05.09.07

^{Gemini version available ♊︎}

Novell Confirms the Deal Was About “Intellectual Property”

Posted in Intellectual Monopoly, Novell, Patent Covenant, Patents at 5:44 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Well, well, well…

Novell has stubbornly denied that the deal with Microsoft was about patents, but have a look at this new nugget of information which comes from a journalist:

Novell confirms that patent deal gave it access to Microsoft IP

I am also confused as to how Steinman’s explanation of the intellectual property agreement fits in with Novell’s earlier explanation of the patent covenant. For example, in its FAQ, Novell stated:

“Our agreement with Microsoft is focused on our customers, and does not include a patent license or covenant not to sue from Microsoft to Novell (or, for that matter, from Novell to Microsoft).”

Steinman has just contradicted Novell’s ‘damage control’ FAQ. Mark these words. Novell acknowledges that it needs access to software patents. In another press release from yesterday, Novell just seems to accept the statement that customers want legal protection.

“Customers have asked us for greater interoperability and for IP assurance that enables vendors to build technical bridges,” said Susan Hauser, general manager of strategic partnerships and licensing at Microsoft.

Novell, say it isn’t so. Yet again, Microsoft adds intellectual property FUD into your own announcements. It has become a pattern. One’s belief is that if they repeat it endlessly, people might start to believe in this imaginary risk and thus be fearful. Things get even worse when the customer’s voice is being ‘hijacked’.

Novell’s impact on Linux and Free software is best illustrated using some quotes:

In mid-November, shortly after the pact was announced, Microsoft chief Steve Ballmer said companies that sell or run Linux, but aren’t covered under the Novell deal, are illegally using Microsoft’s IP. “We believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability,” he said.

He said in a later meeting: “I do think it clearly establishes that open source is not free.”

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink Mail Send this to a friend

ᶃ Gemini Space

Below is a Web proxy. We recommend getting a Gemini client/browser.

Black/white/grey bullet button This post is also available in Gemini over at this address (requires a Gemini client/browser to open).

✐ Cross-references

Black/white/grey bullet button Pages that cross-reference this one, if any exist, are listed below or will be listed below over time.

▢ Respond and Discuss

Black/white/grey bullet button If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

A Single Comment

Shane Coyle said,

May 9, 2007 at 7:19 pm

So, everything we’ve feared here has basically been confirmed, just great. Novell needs to immediately come forward with the details of what, exactly, they have agreed to license from MS.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the Microvell saga is the repeated question of the acceptability of Novell code and patch submissions since the deal, which I am even more concerned about since reading this:

The Novell-Microsoft agreement is about bridging the worlds of open source and proprietary software, and in order to build this bridge, we’ve had to do several unique things, including signing an intellectual property agreement that would let Novell’s engineers get a look at some of Microsoft’s proprietary code.