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

04.07.09

Novell Joins Microsoft Seminar While Microsoft Hits Red Hat with “IP” Slurs

Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Novell, Patents, Red Hat, Virtualisation at 3:39 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Love
Microsoft’s and Novell’s shared
love is their jealousy/hatred of Red Hat

Summary: The same old story seen and told in people’s inboxes and the news

AN anonymous reader has just mailed us what he calls “the joint Novell-Microsoft vision.” It is the text which describes an upcoming (21st of April) virtualisation seminar. It is organised by Microsoft, Novell, and possibly ANS and it takes place at Microsoft’s Headquarters in Thames Valley Park, Reading. Here is how it’s summarised:

Microsoft and Novell would like to extend to you a complimentary invitation to attend our half-day seminar on Windows and Linux Interoperability – “The Impact of Virtualisation on Reducing Complexity” At this summit, you and your peers will learn about the latest options for taking advantage of Windows and Linux interoperability to employ virtualisation, reduce systems overhead, and tame the complexity brought on by combining disparate environments. +

“Translated into English,” says our reader:

• “Run Windows under Linux Virtualisation and you’ll still have to pay us for a license.”

• “Run Linux under Windows Virtualisation and you’ll still have to pay us for a license.”

• “Use it for anything else and some people we don’t know will sue you.”

Speaking of Microsoft’s patent war of fear and extortion, some time ago we wrote about Microsoft's new book, “Burning The Ships," which is patent propaganda that it had generated and published under Phelps’ name. IP Watch, a proponent and maximalist of patents, covered this release by speaking to those involved. There are some true gems in there. For example:

IPW: Does the recent case involving TomTom navigational devices and open-source software – in which Microsoft sued over patent infringement and TomTom sued back – represent the kind of business environment Microsoft promotes? Why or why not?

PHELPS: What happened here and has happened on a very few cases, is that MS had great difficulty getting attention from TomTom and was forced into action. There have been a couple of others and all were settled quickly as was TomTom. But, whatever business model a company follows, the IP it invents needs to be respected and sometimes it’s necessary to show you’re willing to defend your legal rights to force the issue. Some say this doesn’t apply to open source companies, but they’re wrong. Just try appropriating RedHat’s famous logo and see what happens.

Watch how Microsoft’s Phelps is skillfully mixing trademarks with software patents using the “IP” umbrella that Richard Stallman constantly warns about.

Trademarks and patents are totally separate things which serve different purposes. Suffice to say, software patents are not even legal in the vast majority of the world.

Here is another unsubstantiated attack on Red Hat, whom Phelps was unable to sign a patent deal with.

KLINE: In fact, Red Hat has probably filed more IP suits than Microsoft has to protect their IP.

What does IP mean? And does back room pressure (racketeering) count for nothing?

IPW: Is there anything else you would like to add?

PHELPS: What we’ve tried to do with “Burning the Ships” is take IP questions out of the realm of arcane debate among lawyers and show real people, in the midst of a highly dramatic internal struggle at Microsoft, learning how to deploy IP for tangible business benefit.

In simple terms, Microsoft is encouraging companies to turn patents into tools of extortion and anti-competitive strategies. No wonder a Sun executive labeled Microsoft a patent terrorist.

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

5 Comments

  1. William New said,

    April 7, 2009 at 4:08 pm

    Gravatar

    To clear the record on a small point above, Intellectual Property Watch is very happy to see any of our posts generating debate about their subjects, but that’s the first time we ourselves have ever been accused of being “IP maximalist” as far as we know (did we read that comment right?). We’d rather be left out of the equation. In this case, we believed an interview with Microsoft’s IP counsel could be useful to readers, and we tried to be tough in our questioning – but apparently fell short in some people’s eyes (despite our delivery of some on-record “gems” that you can go to town on)! I guess now it’s time for that Red Hat interview. And please don’t be shy about sending us other story ideas!

    Roy Schestowitz Reply:

    Thank you, William.

    As a reader of IPW, I hope to find balanced discussions that hopefully separate and distinguish between trademarks, copyrights, and patents. In this case, there was an attempt to blur the distinction and it went unchallenged.

    I guess now it’s time for that Red Hat interview. And please don’t be shy about sending us other story ideas!

    May I suggest that you publish an interview with Red Hat about AMQP? We are still trying to decipher the company’s view on patents in this area.

    http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/18/amqp-patents-red-hat/
    http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/17/red-hat-patent-fire/
    http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/21/novl-rht-software-patents/
    http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/22/red-hat-again-epo-and-uspto/
    http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/25/how-red-hat-dodged-a-novell-like-deal-despite-lobbying-for-software-patents/
    http://boycottnovell.com/2009/03/29/red-hat-microsoft-eu-lobbyists/

  2. NotZed said,

    April 7, 2009 at 8:23 pm

    Gravatar

    “In fact, Red Hat has probably filed more IP suits than Microsoft has to protect their IP. ”

    At least this obvious and out-right falsehood could have been challenged.

  3. William New said,

    April 8, 2009 at 2:00 am

    Gravatar

    Thanks for the reminder, we should always be kept on our toes. In the interview it tripped us up a bit that the assertion about Red Hat was tossed in as an aside by former journalist Kline rather than Phelps. But we fully agree that any assertions in an interview should be challenged, and will endeavour to be more alert in future. If someone has official facts related to that assertion it might be possible to add a note. On the Red Hat story, we will need more info on that, preferably offline.

  4. Andre said,

    April 9, 2009 at 6:54 am

    Gravatar

    Dear Roy, dear William,

    I found the interview excellent because it exposes the ideology and strategy of Marshall Phelps which does not seem undisputed. Time will show if his shark model is sustainable for the software industry or will run it to the ground. Phelps represents an older generation of the industry. The article reveals that his views are not undisputed.

    IPWatch is one of the best information services. It really needs our support. Why not abandon all communication of the institutions and dump the money on IPwatch and bloggers instead. I don’t want to read WIPO press releases but an IPwatch article is almost informative.

    What Roy can learn from IPwatch is high quality articles but quality has a price and sure, BN is more sensationalist. We will see which model will pay off in the end.

What Else is New


  1. Links 19/2/2018: Linux 4.16 RC2, Nintendo Switch Now Full-fledged GNU/Linux

    Links for the day



  2. PTAB Continues to Invalidate a Lot of Software Patents and to Stop Patent Examiners From Issuing Them

    Erasure of software patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) carries on unabated in spite of attempts to cause controversy and disdain towards PTAB



  3. The Patent 'Industry' Likes to Mention Berkheimer and Aatrix to Give the Mere Impression of Section 101/Alice Weakness

    Contrary to what patent maximalists keep saying about Berkheimer and Aatrix (two decisions of the Federal Circuit from earlier this month, both dealing with Alice-type challenges), neither actually changed anything in any substantial way



  4. Makan Delrahim is Wrong; Patents Are a Major Antitrust Problem, Sometimes Disguised Using Trolls Somewhere Like the Eastern District of Texas

    Debates and open disagreements over the stance of the lobbyist who is the current United States Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division



  5. Patent Trolls Watch: Microsoft-Connected Intellectual Ventures, Finjan, and Rumour of Technicolor-InterDigital Buyout

    Connections between various patent trolls and some patent troll statistics which have been circulated lately



  6. Software Patents Trickle in After § 101/Alice, But Courts Would Not Honour Them Anyway

    The dawn of § 101/Alice, which in principle eliminates almost every software patent, means that applicants find themselves having to utilise loopholes to fool examiners, but that's unlikely to impress judges (if they ever come to assessing these patents)



  7. In Aatrix v Green Shades the Court is Not Tolerating Software Patents But Merely Inquires/Wonders Whether the Patents at Hand Are Abstract

    Aatrix alleges patent infringement by Green Shades, but whether the patents at hand are abstract or not remains to be seen; this is not what patent maximalists claim it to be ("A Valentine for Software Patent Owners" or "valentine for patentee")



  8. An Indoctrinated Minority is Maintaining the Illusion That Patent Policy is to Blame for All or Most Problems of the United States

    The zealots who want to patent everything under the Sun and sue everyone under the Sun blame nations in the east (where the Sun rises) for all their misfortunes; this has reached somewhat ludicrous levels



  9. Berkheimer Decision is Still Being Spun by the Anti-Section 101/Alice Lobby

    12 days after Berkheimer v HP Inc. the patent maximalists continue to paint this decision as a game changer with regards to patent scope; the reality, however, is that this decision will soon be forgotten about and will have no substantial effect on either PTAB or Alice (because it's about neither of these)



  10. Academic Patent Immunity is Laughable and Academics Are Influenced by Corporate Money (for Steering Patent Agenda)

    Universities appear to have become battlegrounds in the war between practicing entities and a bunch of parasites who make a living out of litigation and patent bubbles



  11. UPC Optimism Languishes Even Among Paid UPC Propagandists Such as IAM

    Even voices which are attempting to give UPC momentum that it clearly lacks admit that things aren't looking well; the UK is not ratifying and Germany make take years to look into constitutional barriers



  12. Bejin Bieneman Props Up the Disgraced Randall Rader for Litigation Agenda

    Randall Rader keeps hanging out with the litigation 'industry' -- the very same 'industry' which he served in a closeted fashion when he was Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit (and vocal proponent of software patents, patent trolls and so on)



  13. With Stambler v Mastercard, Patent Maximalists Are Hoping to Prop Up Software Patents and Damage PTAB

    The patent 'industry' is hoping to persuade the highest US court to weaken the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), for PTAB is making patent lawsuits a lot harder and raises the threshold for patent eligibility



  14. Apple Discovers That Its Patent Disputes Are a Losing Battle Which Only Lawyers Win (Profit From)

    By pouring a lot of money and energy into the 'litigation card' Apple lost focus and it's also losing some key cases, as its patents are simply not strong enough



  15. The Patent Microcosm Takes Berkheimer v HP Out of Context to Pretend PTAB Disregards Fact-Finding Process

    In view or in light of a recent decision (excerpt above), patent maximalists who are afraid of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) try to paint it as inherently unjust and uncaring for facts



  16. Microsoft Has Left RPX, But RPX Now Pays a Microsoft Patent Troll, Intellectual Ventures

    The patent/litigation arms race keeps getting a little more complicated, as the 'arms' are being passed around to new and old entities that do nothing but shake-downs



  17. UPC Has Done Nothing for Europe Except Destruction of the EPO and Imminent Layoffs Due to Lack of Applications and Lowered Value of European Patents

    The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is merely a distant dream or a fantasy for litigators; to everyone else the UPC lobby has done nothing but damage, including potentially irreparable damage to the European Patent Office, which is declining very sharply



  18. Links 17/2/2018: Mesa 17.3.4, Wine 3.2, Go 1.10

    Links for the day



  19. Patent Trolls Are Thwarted by Judges, But Patent Lawyers View Them as a 'Business' Opportunity

    Patent lawyers are salivating over the idea that trolls may be coming to their state/s; owing to courts and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) other trolls' software patents get invalidated



  20. Microsoft's Patent Moves: Dominion Harbor, Intellectual Ventures, Intellectual Discovery, NEC and Uber

    A look at some of the latest moves and twists, as patents change hands and there are still signs of Microsoft's 'hidden hand'



  21. Links 15/2/2018: GNOME 3.28 Beta, Rust 1.24

    Links for the day



  22. Bavarian State Parliament Has Upcoming Debate About Issues Which Can Thwart UPC for Good

    An upcoming debate about Battistelli's attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal will open an old can of worms, which serves to show why UPC is a non-starter



  23. The EPO is Being Destroyed and There's Nothing Left to Replace It Except National Patent Offices

    It looks like Battistelli is setting up the European Patent Office (EPO) for mass layoffs; in fact, it looks as though he is so certain that the UPC will materialise that he obsesses over "validation" for mass litigation worldwide, departing from a "model office" that used to lead the world in terms of patent quality and workers' welfare/conditions



  24. IBM is Getting Desperate and Now Suing Microsoft Over Lost Staff, Not Just Suing Everyone Using Patents

    IBM's policy when it comes to patents, not to mention its alignment with patent extremists, gives room for thought if not deep concern; the company rapidly becomes more and more like a troll



  25. In Microsoft's Lawsuit Against Corel the Only Winner is the Lawyers

    The outcome of the old Microsoft v Corel lawsuit reaffirms a trend; companies with deep pockets harass their competitors, knowing that the legal bills are more cumbersome to the defendants; there's a similar example today in Cisco v Arista Networks



  26. The Latest Lies About Unitary Patent (UPC) and the EPO

    Lobbying defies facts; we are once again seeing some easily-debunked talking points from those who stand to benefit from the UPC and mass litigation



  27. Speech Deficit and No Freedom of Association at the EPO

    True information cannot be disseminated at the EPO and justice too is beyond elusive; this poses a threat to the EPO's future, not only to its already-damaged reputation



  28. No, Britain is Not Ratifying 'Unitary' Anything, But Team UPC Insinuates It Will (Desperate Effort to Affect Tomorrow's Outcome)

    Contrary to several misleading headlines from Bristows (in its blog and others'), the UPC isn't happening and isn't coming to the UK; it all amounts to lobbying (by setting false expectations)



  29. The EPO's Paid Promotion of Software Patents Gets Patent Maximalists All Excited and Emboldened

    The software patents advocacy from Battistelli (and his cohorts) isn't just a spit in the face of European Parliament but also the EPC; but patent scope seems to no longer exist or matter under his watch, as all he cares about is granting as many patents as possible, irrespective of real quality/legitimacy/merit



  30. Andrei Iancu Begins His USPTO Career While Former USPTO Director (and Now Paid Lobbyist) Keeps Meddling in Office Affairs

    The USPTO, which is supposed to be a government branch (loosely speaking) is being lobbied by former officials, who are now being paid by private corporations to help influence and shape policies; this damages the image of the Office and harms its independence from corporate influence


CoPilotCo

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

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts