Don't look at the slide as a whole... just look for an entry on the slide that represents an action, and follow the arrows which show what the effects of that action are.
Okay, now I've looked at the slide, and all I can think is that 'the only winning move is not to play'
Monoâ(TM)s implementation of those components of the.NET stack not submitted to the ECMA for standardization has been the source of patent violation concerns for much of the life of the project. In particular, discussion has taken place about whether Microsoft could destroy the Mono project through patent suits.
The base technologies submitted to the ECMA, and therefore also the Unix/Gnome-specific parts, may be non-problematic. The concerns primarily relate to technologies developed by Microsoft on top of the.NET Framework, such as ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Forms, i.e. parts composing Monoâ(TM)s Windows compatibility stack. These technologies are today not fully implemented in Mono and not required for developing Mono-applications. Not providing patented capabilities would weaken interoperability, but it would still be possible to provide the free software / open source software community with good development tools, which is the primary reason for developing Mono. This has been summed up by Richard Stallman[5]:
âoe Mono is a free implementation of Microsoft's language C#. Microsoft has declared itself our enemy and we know that Microsoft is getting patents on some features of C#. So I think it's dangerous to use C#, and it may be dangerous to use Mono. Thereâ(TM)s nothing wrong with Mono. Mono is a free implementation of a language that users use. It's good to provide free implementations. We should have free implementations of every language. But, depending on it is dangerous, and we better not do that. â
On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novellâ(TM)s customers for patent infringement.[6] According to Mono project leader Miguel de Icaza,[7] this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell developers and customers. It was criticized by the free software community because it violates the principles of giving equal rights to all users of a particular program (see Novell and their Patent Agreement with Microsoft).
Some of the Microsoft protocols include patented inventions, and others do not. You may benefit from a patent license if you are distributing implementations of these protocols commercially or if you use an implementation of any of the protocols covered by Microsoft patents. For more information, contact the Microsoft Open Protocols Team.
Never gonna happen, here's a quote from Stafford Masie (now with Google, I believe, but at the time he was the guy defending the Microsoft-Novell deal) regarding Novell's mixed source philosophy...
...Y'know, we're a Linux company, we do identity management, but we're a Linux company. Identity management, there's so much happening there to open source alot of the APIs, which we've already done, the only thing we haven't open-sourced in the identity world is kinda our directory, and I can tell you what, we probably won't, because again - the same reason alot of proprietary vendors wont take their big software and unwrap it, like I've always said- if you unwrap this baby its ugly, people will run away, ok, there's certain proprietary software that you never want anyone to look at...
Well, the problem is that only 10% of those unvalidated, potentially infringing patents were owned by Microsoft in that study, or about 30. Also, if they are quoting the OSRM study, where then does MS get there statistics for email, GUI, etc?
Second, the deal between Novell and Microsoft regarding patents was an agreement not to sue Novell's customers over patent infringement. While this might be viewed as a "patent license", it is not an explicit license and thus very limited.
That's why the new GPLv3 draft now includes a definition of "patent license" to include deals structured in this devious manner:
GPLv3 Draft 3 S.11
For purposes of the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" means a patent license, a covenant not to bring suit for patent infringement, or any other express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent.
MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: The '580 patent is a program, as I understand it, that's married to a computer, has to be married to a computer in order to be patented.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You can't patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the abstract, can you?
MR. OLSON: That's correct, Justice Scalia.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device.
MR. OLSON: An idea or a principle, two plus two equals four can't be patented. It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device.
This change was last summer, pre-microvell, so the news actually would have been if OpenSUSE was enabling it and taking advantage of MS' patent covenant for Novell customers and OpenSUSE contributors while other distros couldn't.
MS' plan to fragment the community is only effective if Novell has customers and developers supporting them, otherwise the covenant is irrelevant. Boycott Novell, the rest takes care of itself.
Here is the explanation of the cutoff date rationale [PDF] and "letting Novell off" from the FSF themselves. It doesn't let them off, really. They'd still need to pass on their deal to everyone...
Drafting this paragraph was dicult because it is necessary to distinguish between pernicious agreements and other kinds of agreements which do not have an acutely harmful eect, such as patent contributions, insurances, customary cross-license promises to customers, promises incident to ordinary asset transfers, and standard settlement practices. We believe that we have achieved this, but it is hard to be sure, so we are considering making this paragraph apply only to agreements signed in the future. If we do that, companies would only need to structure future agreements in accord with the fth paragraph, and would not face problems from past agreements that cannot be changed now. We are not yet convinced that this is necessary, and we plan to ask for more comment on the question. This is why the date-based cutoff is included in brackets.
One drawback of this cutoff date is that it would let Novell off from part of the response to its deal with Microsoft. However, this may not be a great drawback, because the fourth paragraph will apply to that deal. We believe it is suffcient to ensure either the deals voluntary modication by Microsoft or its reduction to comparative harmlessness. Novell expected to gain commercial advantage from its patent deal with Microsoft; the effects of the fourth paragraph in undoing the harm of that deal will necessarily be visited upon Novell.
They still are, according to Stafford Masie at the CITI forum. As you can see from the quote, Masie is also adept at inspiring confidence in Novell's closed-source proprietary products:
"...Y'know, we're a Linux company, we do identity management, but we're a Linux company. Identity management, there's so much happening there to open source alot of the APIs, which we've already done, the only thing we haven't open-sourced in the identity world is kinda our directory, and I can tell you what, we probably won't, because again - the same reason alot of proprietary vendors wont take their big software and unwrap it, like I've always said- if you unwrap this baby its ugly, people will run away, ok, there's certain proprietary software that you never want anyone to look at..."
exactly, Novell is Microsoft these days, sharing PR and sales offices, and spreading FUD about potential infringement since they are in the unique position to benefit from it.
Novell isn't using their patents/IP to FUD against open source, they are using their partner Microsoft's patents/IP to FUD against open source. A technicality perhaps, but still wholly unacceptable.
Hopefully, Novell will keep Stafford Masie's promise to be GPL v3 compliant, fix the deal, and then maybe they can hire him back, with a raise and promotion of course.
Best of luck to Jeremy.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't look at the slide as a whole... just look for an entry on the slide that represents an action, and follow the arrows which show what the effects of that action are.
Okay, now I've looked at the slide, and all I can think is that 'the only winning move is not to play'
April 1st last much longer than that in Redmond.
I believe that, at Computer Associates we used to have 35 day months...
...but when the hard drive failed on my parents computer I used a LiveCD to back up the data and reinstall Windows.
So then, the hard-drive didn't actually fail, Windows did ;^ )
I thought only parts of .net were ecma standards and therefore 'safe', like c#. Isn't winforms covered by some MS patents?
This seems like a precarious position for anyone without a patent covenant.
Check out the patent maps here
Inspires confidence, no?
As with anything patent- and MS-related, your guess is as good as mine as to implementability...
I know that Mary Jo Foley asked MS if they were an Acacia client, and still hasn't gotten a response. Interestingly, she says that Novell is apparently an Acacia client - just not for this patent (yet), I guess.
Yogi Berra once said 'it's too coincidental to be a coincidence', and this story just gets more coincidental - first Ballmer presciently insinuates that patent suits will be headed to open source, then a company that has some recent ties to MS goes and files suit against Red Hat and Novell (lotta good that MS deal did Novell, huh).
It gets even more coincidental, as Novell just announced they have updated their indemnity program - and the weirdest part is, Microsoft will extend their patent covenant to GPLv3 according to Novell.
What does it all mean?
t appears that a company known as IP Innovation LLC is now filing suit against Red Hat and Novell, regarding a patent for "a User Interface with Multiple Workspaces for Sharing Display System Objects".
Stafford Masie at CITI last year...
...Y'know, we're a Linux company, we do identity management, but we're a Linux company. Identity management, there's so much happening there to open source alot of the APIs, which we've already done, the only thing we haven't open-sourced in the identity world is kinda our directory, and I can tell you what, we probably won't, because again - the same reason alot of proprietary vendors wont take their big software and unwrap it, like I've always said- if you unwrap this baby its ugly, people will run away, ok, there's certain proprietary software that you never want anyone to look at...
Well, the problem is that only 10% of those unvalidated, potentially infringing patents were owned by Microsoft in that study, or about 30. Also, if they are quoting the OSRM study, where then does MS get there statistics for email, GUI, etc?
That's why the new GPLv3 draft now includes a definition of "patent license" to include deals structured in this devious manner:
This change was last summer, pre-microvell, so the news actually would have been if OpenSUSE was enabling it and taking advantage of MS' patent covenant for Novell customers and OpenSUSE contributors while other distros couldn't.
MS' plan to fragment the community is only effective if Novell has customers and developers supporting them, otherwise the covenant is irrelevant. Boycott Novell, the rest takes care of itself.
I believe the Oracle announcement put the rush on the deal.
"...Y'know, we're a Linux company, we do identity management, but we're a Linux company. Identity management, there's so much happening there to open source alot of the APIs, which we've already done, the only thing we haven't open-sourced in the identity world is kinda our directory, and I can tell you what, we probably won't, because again - the same reason alot of proprietary vendors wont take their big software and unwrap it, like I've always said- if you unwrap this baby its ugly, people will run away, ok, there's certain proprietary software that you never want anyone to look at..."
Deutsche Bank fund bets on patents as asset class
Boycott Novell.
To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. (Abraham Lincoln)
Novell isn't using their patents/IP to FUD against open source, they are using their partner Microsoft's patents/IP to FUD against open source. A technicality perhaps, but still wholly unacceptable.
About Ballmer's statements, Novell has said, those balance sheet statements were "taken out of context"
especially since you're still 2 'rose's short, but mint example.
Hopefully, Novell will keep Stafford Masie's promise to be GPL v3 compliant, fix the deal, and then maybe they can hire him back, with a raise and promotion of course. Best of luck to Jeremy.