[opensuse] Re: OpenSuSE and MS-Novell deal. (moved from opensuse-amd64)
I don't feel Mr Leopardi represents "open source people" per se. There are a variety of opinions. OTOH, you could answer his questions. Paul C Leopardi wrote:
OK, if there will be no "binding contribution agreement" then why is Microsoft talking about it? Microsoft is one of the two parties to the deal. Are you suggesting that Microsoft does not know what it is talking about?
Microsoft knows what it is talking about. Moreover, it knows how what it is saying sounds. MS will talk about whatever seems to be to its advantage. What it then does is somewhat independent. That's normal for companies. It's called marketing. I'm not clear about what your concerns are. That Novell will enter into an invalid agreement and be subject to legislation? That MS will? John E Perry wrote:
And you, like so many others, have completely missed the point.
Patent violations have nothing to do with what the patent holder puts out. They have only to do with what the user or vendor uses. I'm afraid I don't understand this. Which users? Which vendors? Microsoft will almost certainly (unless it's all smoke-blowing, as some have guessed) start suing for patent violations of code put into OSS software by _others_. These others will have to defend their code against Microsoft's assertions. Others? Not MS or Novell? MS can bring many cases, but once a couple fail they've had it, AIUI, unless they can keep coming up with unique situations (which seems unlikely). The only way to make use of this is as a threat, making companies hope they won't be singled out. But it can only happen once or twice unless the case has merit (which it seems not to).
The rest of this seems like FUD. IBM and Novell are not the only parties who make use of open source. It is possible for companies to organise. And when has a software patent violation where prior art exists stood up? Can you give an example? Russell Jones Volker Kuhlmann wrote:
On Sat 18 Nov 2006 18:10:06 NZDT +1300, Paul C. Leopardi wrote:
OK, if there will be no "binding contribution agreement" then why is Microsoft talking about it? Microsoft is one of the two parties to the deal. Are you suggesting that Microsoft does not know what it is talking about?
Funny, how open source people scream "FUD FUD FUD" at Microsoft all the time, but then they do a 180 and take every word from microsoft.com as gospel. Shouldn't they know better by now?
Volker
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
Sorry for the delay; I was out of town for the holidays. Russell Jones wrote:
... John E Perry wrote:
And you, like so many others, have completely missed the point.
Patent violations have nothing to do with what the patent holder puts out. They have only to do with what the user or vendor uses. I'm afraid I don't understand this. Which users? Which vendors?
Anyone who uses the protected material (or what is alleged to be protected) to produce something. If Microsoft puts the patented material there, they have already approved it, and have nothing to even start a case with. If _anyone_ else does, they have a case. Even if the other person (Novell, IBM, Joe Geekster, etc.) didn't know about the patent. And they can sue not just the person who put it in there, but anyone who uses it -- although, it's not generally practical to sue Joe and you and me, so they'll sue IBM, Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat, etc, etc. Not Novell, now, at least for the term of the agreement.
Microsoft will almost certainly (unless it's all smoke-blowing, as some have guessed) start suing for patent violations of code put into OSS software by _others_. These others will have to defend their code against Microsoft's assertions. Others? Not MS or Novell? MS can bring many cases, but once a couple fail they've had it, AIUI, unless they can keep coming up with unique situations (which seems unlikely). The only way to make use of this is as a threat, making companies hope they won't be singled out. But it can only happen once or twice unless the case has merit (which it seems not to).
Well, actually, each case continues until the presiding judge decides its fate (or is overruled by a superior judge). Usually, if a patent's outcome is declared in one jurisdiction, it's quick and easy to get it decided in others, especially if it's a superior court that decides it. And, of course, merit in our present corrupt court system is simply a legalese word to be played with in the court, and frequently decided in favor of the one who has the most bucks. But if Microsoft brings ten (or a hundred , or...) suits regarding different patents, each one will have to be decided independently, unless the defendant can find _compelling_ linkage between the various patents. And if Microsoft sues all the distributions, they will all have to defend themselves independently, unless they can convince a judge to unify the suits.
The rest of this seems like FUD. IBM and Novell are not the only parties who make use of open source. It is possible for companies to organise. And when has a software patent violation where prior art exists stood up? Can you give an example?
Of course it's FUD. But the most effective FUD is that that's based on a realistic possibility of truth. And, as we've seen in the past couple of weeks, Novell's agreement has given a possible Microsoft patent attack at least a thick veneer of realistic success. That's what has so many of us concerned, and why Novell is now so roundly reviled in the OSS community. Note that I regard Novell as one of the heroes in Microsoft's previous attack, the SCO affair. I really hope they haven't been duped fatally by Microsoft in this present affair. But I'm not very confident. I think our only hope is the prospect of IBM continuing to use its resources to defend us, and I really hope Novell pitches in and validates the good opinion I and so many others have had in the past. BTW, IANAL, etc. Just a moderately well educated observer who has followed this disgusting mess we have for a patent/court system for a number of years, with increasing dismay. -- John Perry -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org
participants (2)
-
John E. Perry -
Russell Jones