesn't protect Novell or its customers: if there actually were a patent infringement lawsuit, everybody would effectively have to stop using the software until the infringing code has been removed.
This entire "Microsoft patent" crap is pure FUD, and you are spreading it.
[quote] I understand that novel does not violate the GPL, because they did not license the patents from microsoft, instead microsoft licenses the patents to novel customers. Since microsoft is not distributing the software to them, the GPL does not apply to them. BUT WAIT, Microsoft is distributing the software, didn't they receive 70,000 copies of SuSE? unless they plan to just throw them in the attic, or use them internally, they will be distributing those copies, and thus are restricted by the GPL. If they put any restriction on the people receiving the GPL code (other than those specified in the GPL itself), then Microsoft is indeed in violation of the GPL. So I don't understand, how microsoft can use those 70,000 copies without violating the GPL. Can anyone explain that to me? [/quote] I think that Microsoft will give those SUSE licences for free to the customers that want a Linux deployment...
Bill Gates said:"I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine" My favorite number is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74
The moment they signed this secret deal to insert MS patented IP into their Linux software all their products became toxic. They can't undo it. They've taken the money and signed a pact in conflict with the well being of their customers. All balking from the deal would do now is make them dishonest both ways. Stick a fork in them. They're done.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
I wouldn't mind getting "punished" by receiving a whole shit-ton of money for intellectual property that's not even mine. That's my kind of punishment.
MS can stop distributors from distributing until the court determines that they are no longer distributing infringing code.
When they sue RedHat, they will cripple RedHat's finances and management bandwidth. When they sue individuals, like the RIAA has, they will scare developers away in the short term. The long term will see more developers work on Windows rather than Linux. Both because of the intimidation, and the "winning platform".
The Microsoft deal with Novell licenses MS patents to Novell, which of course protects Novell from lawsuits on those patents.
The strategy I, along with many others, have detailed is legally valid and powerful business. It's debatable, like any prediction of the future, but I have backed up my projections with detailed facts and logic.
While you have done nothing but make empty assertions on bad logic and false facts. With an obnoxious, insulting post. Stupid Certainty and Faith, the new "SCP" sweeping the loudly inane.
Shut up until you have something to say worth hearing.
--
make install -not war
Since Novell is actually coming off of this paying more than Microsoft will pay I think the author has a little bit too much tinfoil in his hat. Microsoft in any ways didnt actually do anything wrong in the SCO vs IBM thing, Remember IBM asked in discovery for ALL of the correspondence from SCO concerning MS and nothing turned up, even when IBM questioned Microsoft employees
Please bear with me as I refer to the open source community by using generalizations, and also as I tack on my thoughts on MS. But hey, it's only what I think.
It's not payback for SCO, it's divide and conquer. In one move, MS has eliminated Novell as a competitor. Novell has confused and/or pissed off a lot of the open source community by entering into this agreement behind closed doors; That is, without the open approval of the majority of SuSE customers, users, and supporters involved with SuSE, and yet they are claiming otherwise.
Now everyone in the community is paranoid about code touched by Novell post-agreement. Now Novell is no longer of any use to the community as a whole (i.e. those not directly involved with SuSE but still involved with OSS) since they can no longer be trusted by a large portion, which will lead to arguments which will lead to either forks or simply no integration of Novell code and therefore a lot of work that was lost on something that doesn't benefit those who helped build up SuSE or the other OSS projects that share code with SuSE in the first place (by using GPL-compatible licenses and by not restricting them with patent law).
This move has also caused the community to slow down by everyone putting so much attention on Novell instead of building better code, and to fight amongst each other as we decide what to do with Novell code and the SuSE platform.
Now Novell is building its software to be compatible with Windows so that businesses can easily migrate from the Novell platform by slowly phasing out their linux boxes and replacing them with Windows ones.
This is a move that attempts to funnel Novell customers to MS (I'm just saying now there is a much bigger chance of it happening than before, and MS may have some other moves/FUD/threats/patents/whatever up its sleeve to make this much more likely). This is also a move that attempts to cause in-fighting and to put chinks in the armor of the OSS movement/community/whatever.
MS is trying to figure out how to battle OSS and they are getting more and more successful with every attempt -- even if they are just throwing shit up on the wall to see what sticks, they're tenacious and they're building a strategy around the results of their actions. Slowly and steadily they are figuring out how to "deal with" OSS.
MS is easily forgiven as long as money and other flash are thrown around, but OSS has its integrity and the fruit of our sweat and blood. Let's show them which is most important.
Twinstiq, game news
So I don't understand, how microsoft can use those 70,000 copies without violating the GPL. Can anyone explain that to me?
Quite to the contrary: if they distribute even a single copy to a third party, then they are effectively giving everybody immunity from patent infringement claims by them because they may not restrict the rights of recipients of the software they distribute under the GPL, through patents or any other means.
If we were to believe Tom then there is some sort of dark sinister plot unwinding with steely eyed CEOs plotting the downfall of their rival companies. The CEO of Novell is sitting back in his leather chair, surrounded by bikini clad girly girls and hired goons with steel brimmed bowler hats, cackling madly in glee as his plan to use SCO's hubris to destroy Microsoft has finally comes to fruition.
That's fiction. The real world is much simpler. Novell is doing what all IT companies eventually do; realise that you can't fight Microsoft, so you might as well make sure your software interoperates. I don't give a shit what conspiracy theories are flying around Slashdot about the Novell/Microsoft deal; the ability for OpenOffice to read Word documents is farking awesome and I'll gladly pay money to Novell if necessary to get in on that. Sun did the same thing (identity software). IBM and HP and Apple as well. The money that changes hands and the lawsuits just serve to obscure the benficial outcomes for you and I; software from multiple vendors that works together. Sometimes (you might say always) the business relationship with Microsoft works to their eventual detriment (R.I.P SGI) but there's no business sense in taunting the 800lb gorilla. You give it a banana as a peace offering and hope it doesn't sit on you.
SCO isn't a pawn of Microsoft. That's a fiction invented by Groklaw and it's the worst kind of conjecture and conspiracy imaginable. SCO's CEO convinced himself that they owned UNIX, that Linux stole from UNIX, and that SCO deserved a piece of the action. "Never ascribe to malice what can be explained by incompetence". There is no doubt that Darl is incompetent, so there's no need to paint him as a malicious figure. It was a stupid lawsuit initiated by a desperate CEO to save a pathetic, dying company. The 1000s of articles generated by The Site Whose Name Makes Even Cthulu Cringe has made an echo chamber, where conjecture is used as proof for the next piece of conjecture. It's like the fishing story where the fish keeps getting bigger with each telling.
This is just business. There's no conspiracy. It must be a slow news day when "journalists" start inventing Tom Clancy plotlines and making stupid analogies with trapdoor spiders.
One more thing: because Microsoft actually becomes a distributor of SuSE Linux under this agreement, they automatically grant everybody a license to any patent that any GPL'ed part of SuSE Linux might contain. Well, strictly speaking, they only grant a license to the recipients of those copies, but because that license is transferable, they grant it to the world.
After signing this contract, Microsoft's entire claims of patent violations in Linux pretty much completely collapse.
Red Hat supports (used to support?) it.
There are others, but that's the version I'm familiar with. The last time I tried it, over 5 years ago now, it couldn't successfully run KDE unside of MSWind98. Close though. Even then if you were satisfied with native MS windowing, it was quite good.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
That's not what happened or is happening, the deal is M$ will not sue the customers of Novell for infringement of M$ patents in Novell products; M$ isn't even saying that they found patented technologies in Novell product, just that they will not sue. There is also work to insure interoperability of SuSE Linux and M$ products for which Novell is getting paid, considering how well Linux plays with M$ when given half a chance, I'd consider it free money and likely paid more from guilt in hopes it'll be seen as a peace offering
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
For all we know, Microsoft entered this deal to secure indemnity against actions they have performed that threaten Novell's very existence, but which Novell know nothing about. It's not like they've never been prosecuted for unethical business practices before, or been found guilty of them, so one must wonder why they were so keen on this agreement BEFORE Novell learned the full facts. It is possible that the full facts will prove fatal only because the deal was entered - again, that has happened before and we cannot ignore that as a possibility.
Paranoid? No, you're not paranoid when they really ARE out to get you. Seriously, I'm not saying that Microsoft is doing anything shady here. All I can say is that the "Get The Facts" campaign, the EU lawsuits, prior actions by Microsoft involving agreements with other companies (such as spyware/anti-virus vendors) and prior comments by Microsoft indicating extreme hostility and antipathy towards Linux and its vendors, are all indicative of motives that are somewhat less than snow white, pure and radiant. They are not stupid and did not enter this for Novell's benefit, any more than their deal with anti-virus vendors ending with crippling those same vendors was in the interests of those other parties.
If a banana plantation enters an agreement with an 800 lb. gorilla armed with a machine-gun, it is safe to assume that the gorilla will be extremely happy with the outcome - no matter what.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Or, as one of my coworkers put it at our company Christmas party last night: "The Novell/Microsoft deal is easy to explain. Novell has already given Microsoft all its NetWare customers. They don't have any left to give. So they have no choice but to start finding Linux customers to give to Microsoft. Novell is actually the most diabolically clever sales tool that Microsoft ever invented."
Oh, how we laughed.
Breakfast served all day!
Here here. Keep your friends close and your enemies closer...
If you were B.G. what would YOU do?
... Take the money and run!"
Hand the company to somebody else.
Cash out.
"Come on
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The evidence certainly doesn't support this position. We already know that MS gave SCO a significant amount of money through various channels with absolutely no visible return (the licenses, the PIPE funding, underwriting the EV1 deal, etc.).
It certainly seems more reasonable to assume that Microsoft is paying SCO to do exactly what SCO is doing rather than assuming that they've decided to start just giving away money for no particular reason.
--MarkusQ
Conspiracy and conjecture. Exactly the sort of nonsense I was ridiculing. You don't know why the investment was made, or whether there was a return, so you invent the most overwrought and implausible story that it was a mercenary payment for SCO to attack Linux even though that would eventually mean SCO's demise.
Go back to reading Tom Clancy novels.
There is no guilt money here, no peace offering. This is the basic sale of soul for brief wealth and certain damnation deal popular in classical fiction and Microsoft business strategy. It keeps working because after four years of phenomenal returns the C?Os get to exercise huge options and retire; their long term strategy doesn't require the survival of any of the other players.
In short, nobody wise would have anything to do with any of these people. They have made a secret agreement between them not to bargain with us in good faith.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
No it's not - the corporate mind isn't as stupid as either of you are.
Lets see the holes in the argument.
Firstly, a patent deal doesn't make patent infringements magically appear. Novell's deal with Microsoft has no legal bearing on Linux at all - NONE. If Microsoft can sue with the deal they can sue without the deal.
Secondly, even if there are patent infringements in Linux that probably would only minorly affect Linux - the patents would be only valid and enforceable in the US while the major centre of development is outside of the US in Europe and others. It would only affect people trying to use Linux in the US and, quite simply, there's now more money invested with Linux as a base than there is in Microsoft's whole market cap, so the economic impact of the patents for America would outweigh the impact on the Linux developers. Besides this, the PR for Microsoft would be, let's put it mildly, horrific.
Thirdly, Linux code is GPL - it can't disappear and even if it infringes on Microsoft patents that doesn't mean Microsoft owns the code. They can't incorporate Linux code into Windows without making the Windows kernel GPL - patents != copyright.
Forthly and finally (and pretty much refuting every single word that the grandparent said) there's no reason for Microsoft to want to run Linux apps. There's simply no incentive for them to make a reverse wine - if there was they don't need any patent infringements to do it now...
there are 10 types of people in this world; those who get this joke, and those who don't
if there are patent infringements in Linux that probably would only minorly affect Linux
Microsoft doesn't care about kernels. Kernel litigation with SCO failed anyway. They worry about distros because they are stealing Microsoft's lunch.
And the of the top-100 distros over at distrowatch.org, how many have DEEP pocket to go more than one day in court? Damn Small Linux? Mepis? Slackware? When microsoft has finished culling the herd, they'll litigate most distros into oblivion. They will be careful about it too, because they've got enterprise customers they don't want to piss off.
Linux code is GPL - it can't disappear
They don't want it to disappear. They just don't want anyone using it. If the only place to get it is some repo in Germany then your PHB certainly won't run it. Linux as a product will be unmarketable. Mission accomplished for Microsoft.
Microsoft has a damn good plan. Distros should be preparing for long-term litigation.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Umm, wrong. No conjecture or conspiracy required here. Microsoft paid several million dollars to TSG for a Unix license that they don't need and aren't using. This is a matter of public record, reported in TSG's SEC filings (and press releases, and quarterly conference calls and... they were really crowing about it). Of course, it's always possible that Microsoft might start making use of their license in the future, so if you squint really hard you can convince yourself that it had nothing to do with SCO vs. IBM, but the timing is pretty darned suspicious. Sun did a similar thing at the same time, of course, but Sun at least has made use of the broader license they purchased. They couldn't have opened Solaris without it, for example.
You don't know why the investment was made, or whether there was a returnWe don't? We've seen the sworn testimony of the Baystar employee who was approached by Microsoft and asked to make the investment. I suppose you're right that we don't know *why* it was made -- just that a Microsoft exec told Baystar that Microsoft would make sure it was worth their while, and Baystar invested $50M. We also know that Baystar took a shellacking on the investment, recovering barely $20M of the $50M. Microsoft didn't put any money in, or get any out. They just implied that other business Microsoft would do with Baystar would make it worthwhile, even if it turned out to be a bad investment.
I'm not going to bother looking up the docs that support all of this, but they're all in Groklaw's archives if you care to.
so you invent the most overwrought and implausible story that it was a mercenary payment for SCO to attack Linux even though that would eventually mean SCO's demise.That would be pretty implausible. It's all conjecture, but what I think happened is that SCO really thought they might have a case, and really hoped that they could just convince IBM to buy them off, giving them a quick infusion of cash. Microsoft noticed that what SCO was doing would cause huge problems for Linux if they could prove their case, and might sow some decent FUD even if they couldn't, and decided to throw some petty cash at them to help keep them going. Microsoft's cash (both the direct payment and the Microsoft-arranged Baystar PIPE), in turn, encouraged SCO and helped to keep them pushing forward even as they started to realize that maybe they didn't really have any case against Linux -- and maybe none against IBM, either.
We also know that IBM issued a lot of subpoenas to Microsoft, Novell, Baystar and a couple of individuals that were involved in all of this, and it's pretty clear that IBM and Novell have cooperated on their cases against SCO. I'm sure IBM didn't actually give any of the key information about Microsoft's involvement to Novell, because most of it was filed under seal, but I wouldn't be surprised if IBM let Novell know that there was some interesting stuff in there, and I think Novell has subpoenaed a lot of the same stuff themselves (not sure; I haven't been following that case as closely).
Taken together, along with the fact that the Novell/MS deal nets Novell ~$340M, I think it's plausible that the Novell/MS deal may have been largely about making sure Novell didn't come after MS. I wouldn't go so far as to say that I think that's the case, but it is plausible.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The brass needed a golden parachute because they were flaming out. Along came a charming gentleman with a fat wad of cash and a deal that's too good to be true... There's only one string attached... They just have to screw everybody who does business with them until the sherriff padlocks the doors. Do that and they get great personal wealth to comfort them for the loss of their once great company. Shareholders and creditors get zilch, like always. Customers are left hanging. What employees are left at the end get away with neither their self respect nor a decent separation package.
This deal looks like SCO redux because that's what it is. There is nothing new or subtle about this plot.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Uhuh. Let me make this clear - Microsoft's software patents are only enforceable in the US. So no, I probably won't be affected and my PHB won't care since we're not part of the US, and I don't think any businesses actually run Damn Small Linux, Mepis or Slackware. Those distros don't really have a need to be centred in the US so I don't think it matters if Microsoft tries to sue the users of those distros - all it would gain them is a pittance of money and a shitload of bad publicity.
So, as for American business linux users (which are the only ones that are able to be targetted if Microsoft have a patent that Linux clearly infringes) I don't think they'd be that vulnerable. IBM and their customers for instance would be impenetrable because of cross patenting and I doubt they would have no issue with Red Hat being targetted. Novell cannot be targetted as they have this patent deal. Who does that leave? Anyone?
I'm not really trying to criticise you I just think that you're not thinking of things realistically here and you're just embracing a doomsday scenario seeing how it's "flashy". Realistically using their software patents against the free software community would be a death knell for Microsoft - it would open pandora's box. Realistically people (and especially companies) don't react very well to blackmail or threats because they can't afford to react to it. "Use my software or else I'll sue you" is a very bad way to do business.
you weren't following the original DoJ antitrust trial against MS? This isn't conjecture, because THIS REALLY IS how microsoft operates.
I have never read a Tom Clancy novel but a quick google turns up the fact that their plots typically revolve around things like CIA spies and plots to blow things up and double agents and such, none of which are being suggested here. Instead, what is being suggested is that corporate executives might funnel money to third parties to do their dirty work, defame competitors, and bring frivolous lawsuits against groups or individuals who threaten their market dominance. Where might we have read about such things? Oh right--in the newspapers. In fact, several of the stories have involved Microsoft, and some even involved Darl McBride, as well as hundreds of other companies big and small.
Unless you are going to stick to your guns claim that we can drop all the white-collar crime laws off the books because nobody actually does such things and people who claim they do are just reading too much Tom Clancy, you'll have to come uyp with a better argument than that.
--MarkusQ
Wallace was done like kipper trying to show the "zero price" was predatory dumping. German cases tried to show that the "must share code from a GPL-derived work" clause was not enforceable and got boned over that one. Lastly SCO tried to run with the idea that the GPL was anti-american and all-over invalid. This got dropped because they saw the endpoint: they get boned.
So what would be invalidated? The GPL, unlike an EULA, grants rights contingent on accepting restrictions. An EULA tries to grand you rights YOU SHOULD ALREADY HAVE in exchange for restrictions that have nothing to do with copyright.
Just in case you don't want to get that point, here are examples.
GPL: if you use the code you must pass on these rights to anyone you sell or give the product to. So the licens to copy the code and give it to someone is not allowed by copyright law. You are allowed to do so as long as you let them have the same license.
EULA: if you want to run the program you cannot benchmark without asking us first. Benchmarking is NOT a copyright-controlled action and neither is running the program.
with replying "this software is licensed not sold". I.e. the license is what you buy and the copy isn't necessary.
Not only that, but they attribute a level of cunning to Novell that they have never, ever in their entire history showed even a glimmer of.
Novell has a long and proud history of failing in the marketplace despite having a vastly superior product. NDS was years ahead of Microsoft deploying Active Directory, so why is it AD is a revolutionary shift in networking, while NDS was a niche product? Could it be, perhaps, that Novell has no idea how to attract customers to their product? Novell charged thousands for a server license, Microsoft charged a few hundred. So corporations who were planning on having many servers (which would be a prudent design) were content to deal with the comparitive limitations of NT servers over Netware servers.
Fastforward to today, where NDS is a dinosaur struggling to hold on, so much so that they were forced to embrace Lunix. Yeah, there sure is a whole lot of corporations who are going to run their networks on an unsupported server platform so they can run NDS.
Novell: All the wrong moves... for decades.
Despite the main poster's dreamland fantasies, Novell's deal is still their struggle to survive. They aren't dealing from a position of strength, nor have they for about 20 years.
If Novell pushes too hard, MS will just buy their asses out. Which would probably be a good thing, since NDS is pretty nice. If nothing else, MS can then take their network printing software and roll it in to Active Directory. Printing with MS servers sucks, it's completely dependent upon resolving to a physical server. In NDS, it's just a logical directory object, and you tell the directory which server will be spooling the print requests.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Strider44, while I don't dispute that, technically, you are correct, I continue to be worried. I see too many people relying on their location outside the USA to protect them. Yes, we are grateful that the world, far from being just the USA, has a healthy number of countries who disagree with the US; but the USA just has way too much clout on this planet.
I envision the US government championing patent enforcement --their version of it-- to other countries, under the banner of IP protection, possibly rolling it into the same snowball as preventing DVD piracy. "Yes, Mr Prime Minister, as part of our trade agreement, you agree to the We-Will-To-Protect-IP clause. Just sign here on the dotted line
Don't get too complacent about things happening with US law outside your jurisdiction. The OSS community needs to make a concerted push to get organizations and institutions, especially outside the US, using OSS. Once OSS is entrenched to some degree, it will be harder for Microsoft to impose its will outside the US, because there will be a tangible economic impact. From economic impact comes clout. For only when it hits the pocketbook will people and governments start feeling passionate about defending issues like freedom to process information.
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
That is a loaded term if I ever heard one. Strictly business the mafia killer says as he kills his rivals?
The article is wrong however about one thing. IBM. Close partners with MS. Yeah right. We are currently in the mids of a console war right. Notice one thing about it. Each one of the three consoles is really IBM inside. Not like the last generation, when at least one was Intel inside. Strictly business? Sure, selling the tech in the next-gen consoles is good business for IBM. But just perhaps someone at IBM headquarters sniggered a bit when they signed the contracts that effectivly cut that upstart Intel, the one that "cheated" them out of the PC market so long ago, out of this generation of consoles.
Stricly business and absolutly nobody at IBM sniggers a bit when they read about Intels current problems. Nope, that would be childish.
As for MS. Well, IBM is such close partners with MS that is helps MS rival Sony not just with a console but a console that just possibly could be that living room PC we keep hearing about. Sure sure, Sony will probably screw it up but IBM still gets its money plus the Cell tech wich looks to be very intresting. Has anyone else noticed that with the cell a lot of people are intrested in a cpu that is NOT intel? Oh sure, part of the high end market was not Intel before but now with the cell going into "simple" blades it just might mean IBM is getting back into competition with Intel. Possibly, slowly, after all it is strictly business.
IBM also sells linux and actively supports it and will happily sell linux desktops to customers that would otherwise take Windows from IBM's so called close partner MS.
The PS3, could be a small living room PC. Possibly, it is limited by memory for one thing, and Sony will probably not do it right BUT just on the offchance that it would work, would MS like that? Would the old people in charge of IBM who remember how MS has wronged them in the past just possibly enjoy a tiny bit if MS would be knocked down just a bit?
Offcourse not. They are unfeeling machines. Because that is how you get to the top. Countless of our biggest industrial and political leaders are well known for always being fair, for never acting on feelings of revenge or malice. You never ever exact revenge on those who wronged you when you reach the top. That is just not done.
You call it "good business" instead as your grind your opponents face into the ground.
Kids engage in revenge, that is childish. Punching a rival in the face ain't the way of adults. You utterly destroy them and anyone close to them and then when the next upstart comes along you say "you remember X who tried to wrong me" and they say "no" and you say "exactly".
Stricly business.
Novell to Exhibit at SCALE 5x in Feb 2007. SCALE will be in Los Angeles on Feb 10-11, 2007.