05.24.07
Posted in GNU/Linux, Microsoft, Novell, Patents, Ubuntu at 10:04 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Some argue that Microsoft’s recent assault on Linux might be a case of reflection. As one reporter puts it:
The Microsoft — Linux controversy has been stoked further by the assertion that Microsoft will ultimately be the company hardest hit by patent litigation.
Mark Shuttleworth said the same thing the other day. Microsoft is at great risk due to software patents.
On the day that Dell starts to sell PCs pre-loaded with Ubuntu, the Linux company’s chief has warned Microsoft that it faces certain defeat if it attempts to start a patent war.
Is it is defensive manoeuvre then? It seems improbable. Chin Wong, a columnist, writes “Patently wrong”, which makes me think of the famous “bully complex”.
Every schoolyard has a bully who uses his size to intimidate the other kids, or a rich brat who threatens to take his ball home if he doesn’t get his way.
Put in a different context, Microsoft tries to show some muscles and keep its potentionally-litigious foes away. ITWire offers a fairly one-sided analysis of the whole Microsoft/Novell/EFF scenario and what it means.
Some will say Microsoft pressure made them do it, but I think the companies concerned were big enough to make their own decisions.
Remember that Microsoft wants a patent reform as well.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, NetWare, Novell, RHX at 9:52 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Liferay has just joined Novell’s equivalent of Red Hat Exchange, following another recent inclusion. This comes amid more reports on expected acquisitions, which as we have mentioned before, are likely to involve proprietary software. These different development show that Novell continues to cling onto its proprietary software roots rather than truly advance into future business and development models.
Elsewhere in the news we see NetWare losing its appeal. In Australia, for instance, NetWare is being replaced by GNU/Linux.
As part of a core infrastructure refresh project, The NSW Department of State and Regional Development (DSRD) will ditch its legacy NetWare systems in favour of the open source Linux.
There is further confirmation in ComputerWorld, which yesterday described NetWare as a dead/dying skill.
8. Certified NetWare Engineers
In the early 1990s, it was all the rage to become a Certified NetWare Engineer, especially with Novell Inc. enjoying 90% market share for PC-based servers. Today, however, you don’t have to look far to find CNEs retraining themselves with other skills to stay marketable. “It seems like it happened overnight,” Hayes says. “Everyone had Novell, and within a two-year period, they’d all switched to NT.” Novell says it will continue supporting NetWare 6.5 through at least 2015; however, it has also retired several of its NetWare certifications, including Master CNE and NetWare 5 CNE, and it plans to retire NetWare 6 CNE. “Companies are still paying skill premiums for CNEs, but they’re losing value,” Foote says.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, Intellectual Monopoly, Interoperability, Microsoft, Novell at 1:28 pm by Shane Coyle
That was a question posed directly to Novell as part of Matthew Aslett’s dogged attempts to get to the bottom of the Microsoft-Novell deal, and in response we receive a standard non-denial denial:"As a general policy, licensing deals to which we’re a party aren’t made public by Novell".
Of course, we do expect the MS Agreement to be a part of their upcoming 10-K, perhaps this information will be part of the already-promised redacted sections. Will we ever learn what open source products shipped under the agreement that Novell has agreed to pay Microsoft royalties on in exchange for a promise not to pursue their supposed patent rights?
Anyhow, Aslett also is trying to get to the truth regarding Justin Steinman’s ominous statements regarding Novell engineers getting sanctioned access to MS code for Windows-SUSE interoperability:
Q. How does Microsoft promising not sue Novell customers gives Novell engineers sanctioned access to Microsoft code?
A. The covenants Microsoft makes to Novell customers do not provide Novell with access to Microsoft code. The terms of those covenants are publicly available on the Web sites of both Novell and Microsoft. As announced in November 2006, Novell and Microsoft have entered into a Technical Collaboration Agreement under which the companies work to achieve interoperability between Novell and Microsoft offerings. When ISVs enter such agreements, the terms customarily provide for exchanging relevant technical information. Novell has no intention to distribute the code of Microsoft or any third party in an unauthorized manner, and employs customary measures to comply with our license obligations.
…
Aside form the point that this final answer is a non-denial denial, the answers do explain how Novell got “sanctioned access” to Microsoft’s code, but to my mind, also undermine the suggestion that the patent covenant agreement was somehow necessary for the technical collaboration.
In fact, I would suggest that the answer to the first question makes it clear that the patent access granted by the technical collaboration agreement and the patent covenant not to sue customers are completely unrelated.
It certainly appears to be at odds with Steinman’s earlier statement: “the intellectual property agreement provided a foundation for the interoperability between Windows and SUSE Linux Enterprise”.
So, we’re back at step 1: Let’s speculate, what IP did Novell License, and why?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, GNU/Linux, GPL at 4:04 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Eben Moglen is very optimistic. He predicts that regardless of all the noise, GPLv3 will be welcomed by many, just as OpenLogic previously suggested.
Eben Moglen, the law professor and open-source legal expert who has helped lead the revision of the General Public License, is predicting broad success for the upcoming new version.
Let’s not forget the endless and aggressive Microsoft lobbying against the GPLv3.
As a side note, I could not help wondering why Microsoft (let alone Novell) attend OSBC, despite the explicit request for a boycott. What is a company that attacks Free software doing at an Open Source event? The scene is attended by the same folks which Microsoft threatens. It’s quite absurd.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deception, FUD, Microsoft, Patents at 3:54 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Microsoft’s lies never cease to amaze. The company now blames paperwork for its reluctance to let the dogs out.
First you get everyone riled claiming open source and Linux infringe on your patents, then you won’t detail those patents. Why? The paperwork.
Yes, Microsoft cited administrative overhead for not detailing the 235 Microsoft patents its chief legal counsel recently told Forbes exist in Linux and open source.
Hasn’t the company produced over 6,000 pages of nasty technical documentation quite recently? Even SCO was able to file some legal documents over the years. It’s yet another excuse because FUD is more rewarding than a legal failure.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
05.23.07
Posted in Humour, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Patents, Windows at 11:13 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
The following made-up scenarios very well illustrate the problems that Microsoft is facing. The first one reveals the real motives, which could not be truly concealed.
Microsoft, patents and the open source community
Dear Open Source Community,
You have been had.
We hadn’t been doing too well lately. Vista sales aren’t up to our previously over-inflated figures, we are still loosing money on that whole Xbox thing, and Dell, normally our favourite lapdog, is going to go and sell Linux on a home PC! Not good. So, we came up with an ingenious idea. Let us use these patents we spent so much money on getting, despite the fact everyone knows they are worthless and frivolous, and take on the open source community with them!
[...]
Regards,
Microsoft PR team [NOT REALLY]
The second one shows demonstrates the inability to act upon the expressed desire (or baseless threat).
IT Confidential: What If Microsoft Went Door To Door To Enforce Its Patents?
How would you feel if Steve Ballmer rang your doorbell and starting asking about the software that you used? It’s not so far away from what Microsoft is trying to do with its latest patent claims.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Free/Libre Software, Microsoft, Novell, Security at 11:03 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
While Novell gets cozy(ier) with Zenoss, which is considered an Open Source company, Microsoft flirts (even collaborates) with a Linux company. Therein lies an absurdity and a conflict:
Patent claims against Linux notwithstanding, Microsoft is working with a startup to ensure a key security initiative includes support for the open-source operating system on client computers.
This time, for a change, it is not a divide and conquer attempt. It is, however, supposed to give a boost to Microsoft’s own business agenda, which requires compatibility with a platform whose existence rights it does not honour.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deals, Deception, GNU/Linux, GPL, Microsoft, Novell, SLES/SLED at 8:53 pm by Shane Coyle
Recent statements by Novell’s Justin Steinman regarding the Microsoft-Novell deal continue to indicate that Microsoft is indeed distributing SUSE, and quite successfully I may add.
Steinman characterized the deal as good for the open source movement, and referred to it as the deal that "put Linux in Walmart and Nationwide Bank" (Umm, Walmart already had Linux Justin – don’t know about Nationwide off the top of my head), and we all know sometimes Justin has a gift for making bombastic statements, fumbling his words or spinning the words of others, so it is alway precarious to base our speculation on Justin’s statements.
Anyhow, my question is this: How can Microsoft be Novell’s #1 channel partner, as Justin asserts, but not a distributor bound by the GPLv2?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA