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."

28 of 289 comments (clear)

  1. What if.. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if Novell sold them Unix, but didn't give them the root password?

    --
    Evil people are out to get you.
    1. Re:What if.. by theY4Kman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Microsoft would still sell it to customers.

    2. Re:What if.. by Kraftwerk · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure Microsoft can afford a $5 wrench.

    3. Re:What if.. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Funny

      While that would work on the average Crypto Nerd - I think you underestimate the die-harded-ness of Linux users who would fight to the death to defend the freedom of Open Source. Why do you think Stallman sleeps with swords?

    4. Re:What if.. by dAzED1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      would you fight...to the pain? Because that would probably be redundant, as linux nerds have been a PITA to MS for years already

    5. Re:What if.. by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Funny

      ~# kill -9 268025

    6. Re:What if.. by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first soldiers storming the beach on D-day had slim chances, but they formed the beachhead for the rest of the invasion. In many cases when risking being surrounded or to cover a retreat soldiers will be asked to fight battles they can not hope to win or even survive. Overall sure, you'd better make sure the enemy dies more than you do but on the microlevel commanders can and do send people to almost certain death. If soliders wouldn't obey orders that involved great risk or sacrifice, the army would collapse under pressure. So on the grand strategic level you want the enemy to die, but on the operational level you need soldiers who accept the risk of dying.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  2. They bought 882 Novell patents; Whither OIN? by ciaran_o_riordan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:They bought 882 Novell patents; Whither OIN? by diegocg · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, just take a look. Novell was one of the companies that invented networking, so they have stuff that probably every modern OS is infringing. Active Directory very probably infringed some of them (that probably was one of the reasons why Microsoft signed a patent agreement with them). Just some examples:

      Method and apparatus for network file recovery

      Firewall system for quality of service management

      Methods, data stores, data structures, and systems for electronic identity

      System and method for automically authenticating a user in a distributed network system

      Method and apparatus for proxy authentication

      Secure intranet access

      System and method for synchronizing database information

      They even have some UI patents: Method for automatically resizing a child window

      And some weird OS functionality Method and apparatus for mapping page table trees into virtual address space

      Of course they are stupid, but god knows what can a good lawyer firm do with them.

  3. Microsoft being cagey by gbjbaanb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Microsoft being cagey by HeckRuler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sooooooo they just bought a billion dollars worth of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt?

  4. FUD parade continues on... by RocketRabbit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After the revelations years ago that Microsoft had funded SCO during the Darl era, and has been on the attack against Linux for a good 10 years now at least, I would not just put my feet up and rest easy following this news. At this point nobody even knows what MS bought, so it's a little too early to be going down for a nap.

    Microsoft knows that there are several threats to its existence, but most of them can just be bought off, paid off, or partnered with. Linux is not really susceptible to any of those vectors. If indeed MS has come away with the Unix intellectual property rights we can expect a renewed set of attacks. Specifically, Microsoft would probably avoid dirtying its hands directly, and instead use some sort of nominally separate entity (which would probably end up being the holder of the Unix IP) to attack Linux through a confusing and expensive court case.

    I know it is nice to hope for the best, but while one does that, they should also prepare for the worst.

    1. Re:FUD parade continues on... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Linux is not using Unix.

      Yes and SCO did not own Unix and had no case against IBM. We all knew this. However, a litigious CEO bent on extracting extortion payments for IP that his company did not own as well as financial backing from the likes of MS, the case went on for seven years before it was resolved. Based on the history of MS, it's not that they need to ultimately win any legal battles, they just need to create enough FUD so that customers won't consider alternatives.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  5. Anyone else... by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Is tired of this whole software patent mess?

    I mean, come on. Not only do people have to worry about what patents their newest idea is stepping on, but now when companies are bought, they may have large ramnifications which ripple around?

    I'm pretty tired of this rubbish. They should just throw away software patents - then we could still have good companies which actually develop stuff instead of simply being bought for their patents. Alas poor Sun.

    1. Re:Anyone else... by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1. Move away from America
      2. Develop whilst simultaneously not caring about software patents.
      3. Sales and profit.
      4. Get sued in America
      5. Don't turn up
      6. Don't go to America (or South Korea) ever again.

  6. I certainly hope so by Jugalator · · Score: 4, Funny

    A Microsoft Unix 2013 Professional Edition doesn't exactly give me pleasant imagery.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:I certainly hope so by crazycheetah · · Score: 4, Informative
  7. wow, "someone believes..." by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well that puts my mind at ease now. ;-)

    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
  8. Re:Linux Is Not UniX by sakdoctor · · Score: 5, Funny

    A spoon may not be a fork, but a spork is a fork of a spoon.

    Pun intended.

  9. Lawyers & PR take time by TurtleBay · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While you may attribute Microsoft's cageyness to an effort to enhance royalty revenue by not being clear on what they own, it is much more likely their large corporate structure and lawyers getting in the way. If someone asked Microsoft's PR what patents they now hold, the PR guy has no idea. He needs to go to the M&A team who did the deal and ask what exactly they now own. When the PR guy hears back he needs to do his job and put some spin on it to make Microsoft sound cutting edge yet not monopolist with the new IP. Then the PR guy needs to forward his response to legal, who will circle back around to M&A to cross check the facts. The legal guys will come back with a list of things that the company can't say and the PR guy will need to apply another round of spin to get around what the lawyers told him would't be fit to print. All of this will probably take a couple of weeks, so don't expect an immediate answer regarding the implications of the specific of a deal to UNIX, especially during the holidays.

  10. Enough! by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bill Gates Jr. retired from Microsoft some time ago. Couldn't you Slashdot guys at least update the silly icon so it shows Ballmer as a Borg?

    You could even make him the Borg queen...

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  11. Re:What if? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Funny

    What if you sucked 10,000 cocks per second?

    .. then you would have a 10KHz CPU (cock processing unit).

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  12. What really happened - OIN Emasculated by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is a threat here, but it has nothing to do with the Unix copyrights. We have already established really, really well that the Unix copyrights are irrelevant at this late date. They can't be used like patents to enforce against other similar works. They were released under an unterminating BSD license and covered by a government standard. Forget them.

    What they got was 481 patents that were part of a portfolio that Open Invention Network had previously used to defend Linux against patent suits. So, this is escalation in the patent war they are running against Linux, because they just removed one of our defensive weapons.

    1. Re:What really happened - OIN Emasculated by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not what I am talking about. When a company brought suit against an OIN member, or against Linux in general, OIN had the option of bringing suit against that same company using a patent belonging to one of its members. That is the capability that is probably being lost - as far as Novell's patents are concerned.

    2. Re:What really happened - OIN Emasculated by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have always felt that OIN was a plan to protect the patent system from Open Source, rather than what it should have been.

  13. To the pain by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ballmer: And next will be my kernel I suppose, let's get on with it.

    Stallman: WRONG! Your kernel you keep and I'll tell you why. It's so that every missed IRQ, every dropped packet, every sysadmin who wanders by and says "My God what is that abomination" will fall upon your unused IO buffers unserviced.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  14. If you want the story, see Groklaw by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Informative

    www.groklaw.net. Pamela Jones is the Empress, the rightful dispenser of knowledge on who goeth there regarding Linux, the Law, and the great game called Follow The Money.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  15. Except Novell didn't own unix by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Informative
    The Regents of Southern California would have a thing to say about that - the AT&T settlement made one thing clear - no one entity "owns" unix.

    The University also claimed that similar lines of source code (which were presented during discovery) did not infringe on USL's copyright because they had become public domain by the actions of AT&T: AT&T had promoted UNIX as a standard, licensing it to universities and allowing UNIX source code to be published in textbooks. The University submitted briefs from the UC Berkeley students and staff, explaining how they had audited the code, looking for freely available copies of the source code and methods. When they could find none, they said, they removed the code and rewrote it using publicly known techniques—and so any remaining similarities existed because AT&T had effectively abandoned the copyright to them.

    Novell didn't have to show they owned the rights to Unix in SCO vs Novell - just that, whatever rights they had, they didn't convey them to Santa Cruz.

    So whatever they bought from AT&T, it wasn't "ALL right to Unix."