05.17.11
Posted in Law, Novell, Patents, SCO at 2:58 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
[Actualización: Mark Webbink nos ha pedido aclarar que él ya no está asociado con Red Hat]
Excelente Nombramiento
(ODF | PDF | English/original)
Resumen: Groklaw 2.0 será administrado por el profesor Webbink, que está afiliado con el Software Freedom Law Center
Pamela Jones se retira después de 8 largos años en Groklaw y le damos las gracias por todo el trabajo duro[http://techrights.org/2011/05/14/gracias-a-groklaw/]. He aquí su último mensaje[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110513165421803] (más probable) sobre SCO. Esto demuestra que incluso después de 8 años en la sala de SCO no ha muerto. Esta empresa es objetable aún contando los centavos y obtener un poco más que provienen de fuentes misteriosas. Pamela escribe:
Por lo tanto, vamos a ver. Eso es quince años, llevar a la …. wow. Blank Rome dice que se le debe un total de $ 652,612.55, si mis matemáticas son correctas, y que les gustaría ahora el 80% de las tasas y todos los gastos pagados, para un total de $ 523,695.85. Eso no es sin contar los proyectos de ley de Ocean Park. ¿Qué significa que SCO todavía dejó de pagar sus cuentas? Sólo Dios sabe, pero aquí están los últimos informes mensuales operativo SCO presentó a finales de febrero, cuando SCO Operaciones lista de 779.827 dólares en efectivo en el banco a finales de ese mes.
Estoy pensando después de la SCO paga Blank Rome y Ocean Park, lo que habrá de sobra para Yarro y LeapTide o cualquier otra persona? Sin todas las cifras, ¿quién puede decir, pero sospecho que esto podría explicar su repentina aparición en la escena. Estoy pensando que esto podría ser interesante.
Espere. ¿Quieres decir que … Yarro y la banda hizo todo esto para nada?
Esperamos poder interactuar con el profesor Webbink, cuya función será, aparentemente, para realizar un seguimiento de los casos de patentes y ofrecer un sólido análisis[http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110515173831922]. Para citar último mensaje de Pamela:
Así que pensé acerca de quién sería la persona adecuada. Ahora que el campo de batalla se ha desplazado SCO de atacando a Linux a Microsoft usando patentes en contra de ella y de los servidores a los móviles, me di cuenta de que Groklaw necesita un abogado en el timón. Así que le pedí a Mark Webbink si llevaría a cabo en este papel, y estoy encantado de decir que él ha aceptado. Él es el nuevo editor de Groklaw a partir de hoy. Mark era asesor general de Red Hat, como usted sabe, y él está en el tablero del Software Freedom Law Center. También es profesor de derecho, que lo voy a explicar es una pieza vital de lo que él ha planeado. Mark es un profesor visitante en la New York Law School, donde dirige el Centro de Innovaciones de Patentes, supervisa la Peer Para proyectar la patente se ejecutan con la Oficina de Patentes y Marcas de EE.UU., ha estado activo en la búsqueda de la reforma del sistema de patentes de EE.UU., y enseña de licencia de patentes . Además, Mark es un asociado principal conferencia en la Universidad de Duke Facultad de Derecho, donde enseña de propiedad intelectual (patentes, derechos de autor, marcas registradas y secretos comerciales) de concesión de licencias. Mark tiene acceso a los estudiantes de derecho en las facultades de derecho y muchos otros. Además, Mark se ha mantenido interesado e involucrado en el Software Libre y de Código Abierto y relacionado con cuestiones de propiedad intelectual y es autor del capítulo sobre el derecho tecnología de EE.UU. incluyó en un libro que pronto será puesto a dispisición del público, acerca de derecho del Software de Código Libre y Abierto.
¿Qué hay de SCO?
Profesor Webbink está en contra de las patentes de software[http://techrights.org/2007/10/21/webbink-software-patents-ip/] y no es amigo de Novell[http://techrights.org/2007/05/05/mark-webbink-on-trust-oracle-and-novell/]. Con el ya fallecido Novell subiendo algunos videos[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zayZDaISjvQ&feature=youtube_gdata] y OpenSUSE lanzando apenas posts[http://news.opensuse.org/2011/05/14/opensuse-weekly-news-issue-175-is-out/], queda por ver lo que realmente va a pasar en el caso SCO/Novell. █
Translation produced by Eduardo Landaveri, the esteemed administrator of the Spanish portal of Techrights.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.16.11
Posted in Law, Novell, Patents, Red Hat, SCO at 8:15 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
[Update: Mark Webbink has asked to clarify that he is no longer associated with Red Hat]
Excellent appointment
Summary: Groklaw 2.0 will be managed by Professor Webbink, who is affiliated with the Software Freedom Law Center and Red Hat
Pamela Jones is retiring after 8 long years in Groklaw and we thank her for all the hard work. Here is her last post (most likely) about SCO. It shows that even after 8 years in the courtroom SCO is not dead. This objectionable company is still counting the pennies and getting some more from mysterious sources. Pamela writes:
So, let’s see. That’s fifteen, carry the one…. wow. Blank Rome says it is owed a total of $652,612.55, if my math is right, and they would like now 80% of the fees and all the expenses paid, for a total of $523,695.85. That’s not even counting the bills from Ocean Park. What does SCO still have to left to pay its bills? God only knows, but here are the last monthly operating reports SCO filed as of the end of February, where SCO Operations listed $779,827 in cash in the bank at the end of that month.
I’m thinking after SCO pays Blank Rome and Ocean Park, what will there be left over for Yarro and LeapTide or anyone else? Without all the figures, who can say, but I suspect this might explain their sudden appearance on the scene. I’m thinking this could get interesting.
Wait. You mean… Yarro and the gang did all this for nothing?
We look forward to interacting with Professor Webbink, whose role will apparently be to keep track of the patent cases and provide sound analysis. To quote Pamela’s last post:
So I thought about who would be the right person. Now that the battlefield has shifted from SCO attacking Linux to Microsoft using patents against it and from servers to mobiles, I realized that Groklaw needs a lawyer at the helm. So I asked Mark Webbink if he would take on this role, and I’m thrilled to tell you that he has accepted. He is the new editor of Groklaw as of today. Mark was General Counsel at Red Hat, as you know, and he is on the board of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is also a law professor, which as I’ll explain is a vital piece of what he has planned. Mark is a visiting professor at New York Law School where he runs the Center for Patent Innovations, oversees the Peer To Patent project run with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, has been active in seeking reform of the U.S. patent system, and teaches patent licensing. In addition, Mark is a senior lecturing fellow at Duke University School of Law where he teaches intellectual property (patent, copyright, trademark and trade secret) licensing. Mark has access to law students at those law schools and many others. In addition, Mark has remained interested and involved in free and open source software and related intellectual property issues and he is the author of the chapter on U.S. technology law included in a soon to be released book on free and open source software law.
What about SCO?
Professor Webbink is against software patents and he is no friend of Novell. With the now-deceased Novell uploading few videos and OpenSUSE flinging hardly any posts, it remains to be seen what actually will happen in the SCO/Novell case. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.10.11
Posted in Antitrust, Law, Microsoft, Novell, SCO at 7:50 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Will AttachMSFT decide to go against Microsoft or just bury the case instead? What about the SCO case? We survey some of the latest developments inside the company
NOVELL has the opportunity to sue Microsoft and win. Well, actually, it is AttachMSFT that has this opportunity, but what will be the fate of this long-standing case? Microsoft loves to appeal endlessly until the other side gives up and/or goes bust. It is an inherent flaw in the legal system.
In the latest round of antitrust lawsuit we have Novell winning an appeal, as we noted earlier this month. Here are the legal papers and here is some assorted coverage [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. There is also a lot of coverage from Microsoft spinners [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], who would love to pretend that the age of the case somehow makes Microsoft “innocent”. Longtime Microsoft booster Todd Bishop says that Attachmate is the “Proud owner of a 20-year-old Microsoft antitrust dispute” and other reports that mostly reuse text say:
In ruling on Tuesday May 3rd, the appeals court dismissed that judgment made in a lower court, saying that the previous agreement with Caldera covered a different set of products. Hence, Novell can proceed with the long-running antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft, reports Reuters (News – Alert), an International multimedia news agency.
In this case — just like in the SCO case — it is difficult to just speculate whether or not there will be persistence after large-scale layoffs. We sincerely hope that both cases will still be pursued. There are other legal cases and what probably matters most to AttachMSFT is whether these are worth money, not reputation.
In other news, Novell no longer appears in financial news, for obvious reaxons. It is not really a publicly-traded company when the acquisition is over (finalised sale now), which leaves a lot of the internal activities undisclosed. We expect to have very little to say about Novell in the future. Novell was taken off the S&P (which is a fact still to be mentioned in Murdoch’s paper, even a week late).
Novell’s insecure software will most likely survive, even old products like eDirectory, which was mentioned here very recently regarding malfunctions and errors. There are Novell placements in ZDNet, but these too advertise proprietary software.
Here is some news about Paul Singer the very unethical, reckless man who essentially put Novell on sale against the company’s will:
One song Elliott Management’s Paul Singer still isn’t singing is the praises of the Dodd-Frank bill, especially its attempts to identify which institutions could pose systemic risk to the financial markets.
“I think it’s entirely nutty, and I’m using that term in the most technical sense,” the hedge fund manager said Friday during a panel discussion on the “too big to fail” legislation at the American Bankruptcy Institute’s annual New York conference in Midtown Manhattan.
That made people laugh, but Singer, whose $17 billion firm is one of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s largest creditors, said seriously that big banks still have trillions of dollars in derivatives on their books that still require only modest disclosure.
This vulture fund of his is no better. That is a subject we explored before (see links below). Novell is not his last victim and based on his past deeds he is better off arrested like Madoff. █
- Novell May be Going Private, Hedge Fund Has Cash
- Analyst Expects Microsoft Bid to Buy Novell
- Ron Hovsepian Receives Another Large Lump of Cash as Novell Sale Looms
- GNU/Linux-Savvy Writers View Elliot Associates as Bad Neighbourhood
- Firm Behind Novell Bid Has Shady Past, Could be Tied to Microsoft (Paul E. Singer’s ‘Vulture Fund’)
- Simon Phipps: “Seems Even With Microsoft’s Support Novell Couldn’t Cut It”
- Vulture Fund Still the Only Bidder for Novell
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.09.11
Posted in Microsoft, Mono, Novell, OpenSUSE, SCO, SLES/SLED at 9:33 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: SCO and Novell are both being renamed and rebranded due to structural changes and issues pertaining to corporate identity
LAST year we wrote about SCO getting a helping hand from Yarro, a loaner who had worked for the company and then turned to more shady activities. They try to keep the SCO case alive and Groklaw has an update on that. Groklaw has just few days left and we desperately need its analysis. The latest says:
A subset of the group that lent $2 Million to SCO in 2010, including Ralph Yarro, has retained a lawyer who has sent a letter [PDF] to the SCO Group’s Chapter 11 Trustee, Edward Cahn, claiming to be putting him on notice that he is in breach of the Secured Super-Priority Credit Agreement of March 5, 2010 and they want him to either cure by paying them their half of the UnXis sale proceeds or they demand the collateral. He has five days to fix the breach. Collateral would be mainly the right to any litigation proceeds, if any ever were to materialize, in that pretty much everything else was sold to UnXis. Here’s the document [PDF] that listed the collateral the lenders were to get on a default.
It remains to be seen if the SCO vs Novell case will carry on. Now that Novell is collapsing (we will have a separate post about the subject) and there are deep cuts, we are not entirely sure what it means to the company’s lawyers and legal budget. Novell will become just part of another company (by the way, this site Boycott Novell was never renamed, it just similarly fell under the wing of a larger site). From the article that quoted yours truly on the subject we have:
Novell has partnered with Microsoft since 2006, describing the partnership on its website as “collaborative,” where the “customers win.” But as a result of Novell’s layoffs, some are doubting the partnership’s reciprocity.
Twitter user Roy Schestowitz said in a tweet, “Novell taught us that no matter the circumstances, Microsoft partners always end down below. Microsoft must be laughing loudly.”
Smith said the relationship between Microsoft and Novell is still competitive.
We are going to prepare a more comprehensive summary of this type of news. It is not yet known what exactly will survive at Novell and what will be abandoned. It was not so properly announced, not with a detailed breakdown anyway. We are trying to find out just what will be shut down and what will stay. By looking at the latest OpenSUSE news and other development news we get no clues about it. We are generally not sure if OpenSUSE — unlike SLE* — will survive. Novell is uploading more of its ‘ads’ to YouTube these days [1, 2] and it’s not about SUSE, it is about proprietary software like GroupWise and other stuff. Some is borderline SUSE, but it is mostly proprietary [1, 2, 3], which leaves us suspecting that “Novell” under AttachMSFT will be just a narrow range of products, SLE* will become part of a separate company to be sold from Germany, and much of the rest — including Mono — will die. Novell is going through the same thing SCO had to go through. The change of names (e.g. TSG and UnXis) will help blur the history books. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.08.11
Posted in Courtroom, Microsoft, Novell, SCO at 11:00 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: TSG is SCO’s new name and Novell falls under the wing of AttachMSFT
HERE at Techrights we have been keeping track of SCO since the very beginning of the site. There is a lot of overlap between Novell and SCO, not just because of their legal battle. But a lesser known or insufficiently explored aspect of the comparison is their relationship to Microsoft. Both companies used to contribute to Linux before turning rogue and their reputations declined very rapidly as a result. It did not really require sites like Groklaw (which ends next week) to make it happen, but such sites did produce evidence and analysis that fueled other sites. In this age of the Internet and the World Wide Web, one site always builds upon the work of others, usually within hours or days. So by showing refutations of the allegations from SCO the company’s critics soon made it a laughing stock and no amount of PR or AstroTurfing could counter that.
There are parallels in Novell’s case. Novell worked hard on marketing the goods and promoting the perception that it was a good “open source” citizen whilst at the same time fulfilling its commitments to Microsoft. Part of Novell’s PR was attacking me personally. I disrupted their reality distortion field. Even now there is this new event that we mentioned last month for the confusing role it serves. It is called the 2011 Future of Open Source Forum and it is influenced by friends of Microsoft and Novell, which will participate despite the fact that Novell is not an open source company, it only pretends to be one, probably for karma.
Groklaw continues to cover Novell’s legal cases, but it probably remains for others to do as the site will cease posting new material. Who is going to gather PDFs from the cases and present them in HTML form? What about public discussion about the court proceedings? If nobody else does it, maybe Techrights Legal will (we need volunteers, so please contact us if you can lend a hand). Now that another round in the Novell vs. Microsoft case is expected, it is clear that nothing is truly over or resolved. What will these cases be renamed? The TSG vs. AttachMSFT case? Yes, SCO is nymshifting again:
Formerly known as. Like they’re a rock star. The et al references SCO Operations, Inc., now to be known as TSG Operations, Inc., which doesn’t make a lot of sense, if you think deeply, but then, this is SCO. I assume that this is because SCO sold the trade name to unXis, and unXis will be selling the software products. I say I assume, because SCO’s filing [PDF] with the court was an APA with many things left blank, including, as far as a quick check indicates, who gets the name SCO. Then again, does anyone want it? Here’s a question. What about the headers on the documents in SCO v. IBM or SCO v. Novell? I mean, exactly who is who going forward? Is anyone going forward? That’s the real question.
The odd thing is, Novell is now Attachmate’s property, so that is changed, and SCO sold its software assets to unXis, but it retained the prior litigation, so that changed, and the lenders appear to be no longer in harmony with SCO or each other, so that’s a change, and so who exactly is SCO nowadays? If SCO is TSG, who is SCO? Nobody? Or is unXis going to call itself unXiSCO like the domain name?
Maybe nobody wants to be called SCO. Maybe it’s like a mobster entering the witness protection program.
Blackwater did the same. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.02.11
Posted in Finance, Novell, SCO at 2:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Victory declared by “Novell Boycott” now that Novell is officially off the market
ACCORDING to this press release, Standard & Poor’s is removing NOVL. Yes, just like SCO (SCOX) at the time, Novell is going off the face of the Earth (not even “The Pink Sheet”). And as noted at the time, it is not looking good for Novell, but it’s inevitable now that the company breaks apart and becomes just a set of patents and products for others to exploit. Here is some coverage [1, 2, 3] which says that “Chipotle is replacing meandering networking dinosaur Novell now that it’s being taken private.” There has also been a lot of coverage that mentioned this as a side issue [1, 2]. The original announcement says:
S&P MidCap 400 constituent Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. (NYSE: CMG) will replace Novell Inc. (NASD:NOVL) in the S&P 500 index, and UTi Worldwide Inc. (NASD:UTIW) will replace Chipotle Mexican Grill in the S&P MidCap 400 index after the close of trading on a date to be announced. Novell is being acquired by a group of private equity firms in a transaction expected to be completed soon, pending final conditions.
An article titled “Time to Sell Novell?” was published and later removed by Motley Fool (just shortly before the sale) and Sam Varghese published a good article which started thusly: “Novell ceased to exist as a public entity at the end of trading in the US on Wednesday as the sale of the company to Attachmate Corporation was closed.”
Interestingly enough, the company which replaces NOVL at the S&P 500 is under investigation. Were they too corrupt (Novell has a history of fraud)?
While the world celebrates the death of Osama Bin Laden “Novell Boycott” celebrates the death of Novell. We shall address other aspects of this milestone in a later post. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.24.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, SCO at 7:01 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Summary: Same script, new players; or how the Android case resembles the situation of Linux under SCO’s legal attacks
SCO is only history, but the lesson to be learned from the SCO case is that Microsoft, for example, will compensate other companies for attacking Microsoft rivals in the courtroom. One of the people who played along with SCO and Microsoft was DiDio from the Yankee Group and she is was quoted a lot by ECT over the years, even in Linux Insider. The same goes for other SCO friends, who wrote entire columns for ECT and also moved on to ZDNet where they pushed the SCO line/talking points. ECT still quoted DiDio last week (spreading FUD about “support” for GNU/Linux, in a Web site called Linux Insider).
One of our readers, speaking in IRC, suggested that Oracle, Apple, and Microsoft might be working together/in tandem, maybe even colluding to eliminate free platforms (they are all in CPTN after all). Pamela Jones linked to this new article and wrote: “That’s the same reasoning behind SCO’s attack on Linux, to make it cost. Where are the regulators, you ask? Where are *you*? If you refuse to buy from companies that behave like this, they’ll get the message, just as SCO got the point eventually.” From the article:
It’s the same reason why Microsoft is suing makers of Android phones: to give Android a price.
Android is free. In some cases, it’s even cheaper than free, with Google sharing some revenue from Google searches on Android phones with partners. This is hugely disruptive to both Microsoft and Apple’s business models; Microsoft because they make money on software licenses, and Apple on hardware. And this disruptive approach is winning: Android is surging past iOS in marketshare.
A lawsuit from a big company, even if doomed, still takes a lot of time, energy and money to fight off. So a Samsung or someone else might settle, accepting to pay some form of license. If that happens, Apple can go around the other manufacturers asking for the same license and have a much stronger claim. And now OEMs have to factor that cost into the decision to choose Android. And all of a sudden, Android has a price.
Microsoft has said that it would pursue this strategy. There need not be speculation here. John C. Dvorak wrote a similar article over the weekend. In summary he adds:
The rise of the Android operating system seems to have gotten the attention of just about everyone, as Google Inc. is under attack by various patent holders looking to derail the software and the company. The beneficiaries are Apple Inc. and Microsoft Corp.
Separately, Jones wrote that “Patent Verdicts Are Usually Appealed, Often Reversed”. Her comment in News Picks went like this (it is a shame that there cannot be permanent link to her insights in News Picks, therefore reproducibility matters):
I see Florian Mueller is once again predicting gloom and doom for Linux, this time due to a jury win for Bedrock against Google, but let me show you something that should calm the waters.
Here’s the website of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the specialty court that hears appeals of patent infringement cases in the US, and the link is to the page on statistics, and here [PDF] are the latest statistics on what happens to patent infringement cases on appeal. I think you can see from the stats why patent cases so often are appealed — your chances are very good that you can get matters reversed on appeal, almost a 50-50 chance.
In fact, here’s the intro to a paper [PDF] titled TOWARD CERTAINTY AND UNIFORMITY IN PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASES AFTER FESTO AND MARKMAN: “The increasingly complex technology involved in patent infringement cases has lead many to question the ability of district court judges and jurors in such cases to issue uniform and predictable decisions. In fact, there is evidence that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals – the appellate court with sole jurisdiction and accumulated expertise in patent law – routinely overrules district court decisions regarding claim construction and prosecution history estoppel under the doctrine of equivalents. Given the frequency with which the Federal Circuit overturns district court decisions, and the fact that nearly every patent infringement case involves a dispute over claim construction or prosecution history estoppel under the doctrine of equivalents, patent infringement cases are typically uncertain until after appeal.”
So calm down. There will likely be an appeal of the jury’s decision in the case brought by Bedrock against Google. And given the nature of the patent, I expect Google will prevail, frankly. In fact just today, Dave Farber wrote on his IP list: “I believe I used that technique in SNOBOL in the early 60′s,” meaning the technique that awed the jurors so. When it comes to tech, it isn’t so easy for juries, and this was in Texas, where the juries have a rep for finding for patent holders whether they deserve it or not. So, I’d suggest everyone just relax and let it all play out. It’s way too early to be worried. I’d also point out that $5 million isn’t very much for Google, even if it were upheld, and if that were the worst that were to happen in the Oracle suit, it hardly would spell doom and gloom for Android. Of course, the real problem is that a lot of stupid patents have issued, and real solution is that software and patents need to get a divorce.] – Federal Circuit Ct. of Appeals
Let us remember that Microsoft Florian is busy attacking Android (even today) while he mostly ignores what Apple and Microsoft are doing; instead he promotes cartels like CPTN — a cartel with Apple inside it. Here is something that Glyn Moody wrote a few days ago on this matter.
So far, I’ve held off from writing about the proposed sale of 882 Novell patents to a consortium “organised by Microsoft”, since there have been so many twists and turns – first it was on, then off – that making sensible statements about the likely impact on free software was well-nigh impossible. As is so often the case, the devil would clearly be in the details.
[...]
Again, it is pretty amazing to read in an official press release from the terribly serious German Cartel Office concerns about the use of patents to spread FUD, specifically against open source. This argues a widespread appreciation of the way in which broken patent laws have allowed what was designed to be a spur to innovation to become a weapon for hobbling competitors – not just directly through the courts, but as a vague but real threat to hold over them.
The fact that the US Justice Department clearly shares that view – and “will continue investigating the distribution of the Novell patents to the CPTN owners” – is significant; it means that all of those involved in the CPTN consortium will remain under scrutiny to guard against any future abuse of the patents involved, or FUD based on them.
Now that Microsoft’s gadgets die along with all the rest of its products (bar the cash cows), even ZDNet does an article about it, even though it spins it a bit (as expected). For example:
Microsoft declined to confirm the rumours, although plenty are speculating that the company will keep the Zune brand and continue to produce media player software for Windows Phone 7 and the Xbox 360. If true, that would relegate the much hyped device to the dustbin of failed tech products.
Zune is one example among many where Microsoft fails in gadgets. This is why it wants to tax Android, for example. Increasingly, Apple chooses a similar route because Android is taking over many areas, thanks in part to its licensing model and wide channel strategy.
As CPTN includes the company behind iPatent, its legal actions make it a suspect. Not only Microsoft had something to gain from the SCO case. Sun too paid SCO. As we explained before, there is some evidence that can suggest collaboration on patents between Microsoft and Apple (they are already cross-licensing), including the irrational litigation against Android.
This post hopefully contains enough pointers to encourage further reading. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
04.22.11
Posted in GNU/Linux, Google, Patents, SCO at 10:49 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
“On the same day that CA blasted SCO, Open Source evangelist Eric Raymond revealed a leaked email from SCO’s strategic consultant Mike Anderer to their management. The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO’s financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital.”
–Bruce Perens
Summary: Important information about Bedrock, those who bolster their case, and what we know about Microsoft’s role in arming patent trolls, CIA coup d’état style
The poorer the patented ‘invention’ is, the more it will probably be worth (at lease once patented and never invalidated) because the more damage it can cause owing to breadth. The Linux Foundation and OIN recognised this when they defused attempts by Microsoft to pass around Linux-hostile patents, i.e. ammunition to disruptors (even that is not Microsoft’s innovation). And right now there is a ridiculous patent being used against Android. Who is behind it? A defunct entity known as Bedrock (more details in our IRC logs). There is a paywall standing in the way of this article/analysis which contains “EVIDENCE OF AN UNACCEPTED OFFER FROM INTELLECTUAL VENTURES TO BUY THE BEDROCK PATENT”.
Intellectual Ventures, created out of Microsoft money, is known to be using a lot of “satellite” companies to sue/extort companies on Intellectual Ventures’ behalf. Only rarely does Intellectual Ventures sue directly, but sometimes it does. It’s a proxy game and the victims struggle to validate the connections in the courtroom because when papers get exchanged as opposed to something physical, traces can vanish. We have covered several cases like this.
“Remember Microsoft trying to sell some of its patents that read on Linux, or so they claimed, to patent trolls? OIN played man in the middle on that one, but who is to say that was the only one?”
–Pamela Jones, Groklaw“Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols wrote a great article about the Bedrock v Google decision,” writes walterbyrd in IRC. “Idiotic Anti-Linux & Google Patent Decision. Red Hat has sued Bedrock to get the patent revoked for numerous reasons. Among others, they point out that Linux, which dates to 1991, predates the 1997 patent; that no one has ever used the patent; and that in any case Bedrock has no claims to the patent,” he quotes. Groklaw too is linking to SJVN (Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols) and adds: “If I might remind you, Mike Anderer told us years ago, back in 2004, that this was Microsoft’s plan, to see to it that FOSS companies got sued over and over again for patent infringement, until they gave out: “In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies (although this is not completely settled yet), how would somebody like Red Hat compete when 6 months ago they only had $80-$90 million in cash? At that point they could not even afford to settle a fraction of a single judgment without devastating their shareholders. I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue. All of them are not asking for hundreds of millions, but most would be large enough to ruin anything but the largest companies. Red Hat did recently raise several hundred million which certainly gives them more staying power. Ultimately, I do not think any company except a few of the largest companies can offer any reasonable insulation to their customers from these types of judgments. You would need a market cap of more than a couple billion to just survive in the OS space.” So that’s what he said. And 50 or more lawsuits lined up means using proxies, obviously. Remember Microsoft trying to sell some of its patents that read on Linux, or so they claimed, to patent trolls? OIN played man in the middle on that one, but who is to say that was the only one? That’s why it’s an antitrust issue, I’d say, using patents like this as an anticompetitive weapon. And if you want to know what is wrong with software patents, the damage they are doing, read the quotations from various business executives (like Andy Grove) in the footnotes to this article.”
Here is the link given to analysis of important news reports which are only in the Web Archive now (content ages and rots quite sadly, along with the crucial evidence). We reproduce this below in the interests of preservation:
Legal
S2 ‘mystery man’ Anderer speaks on MS, SCO, and licensing
Friday March 12, 2004 (05:30 PM GMT)
By: Chris Preimesberger
Mike Anderer was the author of the S2-to-SCO Group memo that comprises the “Halloween X” document that was released to the press by Eric Raymond last week. Anderer, the CEO of S2 and the middleman in the SCO Group’s $50 million PIPE transaction of last October 16 contacted us today, and while he is under a non-disclosure agreement and can’t say very much about the $50 million PIPE deal, what follows are some of the thoughts he can share.
I am certain people would like to know what is happening but I cannot talk to you without permission. I will tell you my background is integration and I am OS agnostic; the more there are the better. I will file close to 20 patents this year for companies in many spaces, including homeland security, anti-terrorism, several grid computing and virtual machine patents, and, ironically, I should have one issued in the expiring and disappearing e-mail arena. It was initiated 4-5 yrs ago.
I have helped many companies and individuals who run companies in the GNU/Linux, BSD, and Unix world as well as those in the Microsoft world. I admire the good parts and despair the bad parts.
Most of my time is currently spent on new technologies on several different platforms. Many of my companies and several of our offices have been merged into other companies, moved or sold as part of a technology deal, some even sold during the deepest parts of the downturn. I helped build the channels for most of the products that corporate America is currently using and some they will be using soon. In several cases, I am finally finding or developing ways to solve problems I have been working on for the last 20 years. The only way I can hide is to work so hard that it becomes close to impossible to track all the companies I have owned, bought, sold, rolled up, or sat on the board of. If you include the ones where I helped entrepreneurs and companies through tough times, or sat on non-profit boards, the list would be even tougher to follow.
Anybody who knows me or really analyzes what they found on the Web will find I don’t hide well. I also have a lot to say in most situations.
The following is simply my opinion. This is all I can really give you considering the NDA. As for the PIPE deal, I cannot comment at all, but I also would have nothing of interest to add beyond what has already been made public.
I would state that this licensing project represented only a small fraction of my time over the last year and has completely gone away in recent months. This was a job for me, and licensing IP has been an increasingly significant portion of my work.
Many thousands of licenses have been sold to Unix over the years. I cannot think of any major hardware or software company or even university that does not have a license directly or indirectly. If you see the world moving forward as a (GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix)/Windows world it does not take an MIT rocket scientist to think it would make sense for the largest software company in the world to increase their rights by taking another license (remember they did develop and own a portion of the code originally sold as MS Xenix). In fact I saw several postings on Slashdot hammering them for including what people saw as BSD property (with proper copyright attribution) in some of their products. It was also no secret that Microsoft licensed and even purchased companies in this arena over the last several years (look where Windows Services for Unix came from). They developed some pretty incredible functionality into things like SFU 3.5 (which I just got for free with a systems magazine). If you consider this licensing an indirect financing of SCO, then everybody (or at least the thousands of licensees) is responsible at some level. The licenses in some cases exceeded $100 million, so these were not even close to the largest ones. The hard part for me was finding somebody who was not already a big licensee.
Just as I see Microsoft developing stronger interoperability from their side, I see a huge community developing stronger connectivity from the GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix side. We will work from both sides and hopefully contribute to making things more functional for customers whatever they choose. The only really interesting point here is that people finally benefit from more stuff working together. It still takes work, but things are getting better in many areas.
I think one real issue, that people are skirting, is who will be the ultimate guarantor of IP-related issues in a world that is governed by the GPL and GPL-like licenses. I could easily see IBM, HP, Sun, and many of the other large hardware players solving this problem tomorrow by settling the dispute with SCO and maybe even taking the entire code base and donating it into the public domain. I know this is what I originally thought would happen, at least the settlement part. I am not certain what people who paid tens of millions for licenses would say if what they paid for was now free, but that is a different issue.
In a world where there are $500 million dollar patent infringement lawsuits imposed on OS companies (although this is not completely settled yet), how would somebody like Red Hat compete when 6 months ago they only had $80-$90 million in cash? At that point they could not even afford to settle a fraction of a single judgment without devastating their shareholders. I suspect Microsoft may have 50 or more of these lawsuits in the queue. All of them are not asking for hundreds of millions, but most would be large enough to ruin anything but the largest companies. Red Hat did recently raise several hundred million which certainly gives them more staying power. Ultimately, I do not think any company except a few of the largest companies can offer any reasonable insulation to their customers from these types of judgments. You would need a market cap of more than a couple billion to just survive in the OS space.
Since the GPL type license agreements push the liability to the users, who do you go after? I think this is a key problem. Nobody wants to be the ultimate guarantor for software that was free (or close to it). I think the dispute with SCO would have been settled a long time ago if everybody knew this was the last one. The problem is there will probably be hundreds or even thousands of these disputes in the future and the targets will be the companies with the deepest pockets. Even if the large vendors disclaim all responsibility initially, I do not think the customers will accept this from their vendors for very long. In the meantime, I don’t see anybody being in a hurry to write the first big check.
The world of software is changing. I think everybody sees that part on the product side, but the economic underpinnings are changing too. It used to be you included R&D and patent development costs into your license add your costs and a markup and you could make a living. We relied on cross-licensing, licensing, and innovation, and our ability to prevent other people from copying our work without permission. Now things are shifting, but I am not certain anybody has completely figured out this new model, and if you think it is just any one company that is concerned about this, you are wrong.
I do think things will work out, and the sooner the better. I believe the software industry is in an incredible renaissance and that means maybe there will be a lot more people out there making things better and a couple fewer people with enough spare time to flame under five separate handles, all registered as underage so they can exploit the better privacy laws we afford to children.
I do appreciate all the effort and help people have provided by digging up old sites and even stuff I had long forgotten about. I am still hoping people dig up some of the more positive projects I have been involved with. I have also had several long lost friends contact me. I think they thought I might need some support.
– Mike
Microsoft Florian (aka “FOSS[will be killed by]Patents”) is rubbing this in people’s faces (consider the headline, “Texas jury finds against Google in Linux patent case, determines damage award of $5,000,000″). ZDNet feeds Microsoft Florian’s drama and so does CNET, a sister site in some sense (ZDNet bloggers also played along with SCO's side). Florian keeps bragging about the number of lawsuits against Android and amplifies the magnitude of the threat to Android by repeating news like this. Harry McCracken, the Microsoft booster, does something similar to what Florian did some months ago, amplifying the perceived problem. Let’s not forget other Microsoft mouthpieces like Rob Enderle and Paul Thurrott with his anti-Android rhetoric (patent-related accusations and FUD). Meanwhile, the president of the FFII is told that “Google should really start to actively fight against #swpat it could donate a million to #ffii and #endsoftwarepatents.org each.” The messenger is right in this case and we wrote about it earlier this month. Google ought to know that just getting more patents won’t help it against trolls.
“Patent incumbent H.264 will soon lose its dominance as YouTube, the world’s biggest online video content creator, switches to WebM, the free and open source codec.”
–MuktwareCould Google work on research that proves ties to Microsoft and then initiate legal action for these mafia-like tactics (including the SCO and maybe Elliot saga)? Potential patent trolls whom we know Microsoft was trying to feed with anti-Linux patents are pretty solid evidence [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. Microsoft never refuted this, it only tried deflection by announcing CodePlex news noise within hours. There is also MPEG-LA, which Microsoft is paying. Google does mitigate the issue by addressing that attack vector the way it should. From the news: “Patent incumbent H.264 will soon lose its dominance as YouTube, the world’s biggest online video content creator, switches to WebM, the free and open source codec.” OIN’s growth [1, 2, 3] is not enough to prevent MPEG-LA from acting like a mafia, bidding/searching for Google assassins and then getting exposed. Fortunately, the US Justice Department launched an investigation over this and I should probably mention, based on my private discussions with Microsoft Florian, that Florian has contacts inside MPEG-LA, which he keeps promoting. Yes, I can produce evidence to show this, but he probably won’t contest or challenge the claim for fear of more damage control.
Here is Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols explaining that Microsoft Florian is falsely amplifying the scare over patents and Android:
Now, I hate all software patents, but even if I didn’t, this patent is garbage. As I read it, I think I violated it myself back in the 80s. I mean, just read it, it’s a description of how to use hashing with a linked list. Come on! That might not be programming 101, but it’s not far from it!
Red Hat has sued Bedrock to get the patent revoked for numerous reasons. Among others, they point out that Linux, which dates to 1991, predates the 1997 patent; that no one has ever used the patent; and that in any case Bedrock has no claims to the patent. This case, however, has not been settled yet.
Yes, I know, I know, you’d think that case would have been settled first and then the matter of Red Hat’s customers would have been addressed, but that’s not how it works in the U.S. Verdict first and trial later to paraphrase Alice in Wonderland’s Red Queen.
Now some people, such as Florian Mueller, would have you think that “This patent infringement case has major implications for the IT industry in general and for Linux in particular.” The emphasis is his. I disagree.
I think this is an especially striking example of a bad patent decision by the EDTX. It only shows just how bad the U.S. patent system has become that such a ridiculous suit could ever be taken seriously never mind actually winning. Google should appeal this case and, unlike other recent software patent cases, such as Microsoft vs. i4i, I’d expect the anti-patent side to win.
It remains to be seen if Microsoft also plays a role in Apple’s lawsuits (see this nice new parody), but given motivations, it is unlikely that Apple needs Microsoft’s encouragement to sue Google’s Linux-based platform. It should be noted, however, as we noted last year, that very shortly after Apple sued Android Microsoft made a formal statement validating and endorsing Apple’s action, adding that there will be more of that. It was almost as though the pair had conspired. █
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
