Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Attachmate To Retain Novell Unix Copyrights

Posted by samzenpus on from the mine-now-I-keep-it dept.

angry tapir writes "Novell's copyrights for the Unix operating system will remain under Attachmate's control as part of the companies' pending merger, a Novell spokesman has revealed. The confirmation, which came in a terse message posted to Novell's website, seems to rule out questions of whether Unix assets are part of some 882 patents being sold to a Microsoft-led consortium, CPTN Holdings, as part of the deal."

54 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. We gotta buy them. by unity100 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As the internet developer/it communities. and even corporations. its better off outside microsoft's reach, in ANY case, even if a claim cannot be laid.

    why cant we set up a consortium to buy it and release it as open source ? and donate to that consortium ?

    --
    Read radical news here
    1. Re:We gotta buy them. by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because open source sucks.

      He says, on Slashdot, on the web, on the internet ...

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:We gotta buy them. by Kaz+Kylheku · · Score: 2, Informative

      Unix has already been in Microsoft's reach. Microsoft had a Unix product called Xenix.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix

      Xenix is what SCO bought in order to produce SCO UNIX.

    3. Re:We gotta buy them. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Though I am a long time Microsoft basher (with very good reason) I have to totally disagree with you. A small company with nothing to lose run by a moron (SCO anyone?) is much more likely to try the kind of Hail Mary that any such attempt would constitute. Microsoft, while wrong in many ways, is not that phenomenally stupid. They actually have something to lose, and would be going up against Google, Motorola, HP, IBM, and thousands of other companies single handedly, and even they can't t weather the ill will such a stupid move would garner circa 2011. If it gets in the hands of another Darl McBride, it is still a non-issue, because they are guaranteed to lose, whether you think it is because we are right (which we are of course), or because big money talks. Any way you slice it, worrying about said trademark and who owns it is tantamount to complete foolishness.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    4. Re:We gotta buy them. by NJRoadfan · · Score: 1

      Xenix is what SCO bought in order to produce SCO UNIX.

      We all know how THAT ended up. Whats next, Darl McBride becomes the next CEO of Attachmate?

    5. Re:We gotta buy them. by mcneely.mike · · Score: 1

      That's because /. allows 12 year olds with the tee-hee humour of 8 year olds to go trolling as AC without consequences (which, of course, is so obvious that's redundant. Reminds me to hit that AC checkbox)

      There... FTFY.

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    6. Re:We gotta buy them. by FudRucker · · Score: 1

      GNU is not unix, (Linux isnt either)

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    7. Re:We gotta buy them. by stox · · Score: 1

      The cat is long out of the bag. Between BSD and Solaris, all the tasty bits have been exposed and covered.

      --
      "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    8. Re:We gotta buy them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Not as funny as farting when the TSA fingers your asshole.

    9. Re:We gotta buy them. by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      He says, on Slashdot, on the web, on the internet ...

      Err... like we can't walk around and say our government sucks?

    10. Re:We gotta buy them. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Right, because the America Online community was so much better...

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    11. Re:We gotta buy them. by contra_mundi · · Score: 1

      Though I am a long time Microsoft basher (with very good reason) I have to totally disagree with you. A small company with nothing to lose run by a moron (SCO anyone?) is much more likely to try the kind of Hail Mary that any such attempt would constitute. Microsoft, while wrong in many ways, is not that phenomenally stupid. They actually have something to lose, and would be going up against Google, Motorola, HP, IBM, and thousands of other companies single handedly, and even they can't t weather the ill will such a stupid move would garner circa 2011. If it gets in the hands of another Darl McBride, it is still a non-issue, because they are guaranteed to lose, whether you think it is because we are right (which we are of course), or because big money talks. Any way you slice it, worrying about said trademark and who owns it is tantamount to complete foolishness.

      On the other hand, it would make a perfect "nuke", if you will, to strike back at multiple competitors for Microsoft to use when the end is drawing near.

    12. Re:We gotta buy them. by Jaxoreth · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, OldSCO was pretty cool, if a little pricey. Caldera Linux, after purchasing the name and UNIX business was a bunch of pricks.

      While the Santa Cruz Operation had a legitimate business, SCO UNIX was the most painful operating system I've ever had to use or administer. Out of the box, hitting Delete would backspace over the prompt. Even DOS didn't do that.

      --
      In general, it is safe and legal to kill your children. -- POSIX Programmer's Guide
    13. Re:We gotta buy them. by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This whole "GPL is restrictive compared to the BSD-style licenses" thing seems to be the favourite FUD of the corporate masses now.

      It seems to have gained a lot of traction, predictably, because it's true, from a certain point of view.

      Yes, the GPL grants you fewer rights than a BSD style license. The most important right that it does not grant you is the right to take the rights of others away by closing the source after you have received it.

      So I don't think of GPL as "restrictive" and BSD-style as "permissive". I think of GPL as "freedom-preserving" and BSD as "promiscuous".

    14. Re:We gotta buy them. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I guess you didn't read what I wrote. An unarmed "nuke" is no nuke at all.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    15. Re:We gotta buy them. by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      freedom nazi eh.... maybe we need that kind of nazi party.

      --
      Read radical news here
    16. Re:We gotta buy them. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      you can't actually "fart" when someone is fingering your asshole. You can expel the gas, but the finger prevents your exhaust port from slapping open and closed rapidly, which is what creates the "fart" sound.

      It's always good to see that someone's done their research properly before posting.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:We gotta buy them. by HermMunster · · Score: 1

      That's an extreme point of view. Nothing like shouting to the world that you are a biased individual.

      Do you own a Macintosh? Do you own an iPhone? Do you own an Android phone? Do you own a DVR such as a Tivo? Do you use a web browser (Chrome, Safari, Firefox)? Do you use hotmail (MSN mail)? Do you use your ISPs email? Does your company use Apache as their web server? Do you query Google, or use gmail or use Google Voice or Google Docs, or any other Google service?

      Most of those things, and countless others, are part of open source projects. Apple's Macintosh OSX's core piece is open source. Apple's Safari uses webkit which was created by KDE (which is an open source project). The vast majority of web services are based on open source projects. You wouldn't have the web without it, and yes, even Hotmail uses Linux.

      NASA uses open source. NASA has been a major contributor to open source from way back and has created drivers for the kernel. Many of the top corporations use Linux and contribute to it. I believe some or all of the stock exchanges use Linux. 90% of the super computers in the world use open source.

      So, what exactly makes open source suck?

      --
      You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
  2. Re:Attach-a-who? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anyone who uses Linux, BSD, OS X, or any other Unix or Unix-like OS* should care, since the SCO insanity showed that there are numerous bottom-feeders out there who will try to use "owenership of Unix" -- whether or not they actually own it -- as a weapon. It doesn't matter if there's any infringing IP to go after, either; they'll still cause loads of trouble. I have no idea what Attachmate's business practices are like, but Microsoft being able to claim any kind of Unix ownership would be a guaranteed disaster.

    *Which, of course, means anyone who uses the internet, even if they don't know it.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  3. "whether Unix assets are part of some 882 patents" by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are no Unix patents.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  4. Re:"whether Unix assets are part of some 882 paten by zzatz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sequent patented read-copy-update, now owned by IBM. There may be others. But none from Novell, as far as I know.

  5. Who takes WordPerfect patents? by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    Is it Microsoft, through the 'backdoor?' I hope not.

    1. Re:Who takes WordPerfect patents? by bobdevine · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hard to tell which patents are included in the purchase.

      The most detailed document is the 8-K filing but it doesn't list the patents

      http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/758004/000119312510266513/d8ka.htm

    2. Re:Who takes WordPerfect patents? by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      By the number of patents, Microsoft is probably getting all of them and some stuff that aren't disclosed yet.

      --
      Rethinking email
  6. Novell & Idam by narkotix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    i'd say the identity management offerings from Novell are what Microsoft are after. Novell's idam system is superior to pretty much anything bar TIM/TAM or OIM/OAM.

    --
    We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
  7. why should BSD care? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anyone who uses Linux, BSD, OS X, or any other Unix or Unix-like OS* should care, since the SCO insanity showed that there are numerous bottom-feeders out there who will try to use "owenership of Unix" -- whether or not they actually own it -- as a weapon. It doesn't matter if there's any infringing IP to go after, either; they'll still cause loads of trouble. I have no idea what Attachmate's business practices are like, but Microsoft being able to claim any kind of Unix ownership would be a guaranteed disaster.

    *Which, of course, means anyone who uses the internet, even if they don't know it.

    Why exactly should the BSDs care? They were cleared by the original lawsuit many years ago, and every line of code can be accounted for since as they've been using a version control system every since so that it wouldn't happen again (which is what got Linux in trouble in the first place because a lot of things could not be tracked back to its origins). Logically (which is sadly not the way the world works) if there's a dispute in the BSD code an CVS / SVN "annotate" command can trace it back and things can be cleared up.

    Apple's Mac OS X should be similarly clear to a large extent as well, as they've used FreeBSD (as have Isilon, Cisco, etc.).

    Solaris should be okay because Sun (when it existed) would get licenses for all of these things to be on the safe / paranoid side. It's why they indemnified their customers, as they were fairly sure they had everything they needed (in so far as even getting a license from Xerox PARC for the GUI AFAIK). I would bet that similar things could be said about AIX and HP-UX, but I don't have as much experience with those.

    Properly run organizations can deal with any such Unix IP claim with little to know effort (though it's still a hassle). AFAICT, Linux is the main Unix-y system that has a problem because of a lack of organization, especially on the documentation side of things during its early development.

    (This is for copyright and trademark claims of course. Patents are a whole other kettle of fish.)

    1. Re:why should BSD care? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Your arguments are logical, well-thought-out, and eminently fair.

      Which is why they would be utterly irrelevant to Microsoft.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:why should BSD care? by Larryish · · Score: 1

      [pedant]

      "little to KNOW effort?"

      I think you mean "little to NO effort".

      [/pedant]

  8. Too late, it is already taken care of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The issue of copyrights and unix has been taken care of already. Both SCO and Novel released the linux kernel and other parts of the operating system under the GPL. Any claims for copyright infringement are rendered moot. Once those codes were released under the GPL by the "owners" of the copyright then the game is over. Thank you Novel for buying and releasing SUSE under the GPL. (Never thought that I would be glad about anything done by SUSE but there you go....)

    1. Re:Too late, it is already taken care of by unity100 · · Score: 1

      and what about patents .

      --
      Read radical news here
    2. Re:Too late, it is already taken care of by postbigbang · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Patents under Unix as rendered into the GPL by Novell, the ostensible owner, are real, but mooted by the GPL.

      But Novell has plenty of other IP, including its directory services, communications patents, software patents, and so on.

      I want to say, if Microsoft has bought some of those and intends to troll the patents (the non-Unix ones), then it's proving once and for all it's no longer inventive, just a patent troller. They've fallen behind in so many ways, and have become so incredibly in-grown.

      I don't think the Linux and FOSS communities has to worry much about Microsoft Unix-related litigation, but there's more to Novell than SUSE and Caldera contributions. Lots. Consider, however, that Oracle, Google, IBM, HP, and many others passed up these patents. And they sold for a comparative song. Might not be worth as much as everyone thinks. Perhaps only the lawyers make money on this one.....

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    3. Re:Too late, it is already taken care of by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The patents that apply to current versions of Linux (or any software distributed with SUSE) can't be used in a court case against this software. If it applies to a GPLed software it also can't be used against any derivative software.

      Now, Microsoft had lost a case against Novell based on a few patents that weren't disclosed*. I bet this move is mainly** protective, as MS would not like those patents to get into the hands of anybody else.

      * That was what caused that cross licensing when Microsoft started spreading that SUSE had licenses to use their patents. It looks like MS lost a case, and signed a cross licensing deal while paying Novell to use its patents. Of course, the details are secret, but the money flow is not.

      ** It is probably being made with the intention of being protective. But in the future, MS may find itself with some patents it can use...

      --
      Rethinking email
  9. The Missing Link by rec9140 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is the MISSING LINK:

    http://www.novell.com/company/ir/message.html

    And this is still NOT GOOD.

    Regardless of whether these are valid or not, and regardless of whether there even should be IP, trademark, or copyright... at this point in time this BS still exists and "The Unix Patents" that novell own[s|ed] need to be in the hands of FRIENDLY *NIX entities and most definitely NOT MS, EVER, PERIOD!

    Turn them over to the EFF, OSF, or Linus himself, but this needs to be put to bed to kill off any more SCO Zombies in the future.

    There are also needs to be disclosure on exactly what it is ms is getting.

    Pretty obvious this is a way to kill off the WordPerfect litigation. But what else?

    Oh... and Attachmate you STILL BLEW IT! Send monoboi packing! ! ! ! ! We don't want him or his disease! He desperately wants to work for ms, so grant his wish already.

    So SUSE is still embargo'd and can't be used. Sad, really sad, for a once great distro.

    --
    1311393600 - Back to Black
    1. Re:The Missing Link by rec9140 · · Score: 1

      "Like... Microsoft? (Xenix, remember?)"

      LICENSED Xenix from ATT... ** LICENSED ** which led to the whole SCO mess, and thus proven that ms and SCO own NOTHING.

      Big difference.

      They own nothing IP/trademark/copyright of Unix System 7 basis for Xenix.... LICENSED.

      I reiterate that these patents/trademarks/IP etc. of Unix need to be in the hands of EFF, OSF, OIN, or preferably Linus.

      I don't trust IBM with it, and most definitely NOT Red Hat. Just because RH makes a lot of contributions doesn't make them a good choice for custodians of this type of material till its completely invalidated. I can just see RH trying to make $$$ off this to which Linux is harmed... I just don't trust RH any more...and I am not willing to risk this material to them to see that they play nice in the sandbox.

      --
      1311393600 - Back to Black
    2. Re:The Missing Link by Anamelech · · Score: 1

      If Unix ownership is going to be transferred to anyone, it should be transferred to someone who actually has some interest in Unix. IBM(AIX), HP(HP-UX), Oracle(Solaris)...

      At least at one time, Novell had some hand in the game, as a co-developer of UnixWare.

      Linux, as has been mentioned many, many times, is not Unix. There is no reason any of those organizations would or should be interested in ownership of something that doesn't benefit them in the slightest. It just doesn't make any sense.

    3. Re:The Missing Link by rec9140 · · Score: 1

      "Linux, as has been mentioned many, many times, is not Unix."

      Didn't say it was.

      "There is no reason any of those organizations would or should be interested in ownership of something that doesn't benefit them in the slightest. It just doesn't make any sense."

      It makes perfect sense.. The current game in IP/trademark/copyright BS is to own anything and every thing that might be related or used against some company, some one in the future. Till this crap is eliminated, not likely in my lifetime or any of the next few generations, its best this is held by friendly hands. Friendly hands that are vetted and cleared by community and "doesn't benefit them in the slightest." Thats the goal.Their locked down, and not able to used against Linux, or any one EXCEPT when its an attack against *NIX including Linux if it helps.

      Till the game and rules are changed the game will have to be played with the current rules.

      All property related to *NIX needs to be in the hands of friendly *NIX companies. I prefer Linus. I'll go down from there, OIN, EFF, OSF (with the caveat that RMS is not permitted to be involved in any shape, form, factor, or even to know about it.)

      IBM, Red Hat, and who ever else is trotted out.. is a bad choice if they are even in the least little bit greed oriented, err.. profit seeking.. Create an independent holder for this governed by a board of the community WITH INVOLVEMENT from ACTUAL USERS, meaning some random Linux chosen for a 2 year term or something. Other members would be Linus by default and permanent, then membership from some big Linux companies.

      Till the crap of ip/trademark/copyright is killed off Linux has to protect itself on ALL FRONTS regardless of whether there is even any use of Unix code. The way Linux does this is to put the Unix IP into the hands of proper caretakers.

      ms, is not one

      IBM is not one

      Red Hat is NOT ONE.

      --
      1311393600 - Back to Black
    4. Re:The Missing Link by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with RHT?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  10. Re:"whether Unix assets are part of some 882 paten by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You are assuming all patents on any portion of Unix were taken out on it's original creation date, which would be a bad assumption to make. Unless you are saying nothing of importance (or nothing that could be patented) was ever done to unix in the past 20 years, or improved upon in the past 20 years. I wouldn't want to bet on that.

  11. Mono Framework by cheesekun · · Score: 1

    I am wondering what happens to Mono?

    1. Re:Mono Framework by noidentity · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am wondering what happens to Mono?

      I don't know; are you?

    2. Re:Mono Framework by cheesekun · · Score: 1

      Very funny....?

  12. *Patents*, not copyrights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The GP:v3 focused on patent protections for a reason. Microsoft has been saber rattling about patents and Linux for years now. (http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x36tn1_steve-ballmer-threatens-redhat-with_news). Novell actually *owned* significant patents in networking technologies. SCO had no case, and dragged it on successfully for most of a decade. Microsoft could, theoretically, abuse Novell patents even without them actually being valid or applying to threaten Linux in similar fashion.

    Whether they'll do so has little to do with the actual validity of the patent, but rather on the other business results of such an attempt.

  13. Attach who? by Enter+the+Shoggoth · · Score: 1

    Why is it that the editors seem to assume that we all know who Attachmate are?

    I have a limited idea since taking a look at the wikipedia entry but come on Ed's a bit of backgound info in the summary wouldn't kill you.

    --
    Andy Warhol got it right / Everybody gets the limelight
    Andy Warhol got it wrong / Fifteen minutes is too long.
    1. Re:Attach who? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Why is it that the editors seem to assume that we all know who Attachmate are?

      Because many people do, and many who don't know how to Google? You have enough time to bitch, you have enough time to educate yourself as to who Attachmate is (and was in the past before they became a patent troll).

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Attach who? by magnusrex1280 · · Score: 1

      It's amazing to me when anyone on the internet says "I don't know what that is," and it's doubly amazing when someone on Slashdot, where people are supposed self-educators and intarwebheads, say it. Wikipedia is the only place you looked? Really?

    3. Re:Attach who? by rubies · · Score: 2, Informative

      The name is a blast from the past for anyone who worked in IT in the 1980s.

      They sold a line of IBM 3270 terminal emulation software and some IBM PC compatible communication cards so you could work at your new fangled PC while still looking at the corporate software on the IBM mainframe. I thought they died when 3270 comms protocols went TCP/IP but apparently a shell of the company has struggled on for years sitting on a bunch of acquired patents from subsumed competitors.

      Their SDLC cards were a total bitch to work with too - especially if you were a gumby like me and had never seen a 3270 terminal or mainframe but the sales guy wanted to ship a bunch of PCs into some government department "ready to wear". For this reason the company name gives me the shudders.

  14. Good News, I S'pose... by vtel57 · · Score: 1

    ... not that we were really worried or anything. The MS Police won't be kicking in my door to strip Slackware off my system any time soon. Whew!

    --
    Nocturnal Slacker
  15. Re:Attach-a-who? by weicco · · Score: 1

    Microsoft being able to claim any kind of Unix ownership would be a guaranteed disaster

    I thought they owned Xenix and still has some of their copyrighted stuff in Unix? Are we in disaster now?

    --
    You don't know what you don't know.
  16. To be more precise by eric76 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Novell's Chief Marketing officer stated:

    Here's a message from Novell about the merger, from John Dragoon, Chief Marketing Officer: On November 22, 2010, Novell issued a press release announcing a definitive merger agreement under which Attachmate Corporation (“Attachmate”) would acquire Novell for $6.10 per share in cash (“Merger Agreement”). Novell will continue to own Novell’s UNIX copyrights following completion of the merger as a subsidiary of Attachmate. Novell filed a Form 8-K/A with the SEC on November 22, 2010, with respect to the Merger Agreement.

    That is, Novell will be a subsidiary of Attachmate and Novell will continue to own the copyrights.

  17. Re:"whether Unix assets are part of some 882 paten by arivanov · · Score: 2, Informative

    Wrong.

    At least a couple of the networking patents (the really scary ones) apply to any network device there including some of the fundamentals on the way iptables, marking and QoS are interfaced. You can basically wipe out the current prevalence of Linux in the home networking market in no time with these and a suitable budget to back the effort.

    There are other scary ones there as well from the days when Novell still did networking.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  18. Re:you can't actually "fart" by sempir · · Score: 1

    is damn fine splendid by me...cos then they ain't gonna get any warning of what is about to hit them!!!!!When I've finished with those bastards they are gonna think twice about fingering assholes for the rest of their naturals!

    --
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.
  19. Then why did Microsoft want them? by plastick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A terse message posted to Novell's website? Look, Novell... you sold patents to Microsoft period. Of course people are worried. Shame on you.

    Microsoft wouldn't buy them if the patents were completely worthless.

  20. Re:MS' OS run on what % of computers out there? by postbigbang · · Score: 1

    You pull numbers from your hat. Nice try. Their Kool-Aid is getting old.

    --
    ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
  21. Patents far more dangerous than copyrights by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Regardless of validity or value, patents in Microsoft's hands are far more dangerous than copyrights. By abusing legal process as has been its habit Microsoft can employ its huge cash reserves to cause a great deal of trouble for honest competitors, including volunteers.

    In my opinion, Microsoft gaining control of Novell's patent portfolio is a gross violation of antitrust law and this violation should be pursued vigorously and immediately, not in reaction to dirty tricks that are sure to follow (caveat: I am not a lawyer).

    --
    Have you got your LWN subscription yet?