- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Ballmer: Linux users owe Microsoft
|
|
|
Comments (73)
Ballmer steps-up Linux infringement suit rhetoric
37 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:If it's a patent issue then they wont be able to do that. Copyright would be "You can't use this code, so you have to write it a different way." Patents are: "You can't have code that does this."http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=302066&page=2
I'm concerned that they'll first establish Open Office as using VBA so it is popular, and then they'll bring litigation into it and you'll get a licensed version from Novell and a gimped version from everyone else. Home users might not care much, but businesses will go for the one called "Open Office Professional" or whatever other term they slap on it. And that will hurt the freedom and spirit of the Open Office project.
As to the inability to sue infringers of the patents, IANAL, but I suspect that it's possible to try. It is not Microsoft that has released the infringing code, but a separate company called Novell. The fact that Novell now has an agreement with Microsoft that they wont be sued for infringing on their patents, doesn't prevent Microsoft suing others. We here may be able to see what is morally wrong with Microsoft's behaviour, but it doesn't mean that a court will act accordingly. The fight alone will be damaging.
There's a side issue which is whether we want Open Office to support VBA? Obviously it fills a considerable need on the part of business which will make it far easier to migrate to Open Office in theory. However, the net result is to encourage VBA to be the default way of implementing macros in Open Office. After all, if you have the choice of your spreadsheet being compatible with both Excel and Calc, or Calc alone, isn't it more logical to make it compatible with both. But VBA is under Microsoft's control. No one else can expand it, modify it. And Microsoft products will always have the edge in implementation whilst Open Office will be the one with compatability problems and glitches. Basically, the interoperability in practice, could be one-sided enough that Open Office looks like a poor clone of MS Office. It isn't. In several ways it is more powerful, but when it plays on Mircosoft's turf, it looks bad. Novell may not see things this way, but then how many of Microsoft's previous partners are still around?
Reading this back, it comes across as anti-Microsoft paranoia, but everything here seems feasible to me and Microsoft is not run by idiots, but by highly intelligent people. And morality is certainly no restraint on the company's behaviour as we've seen countless times before. MS Office is critical to Microsoft's powerbase. Not merely because it's good and sells well, but because it's popularity helps them maintain a de facto file standard which is the biggest barrier to competitors establishing themselves. And perhaps more importantly, because if you need MS Office, you need MS Windows. If you're free of MS Office, then Linux becomes much more plausible for your company standard.
Open Office is a colossal threat to Microsoft. It can't be underestimated. And I think everything their new partners do and contribute has to be looked at a little more carefully. If any Novell engineer happens to be reading this, then I'm sorry but that now includes you and it certainly includes this VBA code in Open Office.
-Harmony.
>Patents are: "You can't have code that does this."
No, not exactly. It's more like "You can't have code that does this in that way."
This is obscured by the fact that a lot of really crappy patents have been granted that should not stand up to the scrutiny of an infringement action. Shameful, utterly shameful on the part of the PTO, and a real black mark for the US.
To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, one of the most famous cases in the history of American patent law involved Samuel Morse's invention of the telegraph. He made eight separate patent claims, including the specific mechanism of the telegraph, the use of a dot-dash alphabet, and the use of electromagnetic forces to render characters at a distance.
The Supreme Court accepted all of his claims except for the last -- stating, in effect, that patents are not applied to general well-known principles, but to practical applications of those principles. In the case of the telegraph, there probably weren't many feasible alternative approaches to making a telegraph, so Morse's telegraph froze out competition during the life of the patent.
In many cases, however, there are reasonable alternatives, hence the phrase "inventing around." If patent A says protects use of an oblong thingamabob to inject fuel into diesel engines, you might get similar results with a triangular thingamajulie and avoid infringing the patent.
No, not exactly. It's more like "You can't have code that does this in that way."
This is obscured by the fact that a lot of really crappy patents have been granted that should not stand up to the scrutiny of an infringement action. Shameful, utterly shameful on the part of the PTO, and a real black mark for the US.
To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, one of the most famous cases in the history of American patent law involved Samuel Morse's invention of the telegraph. He made eight separate patent claims, including the specific mechanism of the telegraph, the use of a dot-dash alphabet, and the use of electromagnetic forces to render characters at a distance.
The Supreme Court accepted all of his claims except for the last -- stating, in effect, that patents are not applied to general well-known principles, but to practical applications of those principles. In the case of the telegraph, there probably weren't many feasible alternative approaches to making a telegraph, so Morse's telegraph froze out competition during the life of the patent.
In many cases, however, there are reasonable alternatives, hence the phrase "inventing around." If patent A says protects use of an oblong thingamabob to inject fuel into diesel engines, you might get similar results with a triangular thingamajulie and avoid infringing the patent.
"...They can scour it for something that could, at the very least, be used as a good faith basis for believing that a patent has been infringed."
AFAIAK, THAT is the only purpose the "Linux Lab", set up in Redmond ever had. Yes, open source is open to everyone so MS did the only smart thing and began picking Linux apart just to see what they could find.
I believe the real surprise for MS will be just how many small and medium businesses like mine have flown under the radar and have completely switched to Open Source software and GNU/Linux. They may think they have an idea of it now, but once they start really looking into it, the malox will flow as freely as FUD at the Campus of Microsoft. Many small businesses just quietly let their licenses expire and made the switch. I promise you...the pressure of a Microsoft field rep in trying to rescue a failing account is a full frontal assault. I firmly believe AOL learned their tactics from MS...there are some strange parallels.
h
AFAIAK, THAT is the only purpose the "Linux Lab", set up in Redmond ever had. Yes, open source is open to everyone so MS did the only smart thing and began picking Linux apart just to see what they could find.
I believe the real surprise for MS will be just how many small and medium businesses like mine have flown under the radar and have completely switched to Open Source software and GNU/Linux. They may think they have an idea of it now, but once they start really looking into it, the malox will flow as freely as FUD at the Campus of Microsoft. Many small businesses just quietly let their licenses expire and made the switch. I promise you...the pressure of a Microsoft field rep in trying to rescue a failing account is a full frontal assault. I firmly believe AOL learned their tactics from MS...there are some strange parallels.
h
>I believe the real surprise for MS will be just how many small and medium businesses like mine have flown under the radar and have completely switched to Open Source software and GNU/Linux.
It's something you can't really measure. My use of PCLinuxOS at home doesn't really "count" towards the use of Linux on the desktop, does it? But MS still gets cred for the XP sticker on the side. I wouldn't use XP on this thing for love or money.
If you don't buy Red Hat or Novell or Xandros, etc, you don't really register on the radar of any official statistics. MS has used that to make its usage look more widespread than it really is. MS stands at approx. 90% of desktops, I think, by "official" count. How many are like me and now run Linux on it? Perhaps it's not much, but I guess 5% or so, maybe a touch more, a touch less. That takes MS down to 85%. What about whiteboxes? What about people using the free OSes like PCLOS or Debian or Ubuntu? You can't really measure it accurately.
I think MS would be surprised also. I hope they choke on the Malox.
It's something you can't really measure. My use of PCLinuxOS at home doesn't really "count" towards the use of Linux on the desktop, does it? But MS still gets cred for the XP sticker on the side. I wouldn't use XP on this thing for love or money.
If you don't buy Red Hat or Novell or Xandros, etc, you don't really register on the radar of any official statistics. MS has used that to make its usage look more widespread than it really is. MS stands at approx. 90% of desktops, I think, by "official" count. How many are like me and now run Linux on it? Perhaps it's not much, but I guess 5% or so, maybe a touch more, a touch less. That takes MS down to 85%. What about whiteboxes? What about people using the free OSes like PCLOS or Debian or Ubuntu? You can't really measure it accurately.
I think MS would be surprised also. I hope they choke on the Malox.
>I think MS would be surprised also. I hope they choke on the Malox.
That would be OK. Personally, I'd prefer to see IBM give it to them as an enema. Bottle and all.
That would be OK. Personally, I'd prefer to see IBM give it to them as an enema. Bottle and all.
>That would be OK. Personally, I'd prefer to see IBM give it to them as an enema. Bottle and all.
8)
8)
Maybe it would be interesting to look at this from a world-economy / politics point of view:
If Microsoft says Linux infringes on its 'IP', what "might" happen? Some of my wild speculations:
The IP isn't about copyright as far as we know. Therefore, it would have to be about patents. In the European Union, software patents aren't enforceable, as far as we know; though the judge hasn't confirmed. If Microsoft asked (up to the) European High Court whether their patents are enforceable and the judge says "No", that means their IP has a value of zero in Europe.
Same might as well go for Russia, India and China. But IF their IP is enforceabeable in the US, than what? US 'Linux' makers have a problem then; probably all Linux makers will leave the US. They can distribute their stuff outside the US, and outside the US, companies and governments can still use it. The US defense will probably be angry because they use Linux also, just like the French and Indian defense, as far as I know.
Therefore, this countries will be more innovative in the software sector. Also, they will have to spend less money for licenses, so less money flows to the USA.
As usual, Microsoft will ask the US government to ask all other governments to respect Microsofts "Intellectual Property". How would, say, Neelie Kroes react do you think (hint: She was upset when Microsofts tried to influence her via politics before)? How would Putin react, when they just reached an agreement about the WTO, and someone from the US tells them they STILL don't respect IP? What will China do (hint: they have their 'own' Linux distribution)? How will these 'big' MS consumers think about Microsoft after US politicians tell them they are criminals by not respecting the IP of Microsoft? How 'independent' would that make the US government look?
I would say, that would be a politic game to big - even - for Microsoft.
Therefore, they will do nothing, just barking, I think, and going on to try to make software patents enforceable in the EU, which is difficult because everyone in the EU is watching them, and most watchers don't like them anymore. Everybody outside the US laughs about the US patent system and the stupid wars (and economic damage, in an 'innovative' sense) it causes BTW.
If Microsoft says Linux infringes on its 'IP', what "might" happen? Some of my wild speculations:
The IP isn't about copyright as far as we know. Therefore, it would have to be about patents. In the European Union, software patents aren't enforceable, as far as we know; though the judge hasn't confirmed. If Microsoft asked (up to the) European High Court whether their patents are enforceable and the judge says "No", that means their IP has a value of zero in Europe.
Same might as well go for Russia, India and China. But IF their IP is enforceabeable in the US, than what? US 'Linux' makers have a problem then; probably all Linux makers will leave the US. They can distribute their stuff outside the US, and outside the US, companies and governments can still use it. The US defense will probably be angry because they use Linux also, just like the French and Indian defense, as far as I know.
Therefore, this countries will be more innovative in the software sector. Also, they will have to spend less money for licenses, so less money flows to the USA.
As usual, Microsoft will ask the US government to ask all other governments to respect Microsofts "Intellectual Property". How would, say, Neelie Kroes react do you think (hint: She was upset when Microsofts tried to influence her via politics before)? How would Putin react, when they just reached an agreement about the WTO, and someone from the US tells them they STILL don't respect IP? What will China do (hint: they have their 'own' Linux distribution)? How will these 'big' MS consumers think about Microsoft after US politicians tell them they are criminals by not respecting the IP of Microsoft? How 'independent' would that make the US government look?
I would say, that would be a politic game to big - even - for Microsoft.
Therefore, they will do nothing, just barking, I think, and going on to try to make software patents enforceable in the EU, which is difficult because everyone in the EU is watching them, and most watchers don't like them anymore. Everybody outside the US laughs about the US patent system and the stupid wars (and economic damage, in an 'innovative' sense) it causes BTW.
> Everybody outside the US laughs about the US patent system and the stupid wars (and economic damage, in an 'innovative' sense) it causes BTW.
Whilst we in the US only wish we could laugh at it. :(
Whilst we in the US only wish we could laugh at it. :(
>Whilst we in the US only wish we could laugh at it. :(
We do laugh at it, but it's an exasperated laugh accompanied by tears and frustration. 8-(
We do laugh at it, but it's an exasperated laugh accompanied by tears and frustration. 8-(
Most of Microsoft's software patents are related to security. Consider the summary for patent 4815162342:
"This algorithm extends existing methods to allow software known as 'spyware' to take total control of a computer. Previous implementations required spyware authors to penetrate four layers of protection and did not allow control of the entire machine. With this innovation, authors of spyware will be able to take complete control of the user's machine without requiring the penetration of any layers of protection."
I agree that Microsoft needs to be compensated if Linux is infringing on its intellectual property. Otherwise Microsoft will have no incentive to devote so many resources to this sort of R&D, especially when we consider that open source developers do not devote any resources to this line of software development. Just consider the proliferation of security vulnerabilities after the introduction of Windows XP.
"This algorithm extends existing methods to allow software known as 'spyware' to take total control of a computer. Previous implementations required spyware authors to penetrate four layers of protection and did not allow control of the entire machine. With this innovation, authors of spyware will be able to take complete control of the user's machine without requiring the penetration of any layers of protection."
I agree that Microsoft needs to be compensated if Linux is infringing on its intellectual property. Otherwise Microsoft will have no incentive to devote so many resources to this sort of R&D, especially when we consider that open source developers do not devote any resources to this line of software development. Just consider the proliferation of security vulnerabilities after the introduction of Windows XP.
OK. Who else looked it up?
Man, I'm Lost.
What?
What?
> Most of Microsoft's software patents are related to security
Security? And, given your example, to allow spyware authors to take total control of a computer, SECURITY? That's one patent infringement I'd hate to see in Linux!
Security? And, given your example, to allow spyware authors to take total control of a computer, SECURITY? That's one patent infringement I'd hate to see in Linux!
(Sorry about hijacking the conversation, but it may be nice to give some software-patent info.)
Well, you're not the only one who is frustrated: There are still some 'groups' and some 'people' here in Europe (you know who they are probably), trying to make the patent system the way it was (that means, worse than today) in the US. Some EP's (European Parliament Members) were offered some ice cream by 'someone' ahum, and the 'boss' of the legal stuff in the European Parliament also worked for some lobby-office which was also lobbying for Microsoft (he tried to push trough the patents BTW, but that was coincidence). So, as you often see, Europeans are trying to copy American behavior, including the bad behavior. Over here is some kind of organization (somewhat like the EFF), the FFII, which is really informed and competent, which always follows all these attempts of such persons, and even tries to hijack some 'internet votings' for the worst lobby, and the ones the most sensitive to a bad lobby etc.
Thank God, I see a trend in the US: The US supreme court recently declared some patents invalid, like obvious ones, and tried to end the injunctions. I read US business asked for that. But even after the US supreme court stopped that kind of 'stupid behavior' of patent trolls, some 'business' in Europe wants to implement that stuff in our so called 'community patent'. The community patent tries to make it easier to ask a patent which could be enforced in all EU countries. In some small letters somewhere in some footers, they also say the patents which are yet permitted, including software patents, become enforceable. They are forced to do it this sneaky way, since the last time they tried to make software patents enforceable in a visible manner, they caused a unique phenomenon in the EU history: It was the first time the European Parliament voted against a bill after second reading (if I remember well).
Bigg: I read a lot of those MS patents. I even wrote a story about it, called
101 patents Microsoft may infringe
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/34440/index.html
Maybe I should repost that story, though it wasn't very serious, but it does show how stupid software patents are in a nice way.
Quoting:We do laugh at it, but it's an exasperated laugh accompanied by tears and frustration.
Well, you're not the only one who is frustrated: There are still some 'groups' and some 'people' here in Europe (you know who they are probably), trying to make the patent system the way it was (that means, worse than today) in the US. Some EP's (European Parliament Members) were offered some ice cream by 'someone' ahum, and the 'boss' of the legal stuff in the European Parliament also worked for some lobby-office which was also lobbying for Microsoft (he tried to push trough the patents BTW, but that was coincidence). So, as you often see, Europeans are trying to copy American behavior, including the bad behavior. Over here is some kind of organization (somewhat like the EFF), the FFII, which is really informed and competent, which always follows all these attempts of such persons, and even tries to hijack some 'internet votings' for the worst lobby, and the ones the most sensitive to a bad lobby etc.
Thank God, I see a trend in the US: The US supreme court recently declared some patents invalid, like obvious ones, and tried to end the injunctions. I read US business asked for that. But even after the US supreme court stopped that kind of 'stupid behavior' of patent trolls, some 'business' in Europe wants to implement that stuff in our so called 'community patent'. The community patent tries to make it easier to ask a patent which could be enforced in all EU countries. In some small letters somewhere in some footers, they also say the patents which are yet permitted, including software patents, become enforceable. They are forced to do it this sneaky way, since the last time they tried to make software patents enforceable in a visible manner, they caused a unique phenomenon in the EU history: It was the first time the European Parliament voted against a bill after second reading (if I remember well).
Bigg: I read a lot of those MS patents. I even wrote a story about it, called
101 patents Microsoft may infringe
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/34440/index.html
Maybe I should repost that story, though it wasn't very serious, but it does show how stupid software patents are in a nice way.
Hehe, reading that story about the 101 patents, I see the name Ballmer showing up again. Ballmer told in August 2004 that “somebody will come and look for money owing to the rights for that intellectual property”. That was a thread to Asian countries back then, and some people were severely worried back then. Nothing happened. If I had MS stocks, I would really like to ask Ballmer, why MS didn't cash their IP back in August 2004.
If you don't know about Ballmers August 2004 bluff: Go one, please read that story, you might be surprised how history repeats itself. Hmm, there's a story in that...
If you don't know about Ballmers August 2004 bluff: Go one, please read that story, you might be surprised how history repeats itself. Hmm, there's a story in that...
>4815162342
4 8 15 16 23 42
The numbers on 'Lost.' I just couldn't leave folks wondering. A rather interesting Troll, however.
4 8 15 16 23 42
The numbers on 'Lost.' I just couldn't leave folks wondering. A rather interesting Troll, however.
I really need to watch more T.V. :-)
> Most of Microsoft's software patents are related to security
That is just so 'wrong' on so many levels... :D
That is just so 'wrong' on so many levels... :D
>I really need to watch more T.V. :-)
The only thing on TV I like to watch is 'Lost.' It's my guilty pleasure. I like a good documentary once in a while, and I enjoy catching Olbermann's well-thought rants on Google video, and I've watched 'Reservoir Dogs' a hundred times, but I am very tired of American mass media. They are largely to blame for the slow adoption of Free Software, because their "truth" -- and not just their advertising -- can be purchased for money, of which MS has a lot. They can also be blamed for a lot of other things, at least indirectly. I think we look in the mirror first to assess blame....
Okay, I'll stop rambling now. The soapbox is under the bed again.
The only thing on TV I like to watch is 'Lost.' It's my guilty pleasure. I like a good documentary once in a while, and I enjoy catching Olbermann's well-thought rants on Google video, and I've watched 'Reservoir Dogs' a hundred times, but I am very tired of American mass media. They are largely to blame for the slow adoption of Free Software, because their "truth" -- and not just their advertising -- can be purchased for money, of which MS has a lot. They can also be blamed for a lot of other things, at least indirectly. I think we look in the mirror first to assess blame....
Okay, I'll stop rambling now. The soapbox is under the bed again.
Send your money now!
http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/intellectualproperty/ho...
Hopefully Microsoft will release a Genuine Advantage tester for Linux to easily verify that your OS is properly licensed.
Hopefully Microsoft will release a Genuine Advantage tester for Linux to easily verify that your OS is properly licensed.
Hmm, I'm afraid I can't run that Genuine Advantage tester for Linux, since that tester would use codecs which are intellectual property of some company.
BTW You should really ask for a patent for that great idea! You just shaped IP out of nothing, now you should defend it.
BTW You should really ask for a patent for that great idea! You just shaped IP out of nothing, now you should defend it.
Novell counters community, Microsoft FUD
Quoting:In his open letter Hovsepian strongly disagrees with Ballmer, stating, "Our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. To claim otherwise is to further sow fear, uncertainty and doubt, and does not offer a fair basis for competition. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents. We strongly object to the usage of our agreement to suggest that members of the Linux community owe Microsoft any remunerations."http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS4025004017.html
They should have said that BEFORE they signed the agreement, bunch of worthless (**(&(*#&)(*#*!!!
Well, better late than never...but not much.
Well, better late than never...but not much.
>They should have said that BEFORE they signed the agreement
Why?
Why?
> Why?
Because you can't trust Microsoft. That's something that the current Novell CEO apparently still has to learn. You can have the greatest agreement in the world with Microsoft, and they'll break it then dare you to sue them over it (see Microsoft, Sun, and Java for an example).
Agreements are only useful if you can trust the other side or the other side is afraid of the consequences of breaking the agreement. Neither applies to Microsoft.
Because you can't trust Microsoft. That's something that the current Novell CEO apparently still has to learn. You can have the greatest agreement in the world with Microsoft, and they'll break it then dare you to sue them over it (see Microsoft, Sun, and Java for an example).
Agreements are only useful if you can trust the other side or the other side is afraid of the consequences of breaking the agreement. Neither applies to Microsoft.
> Because you can't trust Microsoft.
You absolutely can trust Microsoft.
They will lie, cheat, steal, do whatever it takes to put them ahead and you behind, preferably face down in the dirt.
That's why you sign contracts with the i's dotted and the t's crossed. It's why you have the power of the law to help enforce the agreement.
And, it doesn't heart to nail the bas...er bad guys for $300-$400 million in the process.
You absolutely can trust Microsoft.
They will lie, cheat, steal, do whatever it takes to put them ahead and you behind, preferably face down in the dirt.
That's why you sign contracts with the i's dotted and the t's crossed. It's why you have the power of the law to help enforce the agreement.
And, it doesn't heart to nail the bas...er bad guys for $300-$400 million in the process.
>Why?
To quell the bad vibes that are rippling through the community right now. From a legal standpoint they had no reason to, perhaps, but the relationship with the community has suffered as a result.
To quell the bad vibes that are rippling through the community right now. From a legal standpoint they had no reason to, perhaps, but the relationship with the community has suffered as a result.
rijel -
> To quell the bad vibes that are rippling through the community right now.
I would bet the folks at Novell are much more used to dealing with people who have a much better understanding of how these deals work than the Linux community, which isn't very sophisticated in such matters.
It is not the norm to admit to infringement in any kind of cross-licensing agreement, and for a very good reason. Let us say that you and I agree to cross-license our proprietary vandersnootch technologies to each other. Life is good going forward. However, I managed to let the wording say that I had actually been using some of your vandersnootch IP prior to the agreement -- Yikes! I got me a problem now for that past infringement -- the stuff that isn't covered by the agreement because the agreement covers the time moving forward from the date it was signed.
An additional problem for Novell would be the five year expiration. In no way would Novell wish to concede any kind of infringement whatsoever. They hope to be in business five years from now and might now wish to renew.
> To quell the bad vibes that are rippling through the community right now.
I would bet the folks at Novell are much more used to dealing with people who have a much better understanding of how these deals work than the Linux community, which isn't very sophisticated in such matters.
It is not the norm to admit to infringement in any kind of cross-licensing agreement, and for a very good reason. Let us say that you and I agree to cross-license our proprietary vandersnootch technologies to each other. Life is good going forward. However, I managed to let the wording say that I had actually been using some of your vandersnootch IP prior to the agreement -- Yikes! I got me a problem now for that past infringement -- the stuff that isn't covered by the agreement because the agreement covers the time moving forward from the date it was signed.
An additional problem for Novell would be the five year expiration. In no way would Novell wish to concede any kind of infringement whatsoever. They hope to be in business five years from now and might now wish to renew.
> You absolutely can trust Microsoft.
> They will lie, cheat, steal, do whatever it takes to put them ahead and you behind, preferably face down in the dirt.
Well, you can trust Microsoft to be Microsoft, yes. As I noted, Novell's current management still seems to have some learning ahead of them.
> They will lie, cheat, steal, do whatever it takes to put them ahead and you behind, preferably face down in the dirt.
Well, you can trust Microsoft to be Microsoft, yes. As I noted, Novell's current management still seems to have some learning ahead of them.
>As I noted, Novell's current management still seems to have some learning ahead of them.
Novell and Microsoft have been at each other's throats for years.
Novell and Microsoft have been at each other's throats for years.
> Novell and Microsoft have been at each other's throats for years.
Yes, but this is a new CEO, and he's the one who was apparently behind the deal.
Yes, but this is a new CEO, and he's the one who was apparently behind the deal.
"We strongly object to the usage of our agreement to suggest that members of the Linux community owe Microsoft any remunerations."
Uh... did I miss something? I thought that Novell was making a "royalty" (Novell's word, not mine) payment for every copy of SLES bought. I buy SLES, Novell sends a portion of that to Microsoft. I'm confused I guess.
Uh... did I miss something? I thought that Novell was making a "royalty" (Novell's word, not mine) payment for every copy of SLES bought. I buy SLES, Novell sends a portion of that to Microsoft. I'm confused I guess.
>Uh... did I miss something?
Novell would say it was for AD and similar technology, for the interoperability between the two OSes.
Novell would say it was for AD and similar technology, for the interoperability between the two OSes.
>Uh... did I miss something? I thought that Novell was making a "royalty"
I've been going back through assorted articles and the only use of the term "royalty" is an article by Steven J. Vaughan Nichols. Kinda funny that we trash SJVN but take his word here.
Most of the things I've seen refer to "payments" -- which, in net, go to Novell, not to Microsoft -- for the patent assurances. That's not the same thing as royalties. Sounds like splitting hairs, but it isn't. Besides, even if they did pay royalties, the payments are going forward, not backward. In other words, they cover the next five years, not the time up until now. I could see, for example, Novell including some Microsoft stuff in it's directory services so that it gets along better with Active Directory. That might be an appropriate place for royalty payments.
At any rate...SLES includes more than GPL'd software.
I've been going back through assorted articles and the only use of the term "royalty" is an article by Steven J. Vaughan Nichols. Kinda funny that we trash SJVN but take his word here.
Most of the things I've seen refer to "payments" -- which, in net, go to Novell, not to Microsoft -- for the patent assurances. That's not the same thing as royalties. Sounds like splitting hairs, but it isn't. Besides, even if they did pay royalties, the payments are going forward, not backward. In other words, they cover the next five years, not the time up until now. I could see, for example, Novell including some Microsoft stuff in it's directory services so that it gets along better with Active Directory. That might be an appropriate place for royalty payments.
At any rate...SLES includes more than GPL'd software.
The term "royalties" has been used in other places as well. And righty so. Novell pays Microsoft a set fee per Suse copy for the covenant not-to-sue over it's IP. A per copy fee for IP. Sounds awefully like a royalty payment, right?
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
And MS already paid those royalties, eh? Oy!