Novell counters community, Microsoft FUD
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| henke54 Nov 20, 2006 5:17 PM EDT |
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 |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 20, 2006 5:52 PM EDT |
They should have said that BEFORE they signed the agreement, bunch of worthless (**(&(*#&)(*#*!!! Well, better late than never...but not much. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 6:44 PM EDT |
>They should have said that BEFORE they signed the agreement Why? |
| jdixon Nov 20, 2006 6:53 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| dinotrac Nov 20, 2006 6:57 PM EDT |
> 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. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 21, 2006 3:04 AM EDT |
>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. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 3:34 AM EDT |
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. |
| jdixon Nov 21, 2006 6:16 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 6:37 AM EDT |
>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. |
| jdixon Nov 21, 2006 6:47 AM EDT |
> 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. |
| cjcox Nov 21, 2006 2:05 PM EDT |
"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. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 21, 2006 2:25 PM EDT |
>Uh... did I miss something? Novell would say it was for AD and similar technology, for the interoperability between the two OSes. |
| dinotrac Nov 21, 2006 3:32 PM EDT |
>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. |
| Sander_Marechal Nov 21, 2006 9:36 PM EDT |
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? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!