EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

05.16.07

Steve Ballmer Accused of Bending Report on Patents, Gets Perfect Punishement

Posted in Boycott Novell at 6:23 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Imagine how surprised we would be if half-truths, inconsistencies, or inaccuracies were involved. But no. It turns out that, in order for Microsoft to defend its anti-Linux case, it turned a report upside-down.

The author of a report used by Microsoft as evidence of open source patent infringement has said that his report means the opposite of what Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer said it means.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is having some of its own patent ‘fun’. $1,500 million of Microsoft’s money is apparently not enough for Alcatel-Lucent. Let us wish them luck.

Alcatel-Lucent said in a court filing that $1.5 billion is not enough to properly compensate it for Microsoft Corp.’s infringement of two digital audio patents.

It has become clear that a patent system which is too lenient has fallen apart.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

4 Comments

  1. David Mohring (NZheretic) said,

    May 16, 2007 at 6:59 am

    Gravatar

    http://www.novell.com/prblogs/?p=336#comment-18834
    ( if it survives moderation )

    Dear Bruce Lowry

    By definition, a “license” is a “covenant not to sue”.

    If the licensee abides by the stated terms then the licensor promises not to take legal action.

    That the licensor Microsoft promises not to sue the licensee Novell’s customers instead of Novell itself does not change the obvious fact that Microsoft stated terms represent a license for Novell.

    Let put it in the context of another case.

    Microsoft licensed patented data base technology from a company called Timeline Inc and put it in Microsoft SQL Server 7, Office 2000 other Microsoft products.

    Timeline Inc license to Microsoft was a “covenant not to sue” Microsoft’s customers for *using* code developed by Microsoft that infringed on Timeline’s patents.

    Note : “covenant not to sue” customers — that what a license is. How is the Microsoft/Novell agreement not to sue Novell’s customers any different?

    However Microsoft chose a cheaper license option that granted Microsoft the right to develop infringing software but did not confer full use rights for the patented technology to downstream customers. ( The Washington Court of Appeal agreed with Timeline Inc
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/20/sql_server_developers_face_huge/ ). Timeline then threatened several of Microsoft’s customers who were developing on top of Microsoft SQL Server and received very large payouts.

    Since those infringing customers had already agreed to Microsoft’s EULA, which included an effective agreement to recognise any patented technology that Microsoft had sub-licensed, it was a lot more difficult, if not impossible, for those Microsoft customers to challenge Timeline’s patents in court. Such agreements can limit defensive options.

    Microsoft is suppling “coupons” for Novel products. What terms do those customers have to abide by to accept the deal? What about making that license/terms public?

  2. Roy Schestowitz said,

    May 16, 2007 at 7:37 am

    Gravatar

    David, your message was in the moderation queue only becauseit contained a number of URLs. We neither have a deletion policy nor do we censor comments. Traffic on the site has gone up significally, so let us hope Bruce gets your message. I am aware of journalists and Novell staff who keep track of our writings.

  3. shane said,

    May 16, 2007 at 10:10 am

    Gravatar

    In my experience, Novell PR is pretty fair about their moderating (more than 75% of my comments are allowed, even with links to this site refuting their statements.)

    My newest:

    # Bruce Lowry Says:
    May 15th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    A quick point of correction on an issue raised in several of these comments. The Novell-Microsoft patent agreement frequently gets reported in the press as a cross-license, but it isn’t. Novell did not cross-license any patents with Microsoft. Novell and Microsoft made an agreement not to sue one another’s customers over patent issues. So we don’t have the rights to use Microsoft patents in Novell technologies, nor does Microsoft have the rights to our patents. So when I say we did this deal to take the patent issue off the table for customers, that’s all it does. It doesn’t entitle Novell to any patent protection vis-a-vis Microsoft, nor Microsoft any patent protection vis-a-vis Novell. Nor does it change any of the commitments we’ve made previously on patents, including our commitment to use our patents against anyone attacking our open source products, or our involvement in the Open Invention Network, which is designed to leverage patents to promote open source innovation. Thanks.

    # shane Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 16th, 2007 at 9:13 am

    So we don’t have the rights to use Microsoft patents in Novell technologies…

    Justin Steinman recently indicated otherwise, care to explain?

    This foundation falls into two primary categories: 1) the “covenant not to sue,” which provides customers with peace of mind when they deploy SUSE Linux Enterprise; and 2) the IP access necessary for the technical collaboration to deliver interoperability between Windows and Linux.

  4. gpl1 said,

    May 16, 2007 at 10:27 pm

    Gravatar

    “2) the IP access necessary for the technical collaboration to deliver interoperability between Windows and Linux.”

    Interesting, the same IP which EC Commissioner Neelie Kroes viewed as obvious and non-innovative…yes, I think MS is trying to outmaneuver the EC’s decision on their antitrust non-compliance.

    “Microsoft has said it would charge for interoperability information because it was based on the company’s own innovative work and protected by patents.

    But the Commission charged in March this year that competitors gave away such software whether or not it was patented.

    “The Commission’s current view is that there is no significant innovation in these protocols,” European Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes said in a statement that month.

    “I am therefore again obliged to take formal measures to ensure that Microsoft complies with its obligations,” she said.

    http://www.crn.com/software/199200601

    http://boycottnovell.com/2007/05/04/novell-spin-deal/
    http://boycottnovell.com/2007/01/19/microsoft-corrupts-term/
    http://boycottnovell.com/2006/11/24/what-about-the-ec-ruling/

What Else is New


  1. António Campinos Takes EPO Waste and Corruption to Unprecedented Levels and Scale

    The “B” word (billions) is thrown around at Europe’s second-largest institution because a mischievous former EUIPO chief (not Archambeau) is ‘partying’ with about half of the EPO’s all-time savings, which are supposed to be reserved for pensions and other vital programmes, not presidential palaces and gambling



  2. Links 15/6/2019: Astra Linux in Russia, FreeBSD 11.3 RC

    Links for the day



  3. Code of Conduct Explained: Partial Transcript - August 10th, 2018 - Episode 80, The Truth About Southeast Linuxfest

    "Ask Noah" and the debate on how a 'Code of Conduct' is forcibly imposed on events



  4. Links 14/6/2019: Xfce-Related Releases, PHP 7.4.0 Alpha

    Links for the day



  5. The EPO is a Patent Troll's Wet Dream

    The makers of software and games in Europe will have to spend a lot of money just keeping patent trolls off their backs — a fact that seems to never bother EPO management because it profits from it



  6. EPO Spreading Patent Extremists' Ideology to the Whole World, Now to South Korea

    The EPO’s footprint around the world's patent systems is an exceptionally dangerous one; The EPO amplifies the most zealous voices of the patents and litigation ‘industry’ while totally ignoring the views and interests of the European public, rendering the EPO an ‘agent of corporate occupation’



  7. Guest Post: Notes on Free Speech, and a Line in the Sand

    We received this anonymous letter and have published it as a follow-up to "Reader's Claim That Rules Similar to the Code of Conduct (CoC) Were 'Imposed' on LibrePlanet and the FSF"



  8. Links 13/6/2019: CERN Dumps Microsoft, GIMP 2.10.12 Released

    Links for the day



  9. Links 12/6/2019: Mesa 19.1.0, KDE neon 5.16, Endless OS 3.6.0 and BackBox Linux 6

    Links for the day



  10. Leaked Financial 'Study' Document Shows EPO Management and Mercer Engaging in an Elaborate “Hoax”

    How the European Patent Office (EPO) lies to its own staff to harm that staff; thankfully, the staff isn't easily fooled and this whole affair will merely obliterate any remnants of "benefit of the doubt" the President thus far enjoyed



  11. Measuring Patent Quality and Employer Quality in Europe

    Comparing the once-famous and respected EPO to today's joke of an office, which grants loads of bogus patents on just about anything including fruit and mathematics



  12. Granting More Fundamentally Wrong Patents Will Mean Reduced Certainty, Not Increased Certainty

    Law firms that are accustomed to making money from low-quality and abstract patents try to overcome barriers by bribing politicians; this will backfire because they show sheer disregard for the patent system's integrity and merely lower the legal certainty associated with granted (by greedy offices) patents



  13. Links 11/6/2019: Wine 4.10, Plasma 5.16

    Links for the day



  14. Chapter 10: Moving Forward -- Getting the Best Results From Open Source With Your Monopoly

    “the gradual shift in public consciousness from their branding towards our own, is the next best thing to owning them outright.”



  15. Chapter 9: Ownership Through Branding -- Change the Names, and Change the World

    The goal for those fighting against Open source, against the true openness (let's call it the yet unexploited opportunities) of Open source, has to be first to figuratively own the Linux brand, then literally own or destroy the brand, then to move the public awareness of the Linux brand to something like Azure, or whatever IBM is going to do with Red Hat.



  16. Links 10/6/2019: VLC 3.0.7, KDE Future Plans

    Links for the day



  17. Patent Quality Continues to Slip in Europe and We Know Who Will Profit From That (and Distract From It)

    The corporate media and large companies don't speak about it (like Red Hat did before entering a relationship with IBM), but Europe is being littered and saturated with a lot of bogus software patents -- abstract patents that European courts would almost certainly throw out; this utter failure of the media to do journalism gets exploited by the "big litigation" lobby and EPO management that's granting loads of invalid European Patents (whose invalidation goes underreported or unreported in the media)



  18. Corporate Front Groups Like OIN and the Linux Foundation Need to Combat Software Patents If They Really Care About Linux

    The absurdity of having groups that claim to defend Linux but in practice defend software patents, if not actively then passively (by refusing to comment on this matter)



  19. Links 9/6/2019: Arrest of Microsoft Peter, Linux 5.2 RC4, Ubuntu Touch Update

    Links for the day



  20. Chapter 8: A Foot in the Door -- How to Train Sympathetic Developers and Infiltrate Other Projects

    How to train sympathetic developers and infiltrate other projects



  21. Chapter 7: Patent War -- Use Low-Quality Patents to Prove That All Software Rips Off Your Company

    Patents in the United States last for 20 years from the time of filing. Prior to 1994, the patent term was 17 years from when the patent was issued.



  22. The Linux Foundation in 2019: Over 100 Million Dollars in Income, But Cannot Maintain Linux.com?

    Today’s Linux Foundation gets about 0.1 billion dollars per year (as explained in our previous post), so why can’t it spend about 0.1% of that money on people who write for and maintain a site that actually promotes GNU/Linux?



  23. Microsoft and Proprietary Software Vendors a Financial Boon for the Linux Foundation, But at What Cost?

    The Linux Foundation is thriving financially, but the sources of income are diversified to the point where the Linux Foundation is actually funded by foes of Linux, defeating the very purpose or direction of such a nonprofit foundation (led by self-serving millionaires who don't use GNU/Linux)



  24. The Linux Foundation as a Facilitator of Microsoft's Abduction of Developers (for GitHub, Azure, Visual Studio and Windows)

    There’s a profoundly disturbing pattern; in a rush for influence and money the Linux Foundation inadvertently (or worse — consciously and deliberately) paved the way to Microsoft’s more modern version of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (EEE)



  25. Links 8/6/2019: FreeBSD 11.3 Beta 3, Git 2.22.0 and IPFire 2.23

    Links for the day



  26. Microsoft Peter is a Pedophile, Arrested Without Bail

    "Microsoft Peter" turns out to be a very sick man, much like people who apply for a job at Microsoft, knowing the company's dirty dealings and crimes



  27. Links 7/6/2019: IceWM 1.5.5, IBM Layoffs, Kdenlive 19.04.2

    Links for the day



  28. This Week's US Senate Hearings on Patents Are a Farce, Just as Expected

    With few exceptions like the EFF, Senate hears testimonies from stacked panels (full of lobbyists and think tanks), set up for the sole purpose of misleading Senate and helping them buy a law



  29. António Campinos Given an Extension to Prove He Respects the Rule of Law

    President Campinos managed to avert a strike coinciding with the next meeting of the Administrative Council; but that might only be temporary a reprieve



  30. Lawlessness at the EPO Means That Software Patents Are Still Being Granted and EPO Judges Have Their Hands Tied

    The EPO is making it virtually impossible to stop the illicit patenting of algorithms; even the EU nowadays participates in this EPC-violating agenda


RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

Recent Posts