decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Novell's New Patent Policy
Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:32 AM EDT

Novell is announcing today a new patent policy, in which they say they are prepared, if necessary, to use their patent portfolio, "which covers technologies with significant value and widespread deployment in the IT sector today", to defend against patent attacks on open source products they deliver. Here is the the policy statement. The heart of it is this:

"In the event of a patent claim against a Novell open source product, Novell would respond using the same measures generally used to defend proprietary software products accused of patent infringement. Among other things, Novell would seek to address the claim by identifying prior art that could invalidate the patent; demonstrating that the product does not infringe the patent; redesigning the product to avoid infringement; or pursuing a license with the patent owner.

"As appropriate, Novell is prepared to use our patents, which are highly relevant in today's marketplace, to defend against those who might assert patents against open source products marketed, sold or supported by Novell. Some software vendors will attempt to counter the competitive threat of Linux by making arguments about the risk of violating patents. Vendors that assert patents against customers and competitors such as Novell do so at their own peril and with the certainty of provoking a response. We urge customers to remind vendors that all are best served by using innovation and competition to drive purchasing decisions, rather than the threat of litigation."



Here's the press release, which says, among other things:

"Open source is a disruptive technology. As a collaborative development model, it delivers economies of scale and a quality of software that traditional software vendors are hard-pressed to match. This is great for IT customers, because it means more innovation and choice," said Jack Messman, chairman and CEO of Novell. "Because of its disruptive nature, open source threatens entrenched interests, some of whom are fighting back with vague accusations of intellectual property risks in open source technologies. Novell today is taking an active stand in defense of the software we offer – both proprietary and open source – by stating our willingness to use our own patent portfolio to help our customers. We urge other vendors with relevant patents to make the same commitment."

"The intellectual property risks associated with open source software are really no different than those with proprietary software," said Joseph A. LaSala, Jr., general counsel of Novell. "Novell is committed to the protection of intellectual property in the emerging 'mixed source' environment, where proprietary and open source solutions co-exist. While patents play an important role in protecting intellectual property, their use by some vendors to influence customer choice is without precedent. We believe that customers should be free to make purchasing decisions based on factors such as price, value, security and service, not based on threats of intellectual property litigation."

"Our approach is to protect customer choice, not threaten it, and support the innovation inherent in the open source model," Messman added. "With this policy, we're saying we'll use our patents to actively protect Novell's open source technologies against any third party asserting its patents. We will use our patents for the original purpose patents were established – to encourage innovation – not to shut down options for customers. We hope our leadership in this arena will lead other patent holders to take a similar stance."

Here is a section of the statement they sent to customers:

Dear Valued Customer:

Today Novell expands its commitment to you by putting its extensive patent portfolio squarely behind its customers, and we thought you'd like to know about it. Our motivations are simple: protect customer choice and preserve marketplace innovation.

Novell has just issued a statement announcing our preparedness, if necessary, to use our own patent portfolio - which covers technologies with significant value and widespread deployment in the IT sector today - to defend against patent attacks on open source products we deliver. Both the press release and policy statement are available at http://www.novell.com/company/policies/patent/

This initiative is aimed at any vendor that tries to mislead customers using intellectual property rights as a reason to avoid pursuit of an open source offering. To our knowledge, no vendor has actually filed a patent suit against an open source product. Instead, some appear to be simply trying to sow doubts in the minds of customers to avoid competing on technical merits, security, quality of service and value. Novell believes that open source software poses no greater risk of patent infringement than does closed source software.

(Update: Media coverage here and here and here with more details. IT News quotes Bruce Lowry as saying that Novell currently holds 411 patents and the company receives about 30 new patents each year. eWeek's Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has an opinion piece here on what's wrong with software patents.)

While commending Novell for its willingness to fight for FOSS, and I do, from the heart, I can't help but remind everyone that if there were no software patents, none of this would be necessary. Think about it. Please.


  


Novell's New Patent Policy | 250 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections, please
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:52 AM EDT
If any

[ Reply to This | # ]

OT and links
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:54 AM EDT
As usual, please use <a href=""></a> format to make links
clickable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Trolls keep in
Authored by: overshoot on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:57 AM EDT
Open one spade

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM, HP, Cisco, Nortel, etc.
Authored by: aardvarq on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:00 AM EDT
Thank you Novell!!

I hope that all others who are using Linux within their products are prepared to
do the same. The patent portfolio of IBM, HP, Novell, Cisco, Motorola and many
others will make our friend Bill think twice about his next moves.

Fight Fire with Fire.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's New Patent Policy - Probably IBM's Too
Authored by: webster on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT
Given that Novell and IBM are in the open source camp; that Novell recently
received a $50 million infusion from IBM; that Novell performed a successful
legal flanking manouver in the SCO wars; and that IBM is media shy in so far as
legal matters go, One can surmise that this policy goes for IBM too. Formidable
indeed.

---
webster

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's New Patent Policy
Authored by: phrostie on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:07 AM EDT
that is too cool.

i'll have to retry suse.

---
=====
phrostie
Oh I have slipped the surly bonds of DOS
and danced the skies on Linux silvered wings.
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/snafuu

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does this mean free java is safe?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:10 AM EDT
Novell distributes Mono, which included GNU Classpath (GNU Classpath, Essential Libraries for Java, is a GNU project to create free core class libraries for use with virtual machines and compilers for the java programming language). Kaffe and GCC (gcj/gij) also use this.

Yes, Mono can also be used as java virtual machine! (Through the IKVM.NET project!)

So this seems to make "attacks" on free java through patents a lot harder! Go Novell! Go!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's New Patent Policy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:13 AM EDT
This whole Patent issue reminds me of the US history of the 70's to the late
80's.
It's the Patent Cold War. If you attack me with yours...I'll attack back with
mine. Everybody trying to aquire more patents so they feel better protected ,
nobody winning. etc.

Are we going to end up with a GenX of programmers with that?

[ Reply to This | # ]

pursuing a license with the patent owner.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:15 AM EDT

It would be interesting to know how Novell sees "... pursuing a license
with the patent owner." in combination with the GPL.

Are they going to ask for a world-wide royalty free usage of the patent? I think
it will be hard to convince the patent owner of that.

H@ns

[ Reply to This | # ]

If only IBM would join in....
Authored by: NemesisNL on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:19 AM EDT
This patent nightmare would effectively be over. I agree with PJ that no patents
on software would be even better but as solutions go this one will do.

Novell has bet it's future on linux and has no alternative then the present
strategy. It's good to see them joining in but getting IBM to do the same would
be the coup de grace.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's New Patent Policy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:35 AM EDT
We will be deploying a Linux server where I work. Since it will be used for my
project I am happy to say I played a pivitol role in convincing them to not only
use Linux but use Novell's Suse distro. This makes me feel even better about
that decision. Way to go Novell! You just gave me one more justification win!
It might have been an easier sell had this came out 3 weeks ago. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just like a true salesman/business
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:40 AM EDT
I'm happy Novell is doing what they are doing. But I would have rather seen
them extend protection to all GPL and FOSS software. It's great to see they are
protecting the products the deliver, but will they protect a developer who
donates to them but may have another project Novell doesn't use end up in peril?
A friend isn't a friend part way, it's all the way or you're just a user.

It's a good plan for them tho, it will show they are serious about what's going
on it will push people to use their product instead of someone else's.

I hope IBM steps up also, maybe HP and SUN as well.

[ Reply to This | # ]

On the subject of EU software patents ..
Authored by: IrisScan on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:45 AM EDT
.. I've just received a letter from my local MP . It's quite encouraging and
pretty much reflects my own concerns regarding EU software patents , but doesn't
really cover all the bases .
I've written back to elucidate a few more points and to try and get hold of the
contact details of all the concerned individuals whom she named . I'll send the
same letter to all of them .
It may not be much in the grand scheme of things but it's better than sitting on
my derriere hoping that someone else will fight my corner .
Anybody who wants the email addresses of these UK politicians should contact me
directly . Even though politicians contact details aren't exactly secret , in
deference to PJ's policy I won't post them .

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's New Patent Policy
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:51 AM EDT
"...While commending Novell for its willingness to fight for FOSS, and I
do, from the heart, I can't help but remind everyone that if there were no
software patents, none of this would be necessary. Think about it.
Please..."

Following is the text of a post I originally posted under the previous article
entitled "Linus on MS, Shared Source and Security" but I think it
applies equally well here.


I wonder what the world would be like today if the earliest street 'rappers'
from New York City had not only written down their new musical techniques, but
patented them as well. After all hip hop, and all written music, is just the
codified form of an idea. After writing, this written musical 'source code'
must still be processed by either an electronic or biological interface to the
device that will produce the auditory notes. In the case of a piece of sheet
music, this interface might be the young lady sitting at the piano or a Memphis
gentelman on a stage with a saxophone, or even a highly specialized OCR device
designed to read sheet music and play it electronically as 'Haus' or what have
you.

I argue that there is no real difference between written sheet music and written
software. If written music were patentable, the world would indeed be a much
sadder, much poorer place - as it will be with the increasing proliferation of
software patents.

In the future, perhaps Stephen King should patent the horror genre, Dean R.
Koontz should patent his brand of fiction and Grisham patent the legal novel.
While this might enrich a few individuals, it clearly will not enrich our lives
or the world in which we live.

The damage inherent in software patents is incalculable.

Software must be liberated from the tyranny of patents. Software must live free,
protected by our tried and true copyright system and licensed for use by
others.


Richard Stallman has given us the GPL, a license that is appreciated and loved
by most Open Source coders and only despised by those would unjustly profit from
the labor of programmers they have not paid.

Some are saying that the elimination of copyrights is raising the bar too high,
that our community can never make our elected representatives understand the
complexities of this issue, that we must settle for compromise, that we must
settle for reform of the software patent system.

I believe that we must argue for what is right and just. Only the complete
elimination of software patents will free us from the tyranny of patents on
ideas and concepts.

We must not settle for less.

---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
$ echo "Darl" | sed "s/arl/ick/"

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK SUN, time to put your money where your mouth is...
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:57 AM EDT
Are you going to follow suit and prove you're not in bed with MS? If you don't,
we will all know you where you stand and you will experience how cold the
community can be.

I thank you for what you have done, but you have done too much in the recent
past to make us think you are untrustworthy and you do need to prove your
loyalty now. We don't NEED you (although we want you to be a part of our
community), but you NEED us, just remember that.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's New Patent Policy
Authored by: OtisAardvark on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 11:59 AM EDT
This won't help combat the MAIN threat of software patents, namely patent
holding companies whose entire business is to hold and milk software patent
portfolios. It is all too easy to look at the end over the means, to drop some
idealism to get things done - but it causes loss of focus and motivation, and I
don't feel the situation is desperate enough to warrant it yet.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's New Patent Policy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 12:22 PM EDT
So there's no problem just so long as the bad guys don't already have a patent
cross licensing agreement with Novell.

[ Reply to This | # ]

IBM: General Grant of software?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 12:39 PM EDT

I see parallels to the U.S. Civil War (non-U.S. readers,
bear with me), a war to free us from software slavery.

Linus is Honest Abe, willing to tend the horse of
whatever field commander will bring victories. SCO
is merely Fort Sumter, and we've already spotted
software Copperheads sniping from the bushes.

IBM is General Grant, the one to do the heavy lifting,
not perfect, often slow, but willing to go the distance,
sometimes at great cost.

Bill Gates is General Lee, the toughest opponent you
could ever face, brilliant but on the wrong side of the
great moral question. Linus and IBM are going to need
strong commanders and well-trained foot soldiers to
match up to this guy.

Groklaw has the foot soldiers and is recruiting more,
and is gathering intelligence. Novell has just assumed
a key field command.

Sun Microsystems is General McClellan, at first Lincoln's
top general but eventually found unfit for command,
later running against Lincoln for president -- and losing
again.

Eric Raymond is John Brown, perhaps the strongest
moral voice against slavery, even winning admiration
from Frederick Douglass, but rash and sometimes
unthinking.

We may have a candidate for General Sherman in
AutoZone, which seems to have Sherman's fire. (Pun
intended.)

And, just as it did in the 1860s, Europe may decide
the outcome by which side it supports. Yet now, as
then, what Europe does may depend on whether the
forces of freedom in the U.S. can win enough victories
to keep Europe away from the forces of darkness.

It has been about a year and a half since SCO filed
suit -- the same amount of time between the opening
shots at Fort Sumter and the time Lincoln drafted
the Emancipation Proclamation.

Maybe next Jan. 1 will see another dawn of freedom.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is Novell's patent portfolio?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 01:27 PM EDT
What patent portfolio do they have, to ensure that large companies (e.g.
Microsoft) think twice before attacking open source projects?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Promissory Estoppel?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 01:31 PM EDT
Yes, I'm an AC, and no, this is not intended
as a troll.

At worst I'm a bit paranoid.

If (and I say *if*) Novell goes SCO on us
a few years down the road, would this
be useable in court in some way against Novell?

IANAL and IANAT, just a seriously annoyed Linux fan who
may have spent too much time reading hysterical speculative
posts on GrokLaw.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's New Patent Policy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 02:31 PM EDT
So this basicly means that if any company wants to make a IP sued over a FOSS
project, Novell could ( if company in question uses some of novells IP ) call it
a draw ?

Stephen Flour

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's New Patent Policy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 02:44 PM EDT
I think possibly the best thing about this is that it pretty much shoots down the whole "companies *need* patents to protect their IP" arguments.

It seems Novell is putting their money where there mouth is - and good-on-em for doing so. I for one will be encouraging people to go with SuSe....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is this a message to Microsoft?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 02:45 PM EDT
I wonder,
It seems that this press-release is sort of aimed at Microsoft, since, I
believe, IP concerns are (in)directly been initiated and provided in the realm
of Mirosoft's influences and PR. I mean why else mention (US)patents for
protection of OSS business, amongst Mono which itself is moreoverless supervised
by Novell.

Does Novell, in effect, have patents that would hinder Microsoft in their
business, by using patents?


[ Reply to This | # ]

A message to M$
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 02:47 PM EDT
This sends a message to M$ and anyone else who might wish to use patents against
Linux.

But that message isn't "you can't", nor even "we'll hit
back". It's "don't be so dumb as to attack in your own name".

Because what neither Novell, M$, nor anyone else can protect themselves against
is a patents-only company, with no software business of its own. Novell has
sent the clearest signal yet to anyone who wants to attack with patents: do it
by proxy!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Novell's New Patent Policy
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 04:06 PM EDT
I think a lot of big software companies are realizing that if the patent mess is
not fixed soon, there is going to be a world war with everyone sueing everyone
over patent violations.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Patent Cold War
Authored by: Eeyore on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 05:08 PM EDT
I can see it now. A policy of Mutual assured destruction via patents.
Hehehehehe.... I'll host the web site if someone else want's to create it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A good article on patents on page 18 of this week's Computerworld...
Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 05:36 PM EDT
Although it doesn't advocate the abolition of software patents, the article does
call for patent reform and even mentions Linux in the context of potential,
future, patent problems.

We need much more media interest in the software patent debacle. Even this
relatively small article is greatly appreciated though - as I have taken some
pains to inform them.

---
(GL) Groklaw Lurker
End the tyranny, eliminate software patents.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A suggestion for a anti-software patents club
Authored by: leon on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 06:19 PM EDT
Numerous people have wondered if there's a way to subvert
the patent system in the same way as the GPL subverts the
copyright system. The usual problem with these schemes is
that playing the patents system takes money. I reckon the
solution is to come up with a scheme that's acceptable for
'nice' commercial organisations, and use their money. Does
anyone think a scheme something like this could work:

Loads of companies claim they only want to use their
patents defensively. They must be encouraged to put their
patents into an anti-software patents club, which would
have rules something like this:
1. It costs money for commercial organisations to join.
Open-source software can join for free while the software
is being distributed in an open-source manner. (i.e. you
can't get free membership by bunging BSD-licensed code in
your proprietary system but BSD-licesned projects can
play). So the club should have some real money for
administration.
2. All software patents owned by members are available for
license under something that I really want to call the
General Patent License. It says that you can use the
patent for free as long as you don't sue ANYONE for
infringing software patents (except when you're suing them
under the terms of the General Patent license)
3. If a member is sued, they can retaliate with all the
patents owned by all members.

The membership money can be spent on funding legal
defenses and helping with patent applications.

The goal is to gain a critical mass of patents in the
club, then anyone with the wrong attitudes towards
software patents will be forced to hide. Also, people who
claim they've only got the patent for defensive purposes
will be asked to prove it.

IANAL, and I'm sure the rules would be much longer when a
lawyer has finished with them. What I've suggested is
incompatible with the GPL.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Strategy - Tactics
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 06:20 PM EDT
Novell deserves (and I suspect will get) much respect and kudos from this move. However Novells patent arsenal will not protect against litigation companies that offer no products and do no other business. Even IBMs massive portfolio would be no protection against these scum. We must change the system.

The first battle in the war is the effort to to turn back the software patent tide in the EU. We need to try to stop matters from getting any worse by holding the line there. After that we need to start thinking about how to go on the offensive. I can think of the following lines of attack.

First method

  • The applicability of patent legislation to software is legally very dubious. In the 1981 case of Diamond v. Diehr, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered the PTO to grant a patent on an invention on the basis that the invention was not merely a mathematical algorithm, but was a process for molding rubber, and hence was patentable . In other words the supreme court affirmed that algorithms should not be patentable and ordered the patent awarded on the basis that it was not purely an algorithm. The patent office has been interpreting this as a green light for patents on software, but that isn't really what the supreme court said. What we need is a patent case to go before the surpreme court to give the court a chance to clarify its opinion.

    Second method

  • Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution provides that, "the Congress shall have power . . . to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Current patent laws, especially as they apply to software, clearly do not serve the objective of promoting "science and the useful arts". I believe one could mount a challenge to the constitutionality of software patents on these grounds. I believe there is enough evidence to conclusively demonstrate that the current patent regime is actually stifling the progress of science and the useful arts.

    This wouldn't be my first choice for a line of attack. It is a more high risk strategy. I'd give the supreme court a chance to correct its mistake first. However even if the supreme court clarified that patents should not apply to software it is then likely that the certain tame congress critters would then try to legislate to explicitly extend patent laws to restore the status quo. In that case you could go after the constitutionality of those laws in this way.

    A possible advantage of this strategy would be that it could help clean up the mess faster. By forcing a complete redrafting of patent legislation there would be a chance to put in place a quick and easy challenge process to wipe out egregious patents. Heck, stall them long enough in writing replacement legislation and we could wipe out patents altogether! IMO that would be a good thing, although I know that view is probably not shared by the majority, even here.

    Redrafting the system would be useful because even if the battle were won tomorrow and software patents were no longer accepted, the aftermath of the current nightmare is not going to go away quickly. Software patents are not identifiable as such in any simple way. They are simply patents. If the patent office stopped awarding software patents right now we'd still have to live with existing patents on software for a long time. While each would then be easier to fight, because of the absurdly slow and expensive legal process in the US, litigation companies would still be able to use them to bludgeon innovators into the dirt for a long time to come.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Good article on the Sun vs. Kodak case on today's Newsforge... (n/t)
    Authored by: Groklaw Lurker on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 06:29 PM EDT


    ---
    (GL) Groklaw Lurker
    End the tyranny, eliminate software patents.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell's New Patent Policy
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 06:52 PM EDT
    For a few years, I was thinking about removing my e-mail
    address from Novell's mailing list. They had such great
    products, but bad marketing drove the company almost to the
    point of irrelevance.

    But I counld never quite bring myself to do it, even though
    I've done little work with NetWare in the past three years.
    Why? Because I remembered the great technology saying of
    the early 1990's -- if IBM had another foot, they'd shoot
    themselves in that one, too.

    The Novell e-mails got more encouraging since they bought
    Ximian. I viewed the SuSE (my favorite distro [no flames
    or distro battles, please]) purchase with very guarded
    optimism.

    With Novell's position in the SCO battle and this e-mail, I
    am feeling better about Novell. Yeah, they have a big
    patent portfolio, but I think they are like IBM and really
    understand that FOSS is the future. Patent portfolios are
    a necessary weapon they must wield against their foes.
    Something they'd rather not spend money on, the the Bad
    Guys are armed with patent portfolios they would like to
    use against progress, innovation and freedom.

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    And in related news,
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 07:03 PM EDT
    Novell changes their corporate logo to a coiled rattlesnake.

    http://store.njflags.com/cuflny3x52.html

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Patent Policy
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 08:48 PM EDT
    What does our Constitution have to say about patents? This:

    "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
    limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
    Writings and Discoveries[.]"

    Do you notice anywhere in that quote where companies or corporations are granted
    that right? I didn't find it either.

    Companies exist on paper. They are inanimate objects. As such they are utterly
    incapable of creating anything.

    Bottom line is this -- People create. People invent. Hence, the mere thought
    of companies being able to create anything is sheer folly.

    krp

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    • Patent Policy - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:19 PM EDT
    • BUT... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 10:28 PM EDT
    Groklaw's Made the Big Time At Last!!!
    Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 12 2004 @ 09:30 PM EDT
    it seems you are really getting to them PJ...just saw this on infoworld
    headlined
    SCO plans alternative to Groklaw Web site

    http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/10/12/HNscoplans_1.html

    LOL congratulations! and keep up the good work
    (sorry for the post unrelated to the topic here)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    Novell's New Patent Policy
    Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 13 2004 @ 07:55 AM EDT
    Applause.

    (whilst still keeping an eye on them, they're in it for the money, after all...)

    [ Reply to This | # ]

    They haven't committed to defending all FOSS
    Authored by: mscibing on Saturday, October 16 2004 @ 01:02 AM EDT
    While commending Novell for its willingness to fight for FOSS,

    While sort of. They'll fight patents asserted against FOSS products "marketed, sold or supported by Novell". Which is really a "well duh" kind of position. They haven't committed to fighting for FOSS in general, nor would I expect them to.

    I don't wish to come down on Novell, not at all. They've made a commitment to fighting fair (not competing by threat of litigation). They haven't promised to fight for FOSS in general. But not only are the commitments they have made great, they've gone further and supported FOSS as a benefit and good choice for consumers. Bravo to Novell!

    [ Reply to This | # ]
    Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
    Comments are owned by the individual posters.

    PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )     		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
    Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
    News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
    Powered By GeekLog
    Created this page in 0.05 seconds