11.16.06
Posted in Antitrust, Microsoft, Novell at 2:42 pm by Shane Coyle
IANAL, AFAIK, so I pose this query to the community (and passers by):
With MS moving aggressively to make deals with all Linux vendors to recoup royalties on the distribution of Open Source Software (its main competition), is there any type of antitrust concern?
If MS is allowing these puppet competitors to exist just to allay antitrust concerns, while actually earning revenue from their supposed ‘competition’, how is this not monopolistic?
My high school civics makes me recall something about horizontal monopolies, is this the beginning of one?
Such a monopoly is known as a horizontal monopoly. A magazine publishing firm, for example, might publish many different magazines on many different subjects, but it would still be considered to engage in monopolistic practices if the intent of doing this was to control the entire magazine-reader market, and prevent the emergence of competitors. (Wikipedia)
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Action, Boycott Novell, Novell, OpenSUSE at 2:17 pm by Shane Coyle
A quick note, this website has nothing but love for the OpenSuSE community. Some folks have expressed concern over just how far reaching a Novell Boycott should reach, the code under the GPL is clean. Linux is clean, Novell’s FAQ said that themselves, this is just FUDmongering on Novell’s part.
- Do not download, purchase or endorse Novell Products or Services
- Do not host or distribute Novell products.
Basically, Fork Novell. We don’t need them, we have the source.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deals, Intellectual Monopoly, Interoperability, Microsoft, Patent Covenant, Patents, Red Hat at 11:24 am by Shane Coyle
Here is an article from Microsoft-Watch:
Microsoft is in an awkward position now that Red Hat has slammed the door shut on any possibility of entering into a patent protection deal similar to the one Redmond has with Novell.
While Microsoft has been telling anyone who will listen that it wants to enter into a similar patent indemnity arrangement with all the other Linux vendors, and is hopeful this will be achieveable with Red Hat, it appears that is not going to happen.
It goes on to talk about how MS may indemnify RedHat customers on its own… FROM WHAT?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.15.06
Posted in Action, Intellectual Monopoly, Law, Microsoft, Patent Covenant, Patents at 1:10 pm by Shane Coyle
Here is an article that PJ is also covering at Groklaw:
Microsoft Corp has admitted execution flaws with its promise not to sue open source software developers and invited the wider community to tell the software firm how it can get it right.
Apparently, Miguel De Icaza and Nat Friedman had expressed some displeasure or reservations about the covenant as it stood. MS isn’t completely backing off though:
Our design goal is to get language in place that allows individual developers to keep developing. We are not interested in providing carte blanche clearance on patents to any commercial activity – that is a separate discussion to be had on a per-instance basis
Still unacceptable, but MS is apparently willing to listen.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Deals, Intellectual Monopoly, Patent Covenant at 2:05 am by Shane Coyle
Here is an interview on linuxinterviews.com with Justin Steinman, Director of Marketing for Linux & Open Platform Solutions for Novell.
From the Interview:
LinuxInterviews.com: Microsoft will not attack open-source developers as long as they are not connected with commercial software. However, this agreement does not cover other Linux vendors. Do you think Microsoft will exercise it’s rights may there be the case?
Justin Steinman: Microsoft and Novell felt it was important to establish a precedent for the individual, non-commercial open source developer community that potential patent litigation need not be a concern. Microsoft is excited to more actively participate in the open source community and Novell is, and will continue to be, an important enabler for this bridge. For these reasons, both Novell and Microsoft felt it was appropriate to make the pledge for Microsoft not to assert its patents against the non-commercial community. Microsoft can and has spoken for itself regarding other Linux vendors, and we refer you to those public statements.
Of course, the term Non-Commercial has already been analyzed, and declared worse than useless.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
11.13.06
Posted in Action, Deals, GPL, Microsoft, Novell, Patent Covenant, Samba at 12:20 pm by Shane Coyle
Here is a link to their full announcement, but this excerpt summarizes it pretty well:
The patent agreement struck between Novell and Microsoft is a divisive agreement. It deals with users and creators of free software differently depending on their “commercial” versus “non-commercial” status, and deals with them differently depending on whether they obtained their free software directly from Novell or from someone else.
The goals of the Free Software community and the GNU GPL allow for no such distinctions.
Furthermore, the GPL makes it clear that all distributors of GPL’d software must stand together in the fight against software patents. Only by standing together do we stand a chance of defending against the peril represented by software patents. With this agreement Novell is attempting to destroy that unified defense, exchanging the long term interests of the entire Free Software community for a short term advantage for Novell over their competitors.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Boycott Novell at 12:13 pm by Shane Coyle
The way to communicate with a corporation is economically. It is unacceptable behavior on Novell’s part to legitimize and participate in MS FUD campaign, and to violate the very license that allows them to distribute the community’s work in the first place. I say let the big MS lump payment be their severance from the community.
And with these words, www.boycottnovell.com is born.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
« Previous Page « Previous Page Next entries »
Content is available under CC-BY-SA