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. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Foes Manipulate the Facts to Belittle the Impact of PTAB

    In an effort to sabotage PTAB with its inter partes reviews the patent microcosm is organising one-sided events that slam PTAB's legitimacy and misrepresent statistics



  2. Links 21/11/2017: LibreELEC (Krypton) v8.2.1 MR, Mesa 17.3.0 RC5

    Links for the day



  3. PTAB Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”) Are Essential in an Age When One Can Get Sued for Merely Mocking a Patent

    The battle over the right to criticise particular patents has gotten very real and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) fought it until the end; this is why we need granted patents to be criticised upon petitions too (and often invalidated as a result)



  4. Chinese Patent Policy Continues to Mimic All the Worst Elements of the American System

    China is becoming what the United States used to be in terms of patents, whereas the American system is adopting saner patent policies that foster real innovation whilst curtailing mass litigation



  5. Links 20/11/2017: Why GNU/Linux is Better Than Windows, Another Linus Torvalds Rant

    Links for the day



  6. “US Inventor” is a “Bucket of Deplorables” Not Worthy of Media Coverage

    Jan Wolfe of Reuters treats a fringe group called “US Inventor” as though it's a conservative voice rather than a bunch of patent extremists pretending to be inventors



  7. Team Battistelli's Attacks on the EPO Boards of Appeal Predate the Illegal Sanctions Against a Judge

    A walk back along memory lane reveals that Battistelli has, all along, suppressed and marginalised DG3 members, in order to cement total control over the entire Organisation, not just the Office



  8. PTAB is Safe, the Patent Extremists Just Try to Scandalise It Out of Sheer Desperation

    The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), which gave powers to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) through inter partes reviews (IPRs), has no imminent threats, not potent ones anyway



  9. Update on the EPO's Crackdown on the Boards of Appeal

    Demand of 35% increases from the boards serves to show that Battistelli now does to the 'independent' judges what he already did to examiners at the Office



  10. The Lobbyists Are Trying to Subvert US Law in Favour of Patent Predators

    Mingorance, Kappos, Underweiser and other lobbyists for the software patents agenda (paid by firms like Microsoft and IBM) keep trying to undo progress, notably the bans on software patents



  11. Patent Trolls Based in East Texas Are Affected Very Critically by TC Heartland

    The latest situation in Texas (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in particular), which according to new analyses is the target of legal scrutiny for the 'loopholes' it provided to patent trolls in search of easy legal battles



  12. Alice Remains a Strong Precedential Decision and the Media Has Turned Against Software Patents

    The momentum against the scourge of software patents and the desperation among patent 'professionals' (people who don't create/develop/invent) is growing



  13. Harm Still Caused by Granted Software Patents

    A roundup of recent (past week's) announcements, including legal actions, contingent upon software patents in an age when software patents bear no real legitimacy



  14. Links 18/11/2017: Raspberry Digital Signage 10, New Nano

    Links for the day



  15. 23,000 Posts

    23,000 blog posts milestone reached in 11 years



  16. BlackBerry Cannot Sell Phones and Apple Looks Like the Next BlackBerry (a Pile of Patents)

    The lifecycle of mobile giants seems to typically end in patent shakedown, as Apple loses its business to Android just like Nokia and BlackBerry lost it to Apple



  17. EFF and CCIA Use Docket Navigator and Lex Machina to Identify 'Stupid Patents' (Usually Software Patents That Are Not Valid)

    In spite of threats and lawsuits from bogus 'inventors' whom they criticise, EFF staff continues the battle against patents that should never have been granted at all



  18. The Australian Productivity Commission Shows the Correct Approach to Setting Patent Laws and Scope

    Australia views patents on software as undesirable and acts accordingly, making nobody angry except a bunch of law firms that profited from litigation and patent maximalism



  19. EPO 'Business' From the United States Has Nosedived and UPC is on Its Death Throes

    Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot further accelerate the ultimate demise of the EPO (getting rid of experienced and thus 'expensive' staff), for which there is no replacement because there is a monopoly (which means Europe will suffer severely)



  20. Links 17/11/2017: KDE Applications 17.12, Akademy 2018 Plans

    Links for the day



  21. Today's EPO and Team UPC Do Not Work for Europe But Actively Work Against Europe

    The tough reality that some Europeans actively work to undermine science and technology in Europe because they personally profit from it and how this relates to the Unitary Patent (UPC), which is still aggressively lobbied for, sometimes by bribing/manipulating the media, academia, and public servants



  22. Links 16/11/2017: WordPress 4.9 and GhostBSD 11.1 Released

    Links for the day



  23. The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) is Rightly Upset If Not Shocked at What Battistelli and Bergot Are Doing to the Office

    The EPO's dictatorial management is destroying everything that's left (of value) at the Office while corrupting academia and censoring discussion by threatening those who publish comments (gagging its own staff even when that staff posts anonymously)



  24. EPO Continues to Disobey the Law on Software Patents in Europe

    Using the same old euphemisms, e.g. "computer-implemented inventions" (or "CII"), the EPO continues to grant patents which are clearly and strictly out of scope



  25. Links 16/11/2017: Tails 3.3, Deepin 15.5 Beta

    Links for the day



  26. Benoît Battistelli and Elodie Bergot Have Just Ensured That EPO Will Get Even More Corrupt

    Revolving door-type tactics will become more widespread at the EPO now that the management (Battistelli and his cronies) hires for low cost rather than skills/quality and minimises staff retention; this is yet another reason to dread anything like the UPC, which prioritises litigation over examination



  27. Australia is Banning Software Patents and Shelston IP is Complaining as Usual

    The Australian Productivity Commission, which defies copyright and patent bullies, is finally having policies put in place that better serve the interests of Australians, but the legal 'industry' is unhappy (as expected)



  28. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Defended by Technology Giants, by Small Companies, by US Congress and by Judges, So Why Does USPTO Make It Less Accessible?

    In spite of the popularity of PTAB and the growing need/demand for it, the US patent system is apparently determined to help it discriminate against poor petitioners (who probably need PTAB the most)



  29. Declines in Patent Quality at the EPO and 'Independent' Judges Can No Longer Say a Thing

    The EPO's troubling race to the bottom (of patent quality) concerns the staff examiners and the judges, but they cannot speak about it without facing rather severe consequences



  30. The EPO is Now Corrupting Academia, Wasting Stakeholders' Money Lying to Stakeholders About the Unitary Patent (UPC)

    The Unified Patent Court/Unitary Patent (UPC) is a dying project and the EPO, seeing that it is going nowhere fast, has resorted to new tactics and these tactics cost a lot of money (at the expense of those who are being lied to)


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