06.05.07
Posted in Deals, GPL, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Novell, Patents, SCO, SUN, Xandros at 10:51 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
As time goes by, we find that it is increasingly hard to ignore the SCO case, which Groklaw is already focused on (watching it like a hawn). There is a fascinating new item which discusses Sun Microsystems’ and Microsoft’s support of SCO. As Groklaw pointed out a couple of days ago, the Novell and Xandros deals have an element of SCO malice in them.
Nowhere does the exhibit explain in any detail exactly what SCO IP was hidden within Linux. Does that sound to you like the sort of vague patent claims made by Microsoft in regards to its recent patent deals with Novell and with Xandros? It does to me.
This is not just a case of making IP claims and making their substance invisible. It is also a case of claiming ownership of something you are not entitled to have. This could lead to the conclusion that, at this stage, there is little distinction between Microsoft’s tactics and SCO’s tactics. It would not be surprising if more money is exchanging hands under a manipulative and malovalent agenda.
Yesterday, Eben Moglen’s take on the latest deal got published. He seems to suggest that companies take an easy route (and cash) at the expense of those who make their existence possible.
But Moglen told vnunet.com in a video interview that some in the community will be tempted to make a “private peace with the invader”.
“Divide-and-conquer strategies are built around the weakness that it is in the interest of some people to make a private deal for safety and abandon communal defence,” Moglen said.
This, of course, is an issue that the GPLv3 will address. The Novell and Xandros deals will no longer put them in a position of advantage. Au contraire — they will offer no added value and also be remembered as those who betrayed the values of Free software; and knowingly so!
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in FUD, Microsoft, Novell, Patents, Xandros at 10:27 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
Just hours ago, LinuxWatch talked about the similarities between the invisible weapon used against Novell and the invisible weapon used against Xandros.
Once more we have Microsoft pledging that it won’t sue Novell — excuse me, Xandros — Linux customers for violating its IP, specifically patents. What patents? Determined how? Violated in what way? We don’t know, and Microsoft still isn’t telling.
It has become very clear that invisibility and deceit have become a way of overcharging companies. In order to defend that weapon, one needs to just stay out of court.
The problem with this whole can of worms is that Microsoft is gambling on never going to court.
So, as Shane puts is, what are we waiting for? Microsoft should be forced to reveal its cards one way or another. On the other hand, the ‘cold war’ is apparently ineffective and, according to this mini interview from InformationWeek, no ‘nuclear winter’ is expected. Fortunately, in that same item, it is also argued that the attitude towards Free software remains unaffected. High-level figures are apparently not buying Microsoft’s arguments. Only greedy/selfish Linux vendors do.
Johnson also says he has no special insight into what Microsoft is up to, but he doesn’t think it matters all that much. It won’t change attitudes toward open source adoption.
“Customers have long since decided open source is safe to use. In our space, it is hard to find any enterprise customer that does not use a lot of open source,” he noted. Leading closed source products from IBM, BEA and Oracle use Apache, Samba and other open source internally, he added.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Corel, Deals, Microsoft, Novell, Samsung, Windows, Xandros, Xen at 10:08 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
For quite some time we have suspected that personal financial incentives play a role in the making of controversial (even insane) deals. Somebody from Groklaw identified what s/he believes to be the story behind the Xandros deal. According to one source that I spotted yesterday, Xandros has been negotiating with Microsoft since November 2006. Have a look at this article which goes back to that time:
“About three weeks ago I started to see strange faces pop up in the conference room, and they turned out to be investors. Then one weekend, someone had cleaned out a [seldom-used] room and given it to an investor as an office. A week later we were canned.”
Is it possible that developers are altogether excluded from negotiations which involve non-technical staff? Without seeking their advice, mistakes are bound to be made. Those who negotiate from the “dark side” therefore thrive in secrecy.
Are those that are misinformed responsible for making deals whose outcome is not realised until it’s too late? Recall what Jeremy Allison told us. Also bear in mind that there is quite a series of companies that sign agreements with Microsoft. These deals always work in Microsoft’s favour, but the boardroom is easily lured in by cash. It is oblivious to many factors, such as the fate of many companies that have already liaised with Microsoft, not to mention the reaction from some customers. Lack of transparency produces poor code. Lack of transparency in a company’s decisions produces errors.
Novell. JBoss. XenSource. Zend. Samsung. Xandros.
One by one, free and open source software providers are signing agreements with “the dark side”, the poster child for proprietary software, and (many say) the antithesis of open source: Microsoft.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Deals, Deception, Finance, Intellectual Monopoly, Interoperability, Microsoft, Novell, Patent Covenant, Protocol, RAND, Xandros at 12:31 pm by Shane Coyle
Justin Steinman confirms, $240M > $40M
Okay, actually there is absolutely nothing new about the revelation in the post title, nor the (unpatentable) mathematical statement above, but what is new is how Novell’s Justin Steinman finally recognizes why Novell got so much more money, because of the sheer difference in customer base – not patent portfolio quality, as was often insinuated early after the deal’s announcement.
Q: How did you come up with the value for the “promise” that Microsoft made?
Nat Friedman: I have no idea how they did that. In general, when it comes to patent questions, you look at two things:
1. The patents that the patent holder has.
2. The business over the person who wants patent protection or coverage.
And the dollar amount is usually a function of these two values. So, for example, you might only hold one patent, but if you sue company X for infringing your one patent, and company X makes $1 billion/year in revenue based on their product that infringes your patent, then even though you only have one patent, you can extract a lot of money from company X.
So I’m guessing the team that put together the deal considered both the Microsoft and the Novell revenue. You notice that the balance of payments is heavily in Novell’s favor. Microsoft is giving us much more money than we are giving them.
Novell has a few hundred patents, and Microsoft has thousands. So you can guess that the quality of the patents and the revenue streams of both companies were considered.
Contrast Nat Friedman’s thoughts above with Justin’s below, note that Justin’s current story jibes with the one Microsoft was always pushing – a rarity when the two sides agree on an aspect of the deal.
“Actually, Novell gets more money,” Steinman said. Even when discounting Microsoft payments to Novell for access to Novell’s Suse Linux, Novell still gets more, he said. Steinman attributed the disparity to Microsoft simply having more customers than Novell.
“They’re paying for coverage for more customers,” Steinman said. He said he did know the difference in the amount of money changing hands.
Steinman recited the often-repeated mantra that the deal with Microsoft was what customers wanted. They wanted the IP issue to go away and they want Linux interoperability with Windows, he said.
Microsoft, in a statement, said the dollar amount of the arrangement will vary.
“Both Microsoft and Novell have patent portfolios, and as part of the patent agreement, each is paying the other for access to these patents. There is an upfront payment from Microsoft to Novell,” Microsoft said. “Then, Novell will pay Microsoft on an ongoing basis. The total dollar amount depends on how big certain Novell businesses grow over time. It is impossible to say how all payments will net out until Novell’s business performance over the next several years is factored in.”
Still, notice how there is no reciprocal royalty from Microsoft to Novell going forward, Novell receives a lump sum up front in exchange for their tacit acknowledgment of their IP claims, which Microsoft will slowly take back in royalties should they survive very long.
Anyhow, as has previously been demonstrated, the money in these deals is absolutely irrelevant to the monopolist: one week of Microsoft profit pays for 5 years of SUSE coupons; I once said that this is a "company that is facing a daily $1.5M fine in the EU and never even blinked. ". What is important to Microsoft is to have a list of protocol licensees who find their interoperability tax to be "reasonable and non-discriminatory" for the E.C., and to get Linux distributors to purchase their right-to-use license directly from the source, rather than via SCO.
Basically, Microsoft is willing to take a loss at first to win some customers for their right-to-use license, and Novell was happy to sign up as the first high-profile "reference" client, for some consideration – namely nearly one-third of a billion dollars or so, all told.
Poor Xandros, according to Groklaw they reportedly got zilch to be reference client #2, but they still have to pay the royalty on shipping products. Ouch.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in GPL, Law, Microsoft, Patents, Xandros at 3:59 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz
As Shane promised, the new Web site is finally up and running. At the moment it only redirects to Xandros-tagged posts in BoycottXNovell.com.
It sure seems like Xandors has betrayed some of its own customer, who actively seek a route out. Check out this threa[t|d] in their own Web site. Its title is “Xandros = Microsoft, Which Linux To Use Now?”. PCLOS 2007 is currently leading in the polls and, mind you, being a community distribution, Microsoft cannot ‘buy’ PCLOS.
In other news, Forbes (which is typically biased) publishes the article “Microsoft’s Protection Racket?”.
Microsoft should have admitted that Linux matters sooner. For years, the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant seemed to be in denial as the open-source operating software made gains against its Windows franchise.
Elsewhere we learn a little more about the possible legal implications.
Why would any company deliberately defy license terms? Because it can. We’d imagine that Microsoft’s pockets are deep enough that it couldn’t care less about legal action that might arise because of the agreement. In fact, as this InformationWeek piece seems to suggest, it may be that Microsoft wants to challenge the license in court.
As we stressed in the past, Microsoft tries to augment a list of companies which provide ‘admission’ of patent guilt. If these companies need to be paid in order to be lured into unjustifiable admission, Microsoft can use its deep pockets. That is also the point which Bruce Parens made yesterday. Xandros sold out.
Update: Shane and I initially dismissed concerns about the possibility of a legal battle. I changed my mind after hearing from PJ.
That said, Matt Aslett, who sort of sparked this debate, seems to be retracting now.
I also wrote that any deal with Xandros would negate my suggestion that Microsoft could be poised to mount a legal challenge to the FSF.
I’ve had second thoughts on that. This could be the deal that it uses to prove that the FSF is blocking its attempts to “build bridges”. We’ll see.
Microsoft expressed no intent to take legal action (not explicitly anyway). Alas, IANAL.
Update #2: Also worth seeing is the following discussion at Groklaw. Among the good points, which also highlight the resemblance to SCO’s ploy, there’s this reasonable guess:
I’m starting to wonder if this is just face-saving PR, after getting zonked by the GPL. Why would Microsoft care about a company this insignificant otherwise?
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Antitrust, Corel, Deals, Deception, Humour, IBM, Intellectual Monopoly, Law, Microsoft, Novell, SCO, SUN, UNIX, Xandros at 1:24 am by Shane Coyle
As a follow-up to a previous train of thought, regarding the Usual Suspects (so to speak) in Microsoft’s intellectual property saga, I thought it would be fun to review just some of the players who have had a role – recurring, walk-on, or otherwise.
Actually, to make this more engaging, this will be our first contest on the site, I believe. Put the following events in chronological order, the first correct answer in the comments section gets a coupon, redeemable for a free download of EDU-Nix Dual-Mode CD, or our very own SueMe Linux ("still in early development stages", ie vaporware).
- Caldera buys, then becomes SCO
- MS and Sun make a deal, in which all OOO installs prior to the deal were absolved, as was Sun’s StarOffice going forward, from MS IP claims.
- Corel acquires Wordperfect from Novell
- Corel invests in Xandros
- SCO sued IBM for who knows what, the story changes often.
- MS and Sun took a Unix license from SCO Update June 6: Sun also took out a Linux right-to-use license for their end users
- Caldera acquired DR-Dos from Novell, allegedly promising to sue MS but not mention Novell’s involvement.
- SCO tried to impose a right-to-use license on Linux users
- Novell claims ownership of IP SCO using to extort Linux users
- MS makes a deal with Novell in which Novell agrees to pay ongoing royalties based on open source software shipped under the agreement in exchange for a right-to-use license (covenant not to sue) for Novell customers.
- Caldera Sues MS over DR-DOS
- Novell sells some unix rights to SCO
- Novell Sues MS over WordPerfect
- MS makes a deal with Xandros
- Sun sues MS over their Java implementation
- MS makes a deal with Novell for Novell to pull out of EU antitrust suit
- Corel pledges to implement OOXML in Wordperfect
Of course, this is almost certainly a woefully incomplete, and perhaps even wholly inaccurate (hey, it’s late and I’m working from memory) listing of just some of the events in recent software industry history involving our friends from Redmond, meant mainly as a fun exercise and a conversation starter…
What did I miss? What did I mess up? And, what does it all mean? Tawk amungst yaselves…
Permalink
Send this to a friend
Posted in Action, Deals, Formats, Interoperability, Novell, Patent Covenant, Petitions, Xandros at 12:47 am by Shane Coyle
Bruce Perens has posted a new petition for the Xandrosoft deal, please feel free to sign in and make your feelings known. Somehow, I don’t think that this will get the groundswell of response that Novell’s sellout had.
I actually kinda feel bad about that, since we also have decided that we cannot dedicate enough time or effort to an entire boycottxandros.com website; it’s like in Heathers when Martha "Dumptruck" can’t even get attention by trying to commit suicide, which Xandros has essentially done. Kinda sad, really.
For those who have never heard of Xandros (which will be a lot of you), it’s a commercial distribution descended from Corel’s Linux system, funded by the same VCs that funded Ximian, and derived from Debian at one point, although I don’t know how much comes from there any longer. They’ve been around a long time, although for obvious reasons I can’t believe they are very successful.
…
There’s not much to do about Xandros. They aren’t a big player, this isn’t going to make them into one. We should turn away from them as was the case with Novell, but it seems a bit silly since most of us didn’t even know they existed.
So, Boycott Xandros!
Wow, that was easy.
Permalink
Send this to a friend
06.04.07
Posted in Antitrust, Corel, Deals, Intellectual Monopoly, Microsoft, Open XML, Patent Covenant, Patents, Site News, Standard, Xandros at 11:36 pm by Shane Coyle
A somewhat staccato listing of some of the thoughts bouncing around my head today RE: Xandrosoft.
Is an IP License Required to Implement OOXML?
The ISO committee members, as well as numerous governmental IT departments, may very well want to take a close look at the recent "Microvell" and "Xandrosoft" deals, since it appears this is the second consecutive vendor that pledged to participate in implementing OOXML that also simultaneously took out an MS IP License of some kind, including patent coverage for customers.
Is the OOXML "standard" encumbered by additional Microsoft patents or other IP? Is it necessary to license this additional IP in order to bring a "blessed" implementation to market? As a matter of fact, of all of the companies to pledge to implement ooxml, the only one I don’t recall as having taken an MS IP license at the time is Corel, which brings me to…
The Usual Suspects
As Stephen Walli noted earlier, one of Xandros’ major investors is Corel, a company which certainly is no stranger to dealings with Microsoft, whether it be licensing or litigating – sorta like Novell, or Sun, or Caldera(SCO) for that matter.
Stephen had wondered aloud if, seeing as Xandros has no apparent patent portfolio to bargain with, somehow Corel’s patents could have found their way into this deal between Xandros and Microsoft. If true, I am wondering if it is also the fact that MS’ communications protocol license and patent covenant from this deal are finding their way to Corel for their OOXML implementation…
If so, that would be 3-for-3; you can pledge to implement OOXML, but be sure to take out the appropriate license to compensate Microsoft for their IP: hardly an "open" standard, if true, and something that Microsoft may want to clarify so that no one else draws such a conclusion.
Site News: www.boycottxandros.com
On an administrative note, Roy and I have decided that Xandros doesn’t get their own boycott website, sorry if that offends them in some odd way (if someone wants to volunteer to run the site, I will reconsider…). Otherwise, the www.boycottxandros.com domain will (shortly) be setup to redirect to our Xandros category.
Site News: Polls Voted Off
The polls have never really taken off, occasionally they get a boost when the diggers and slashdotters come through, but for the most part they have either lacked compelling subject matter (my fault) or perhaps poor exploitation buried there on the sidebar. In any event, I am shutting down the polls feature.
For the record, there were two questions:
Do you believe other Linux vendors should enter into similar pacts with Microsoft?
Yes: 22% No: 78% Votes: 533
Should the GPLv3 include the ‘Microvell grandfather clause’?
Yes: 66% No: 34% Votes: 149
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