Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed Against Red Hat & Novell - Just Like Ballmer Predicted

Dino, good point. The Kyoto Protocol comes to mind, Kyoto being most definitely not in the USA.

I accidentally caught the sound of Algore's voice saying that he was going to try to organize a "Kyoto2".

Gee. I didn't see that coming.

Run-on sentence alert:

Of course, if there's any way to prove, beyond the circumstantial evidence that currently exists, like the two ex Microsoft losers currently working for the plaintiff's holding company, that Microsoft was behind this lawsuit, then I suspect that would declare the MS-Novell protection racket.. er, agreement... violated.

Then, all we need is for Novell to grow some huevos and do a counter-suit. But now I am reaching into the realm of fantasy.

>Then, all we need is for Novell to grow some huevos and do a counter-suit.

Counter-sue for what? Believe it or not, if you wish to escape court sanctions, you really do need a basis to sue.

Remember what happened to SCO when they kept refusing to provide specific information in their case? The judge kicked them in the teeth and tossed a good piece of their case.

Refer to the first part of my post. I presented a hypothetical. If it could be proven that Microsoft was behind the patent suit, that would make it a breach of contract in the Novell-Microsoft agreement.

Now stop being argumentative just for the sake of it - my point is valid.

EDIT: And yes, I am in a pissy mood.

> If it could be proven that Microsoft was behind the patent suit, that would make it a breach of contract in the Novell-Microsoft agreement.

As I remember it, the agreement only protected Novell USERS from suit, not Novell. Thus, no breach.

You are right. Very clever, Microsoft, very clever.

> As I remember it, the agreement only protected Novell USERS from suit, not Novell. Thus, no breach.

Oh, that's interesting. I like it. That could so completely piss off Novell that they might never touch Microsoft again.

Nor anyone else, for that matter. Microsoft may be doing what will finally isolate themselves completely (as if crushing competition didn't do that already).

The Microsoft backing/instigating must never be left out of any discussion of these patent(ly false) claims.

I think Red Hat, and all other distros for that matter, should purchase some licensed SLEDs from Novell - just to protect themselves.

>If it could be proven that Microsoft was behind the patent suit, that would make it a breach of contract in the Novell-Microsoft agreement.

What do you mean by "behind the patent suit"?

I don't think that anything in the Novell-Microsoft agreement prohibits Microsoft from encouraging others to sue -- so long as Microsoft is not an active participant in the suit.

And -- kiddies -- you need to remember that the Novell-Microsoft agreement is a big one with many more provisions than the one that made RMS toss a hairball.

Well, it all just goes towards proving that the deal Novell made with Microsoft only lives to serve Microsoft. They're looking more and more like Faust.

>Well, it all just goes towards proving that the deal Novell made with Microsoft only lives to serve Microsoft. They're looking more and more like Faust.

Wrong. It serves Novell, too. Any good agreement serves the purposes of both parties. Surely you didn't expect Microsoft to knowingly sign an agreement that went against its best interests? Ditto for Novell.

You are clearly more trusting than I.

>You are clearly more trusting than I.

I sincerely doubt it.

Quoting: Surely you didn't expect Microsoft to knowingly sign an agreement that went against its best interests? Ditto for Novell.

Bad question. Hardly anyone ever acts knowingly against their own interests. But they do it unknowingly all the time.

> Hardly anyone ever acts knowingly against their own interests. But they do it unknowingly all the time.

Thus the crime of "fraud".

>Thus the crime of "fraud".

Yes.

It is the real reason for written contracts and contract law. If everybody were completely trustworthy and operated in good faith, business could be done the "Texas way" -- with a handshake.

A nice big written contract reduces the trust needed between parties by replacing it with reliance on legal enforceability.

> Thus the crime of "fraud".

Not necessarily. Fraud requires (warning, IANAL) a knowing effort to deceive. Dino could provide more details. I don't think Microsoft made any attempt to deceive Novell about their agreement. That doesn't mean it was in Novell's best interest. People make stupid agreements/decisions all the time (like my deciding to buy back into Novell at $10/share after selling out at $15/share, for example). That doesn't necessarily mean the other party is guilty of fraud.

> I don't think Microsoft made any attempt to deceive Novell about their agreement. That doesn't mean it was in Novell's best interest.

It's not Microsoft's job to make deal in Novell's best interest. That was the job of the Novell folks, and, clearly, that is what they think they did.

So far as I can tell, nobody has come up with any evidence that they failed to do exactly that.

> that is what they think they did.

They may even be correct. It will take some time yet to determine that.

> So far as I can tell, nobody has come up with any evidence that they failed to do exactly that.

I can only speak for myself, but the agreement eliminated Novell's SuSE as a possible distribution for me to consider and/or recommend to people. I doubt that's a serious liability for Novell, but there are probably others who feel the same way.

>I doubt that's a serious liability for Novell, but there are probably others who feel the same way.

I suspect that caught them a bit off-guard, but I doubt very much that users like you and me (I still use SuSE, though I have fired up a couple of other distros for the first time in 7-8 years). They are concerned with the enterprise space, and that's a different bunch of folks.

Let's not forget they got nearly half a billion dollars in that deal. That'll cover an awful lot of SuSE Professional users.