Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft (Probably) Didn't Just Buy Unix
jfruhlinger writes "Word came down this morning that when Attachmate bought Novell, certain intellectual property rights were sold to a Microsoft-led consortium as part of the deal. Since Unix is the most valuable piece of IP Novell owns, there was a certain amount of panic that suddenly Redmond is in charge of this foundational technology for Linux and a number of other open source projects. But, while MS is being cagey, Brian Proffitt doubts that Unix was part of the IP package that was sold — and believes that Linux would be safe even if it were."
Novell's 8-K filing says that Microsoft's "CNPT" bought 882 patents.
* What important patents did Novell have?
* What happens now to Novell's contribution to OIN?
Novell contributed some big patent sets to OIN, like the Commerce One e-commerce patents. What's their status now? Did Novell "give/transfer" them to OIN, or did OIN just have a transferable assurance of access to these patents via Novell?
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/CPTN_Holdings_LLC
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Novell
* http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Open_Invention_Network
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
which is exactly what you don't want - if they said "we own it", no-one would believe them until it got to court. If they said "we don't own it", no-one would care.
But, because they say "maybe", everyone starts to panic and worry, and think the problem is far worse that it ever could be.
Oh good.
Then why all the fear, uncertainty, and doubt?
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Dennis Ritchie includes GNU/Linux when speaking of Unix. Just the word 'Unix' is rather ambiguous. I generally use four sets of terms and try to be specific whenever possible:
1. AT&T UNIX or Bell Labs UNIX. The operating system developed by AT&T/Bell Labs (SysV, Version 7 UNIX)
2. Genetic UNIX. Any operating system that can trace it's history to AT&T UNIX.
3. Branded UNIX or SUS. Any operating system that meets the Single Unix Specification and pays the necessary fees.
4. Unix-like, functional Unix, or *nix. Any operating system that is designed to be have the same functionality and overall design as AT&T UNIX.
GNU/Linux only meets the terms of functional Unix, but being functional Unix is more important than being branded or genetic Unix in most usage, so it's not uncommon to use Unix just to describe functional Unix.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Perhaps that Russian guy who a few days ago commented that Linux was near the end of its release cycle knew something!
In all seriousness, given the FUD Microsoft spreads about Linux to their customers, I wonder if this purchase has been working its way into their propaganda engine for a while.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
Wouldn't this basically be like saying "you can use these patents freely" and then turn around to (possibly) sue anyone who might be using them? Is that even legally possible?
Surely, pledging the patents to the portfolio in the first place has to mean _something_ other than just "use them for now, but we might change our minds!"?
Anyone who can't work that one out is daft.
If Microsoft bought the Unix patents and tried to actually do anything with them, they they'd either lose and have worthless patents or win and have the government invalidate their patents to prevent a 100% monopoly. There's no upside for them in that game. Microsoft may have been rooting for SCO, but that's a war they need fought by proxy, they can't fight that themselves.
I have always felt that OIN was a plan to protect the patent system from Open Source, rather than what it should have been.
Bruce Perens.
The difference beween all the things you describe and imaginary property is that the things you describe are voluntary, whereas imaginary property is really a way to control everyone's property in some way, in an ever-growing list of things one cannot form one's own property into. That's a huge difference.
this patent nonsense is being forced down the collective throats of all of the rest of the world, in the name of "harmonization of trade rules" and of "combatting counterfeitors". ACTA anyone? Or watch those assholes in the EU patent office, handing out patents which *effectively* are software patents, although the letter of the law states in the EU that "sofftware as such is not patentable". And the courts actually follow the money (in Germany, a patent related to XML held up in court).
When the big corps don't manage to buy the legislative (which doesn't happen often, mind you) they just buy the bureaucracy.
Moving away won't help, alas. We've got to fight.