|
|
| Novell Marketing in the UK - Updated - Germany too |
 |
|
Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:20 PM EST
|
Novell is already marketing its Microsoft deal in the UK. A couple of readers have sent me their UK newsletter, and it's a pip. They mention the patent aspect of the deal, by the way, prominently. The newsletter has a link to this page, where it is all spelled out clearly:The patent cooperation agreement enables Microsoft and Novell to give customers assurance of protection against patent infringement claims. It gives customers confidence that the technologies they use and deploy in their environments are compliant with the two companies’ patents.
As part of this agreement, Microsoft will provide a covenant not to assert its patent rights against customers who have purchased SUSE Linux Enterprise Server or other covered products from Novell, and Novell will provide an identical covenant to customers who have a licensed version of Windows or other covered products from Microsoft.
Anybody but me see a disjoint between this wording and Novell's letter to the community? And if you don't mind my asking one teeny tiny question: Are software patents legal in the UK? The marketing page puts it on the record that Novell is advertising in the UK a product that supposedly has patent benefits and which implies that users of Novell's products are specifically protected from Microsoft patents. I think we should start to collect all of Novell's marketing wording. It'll be fun. If you see anything by Novell advertising this patent "peace" in your neck of the woods, please send it to me or leave the url in a comment, will you? Update: Germany is now also being targeted with a press release in German.
Andy Updegrove has an interesting report from a Chinese standards/open source conference he attended, with slides, theirs and his. You can see what he calls "Chinese perceptions and strategies relating to open standards and open source software developed quite fully by government officials, professors and the development community." Here's part of what Guangnan Ni, a member of the China Academy of Engineering, said in his presentation: 2. Correction of Undesirable Tendency in Using OSS
Up to date, there are two undesirable trends in using OSS in China: one is not to respect the open source license, violating principles of open source, paying great attention to use OSS, and making few contribution for returns; another one is to exaggerate risks of IPR of OSS, spreading the "FUD" of OSS. Both two cited trends may harm OSS, they will be disadvantageous to the development of Chinese software industry, and must be corrected.
To the first situation, it should request related companies to strictly respect license of open source in the process of applying, integrating and re-innovating OSS. All circles in China should strengthen their investment on OSS, making us "stand on a giant’s shoulders" to carry out independent innovation under an open condition, this is the contribution of OSS in China. Of course, China also should make its return to OSS, it should actively participate international community of OSS, and make its contribution to the OSS and to the advancement of the world’s software technology.
To the second situation, we should strengthen our propaganda, eliminating users’ misgiving, particularly the misgiving about patent infringement risk.... By all means, let's all correct this undesirable tendency of not respecting the GPL and FUDding about patent risks. How weird to find out that it is by no means a local problem, and that China, of all places, sees a need for such correction while here in the US, we see a player who ought to know better not respecting the GPL and FUDding about patent risks. That is why the GPL was invented in the first place. Greed is, sadly, found all over the world, and so now GPLv3 is being rewritten to make it more useful in ways that wouldn't be necessary if people did not sometimes turn out to be snakes. If this is how the corporate players behave when the GPL is in place, imagine if there were no GPL license restrictions. I guess that is its purpose in a nutshell: it forces folks to play fair, even when they don't feel like it, as Novell is sadly going to learn if it doesn't course-correct.
Update: Want to laugh? Without me saying a word, I direct you to the wisdom of Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio, who never lets us down: "This is a win-win for customers," says Laura DiDio, a research fellow in the application infrastructure Relevant Products/Services and software platforms division at the Yankee Group. "First, by pledging not to assert patent rights against SUSE Linux, Microsoft silences many of its critics in the open-source community. Secondly, by stating they will cooperatively build products that make SUSE Linux and Windows Server coexist, Microsoft and Novell are guaranteeing interoperability." : )
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:45 PM EST |
If required
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lordshipmayhem on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:49 PM EST |
"The patent cooperation agreement enables Microsoft and Novell to give
customers assurance of protection against patent infringement claims."
This, just days after the UK courts agreed that software was not patentable,
thereby making this agreement utterly worthless to Novell's UK clients. Rather
than paying Microsoft (via Novell) for nothing whatsoever, they should switch to
another Linux distribution.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: feldegast on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:53 PM EST |
Please make links clickable
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Patent Lawsuit Test Case - Authored by: pscottdv on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 01:59 PM EST
- MS Being sued by Alcatel - Authored by: shiptar on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 02:50 PM EST
- Linux Trademark - Authored by: UncleVom on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 03:25 PM EST
- Microsoft should modify it's EULA - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 04:18 PM EST
- Do Windows users have an "undisclosed balance sheet liability"? - Authored by: swengr on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 05:45 PM EST
- IP Question - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 06:57 PM EST
- IP Question - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 07:02 PM EST
- Polk county, Iowa is taking their anti-trust suit against Microsoft to court. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 07:55 PM EST
- Hmmm. Consider this - Authored by: brian-from-fl on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 10:26 PM EST
- It's Begun. . . - Authored by: tyche on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 12:14 PM EST
- Ballmer's Comments Backfire - Authored by: luvr on Friday, November 24 2006 @ 03:37 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 02:19 PM EST |
Errr..... But aren't software patents illegal here in the UK?
So what's the point?
(apologies for the anonymous login - account details haven't arrived back here
yet!)
--
Pete
"A man should know his limitations!" - Dirty Harry[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 02:26 PM EST |
About 9 years ago I was in a graduate e-commerce class listening to VP & CIO
of a major retail bank. (He was a real VP, not the everyone is VP kind of VP.
And the class was by a supposedly e-commerce pioneer.) The VP said you would
never trust Microsoft and Microsoft was basically evil. I asked why. He
basically answered Microsoft stabs everyone in the back and gave me impression
that Microsoft might even enter banking one day. Microsoft banking went nowhere
obviously. But I didn't pay much attention to his remarks at that time. Now I
see. Those executives are no dummies. He was obviously much smarter than me
that day.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 02:29 PM EST |
Dear Microsoft,
I am currently evaluating BSD and Linux.
I note that your CEO, Steve Ballmer, has claimed that Linux violates patents
held by Microsoft. I would like to do a full cost analysis on linux before
making my decision.
I understand that Microsoft is considering providing individual indemnities.
Please identify with specificity the patents violated, their applicability in
the
UK and in Europe, and the cost of licensing those patented inventions.
Thanks very much,
A concerned European.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 02:38 PM EST |
Novell has betrayed the community, shattered a trust.
I originally selected SuSE because Novell was backing it and because they are an
innovative organization. Now, for whatever "business" reasons in
their minds, they have created a huge opportunity for MS to further cast doubt.
MS will take every available opportunity to use this opening. How can anyone
trust Novell now?
I'll venture that many will switch to other distributions and that Red Hat will
benefit greatly, as will others. People like me will select more trustworthy
vendors. I am testing Red Hat now.
It is sad to see a once great company (Novell used to be THE company when it
came to networking) co-opted so savagely. Ah well, their infatuation will cost
them dearly.
Regards
Paul Thomas[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 03:00 PM EST |
"It is a legal ruling that could determine the reach of US patents overseas. The
US Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether Microsoft should have to pay
damages overseas for infringing a speech recognition software patent owned by
AT&T."
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/96802/us-supreme-court-will-review-micro
soft-overseas-patent-case.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 03:15 PM EST |
Novell is already marketing its Microsoft deal in the UK. A couple
of readers have sent me their UK newsletter, and it's a pip. They mention the
patent aspect of the deal, by the way, prominently. The newsletter has a link to
this page, where it is all spelled out clearly:
That link is just
the original press release, not anything Europe-specific. Of course they're
marketing the deal-- cooperation with MS is something to communicate to
potential customers. What is the wording in the actual newsletter that's
UK-specific which "prominently" features the patent language?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 03:31 PM EST |
will be what happens in Novell-SCO. The Novell lawyers have been going for the
jugular of SCO up to now.
The Microsoft/Novell deal is conspicable by one thing: money, and loads of it.
There is some exchange for the patent cross licensing, and there is a much
bigger wad that enables Microsoft to distribute Novell licenses at a premium
price.
All of this _reeks_ like Microsoft making a problem go away by asking Novell
"how much money gets this out of the way?" and then "what
pretense can we use in public for the deal?". The actual contracts are
kept under seal.
Now Microsoft at some point in time pumped money into Apple presumably without
asserting control, both for keeping "monopoly" off the table and for
defusing a competitor longer lasting than the shortness of cash could.
It does not sound like this is the case in the Novell deal. So it will be
interesting to eventually find out _what_ Microsoft is actually demanding in
return. Will the Novell sharks start playing with their SCO food now? Will we
get a secret settlement? Will something go on that further delays the IBM/SCO
case?
Or is this about something else altogether?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: josmith42 on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 03:49 PM EST |
...and so now GPLv3 is being rewritten to make it more useful in
ways that wouldn't be necessary if people did not sometimes turn out to be
snakes.
If people did not sometimes turn out to be snakes, we
wouldn't need the GPL in the first place! :-)
---
This comment was
typed using the Dvorak keyboard layout. :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 04:51 PM EST |
"Microsoft will provide a covenant not to assert its patent rights
against customers who have purchased SUSE Linux"
So now Novell has
said that Microsoft has patent rights against Linux.
It's no longer
possible to believe that Novell is acting in good faith, or was misled by
Microsoft. Novell knew what Microsoft would make out of this
deal.
Personally, I think Novell sold their reputation too cheap. This
opportunity to cover Linux in FUD was worth at least ten times as much to
Microsoft as they paid. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 05:15 PM EST |
Protest the
Microsoft-Novell Patent
Agreement
http://techp.org/petition/show/1
Now Novell has shown
its real intention and their former
letter to the community was nothing more
than doublespeak
and deception (if not an insulting mockery at the
community).
So, end of contempt and of the benefit of the doubt for
you, Novell.
Now its time for the community to fight back Novell and
Microsoft.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 05:20 PM EST |
I rather think you should worry less about Novell. Before the MS Deal they were
slated for extinction. SuSE Linux has suffered enormously and will lose market
share. The Novell website sucks severely when you are trying to find something
out. All that needs to be done is to point people to the uncontaminated Linux
Distros and let Novell rot away in peace.
And to the novell employees: Jump off while you still can.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 05:38 PM EST |
...and they are following the same policy of consumated
facts: They want to see software patents down every
European's throats and they are acting already as if they
were legal, thus pushing their agenda on EU policymakers.
We already know this but now the nightmare is becoming
real: they will try to abuse the patent and legal system
to enforce their monopoly upon us and to kill Linux and
Free Software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 06:19 PM EST |
Laura: "Microsoft silences many of its critics in the open-source
community."
Indeed. We are stunned by Microsoft and Novell's
sheer stupidity. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 06:29 PM EST |
There was a time that scox was saying that scox had the only legal linux distro
on the market. I guess that didn't work.
Then sun said that sun had the only legal version of linux on the market. I
guess nobody bought it.
Remember EV1 saying that they were the only web-hoster with legal linux? Didn't
seem to go over so well.
Now novell is saying that only novell linux can be assured legal. The community
does not seem to buy it. Imagine that.
I'll say this for msft: they are persistant. I can't say I blame msft, if this
fud scam works, it will effectively kill the competition. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 06:44 PM EST |
o_O
lol
What a joke
- short cut to an informed decision in IT
- check what Laura says
- Now without any further research on your part you have a feel for who to
avoid.
---
GPLv3 *OR LATER* has been vindicated
The "OR LATER" is vital
A GPL set in stone will be eroded over time. -SilverWave[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 06:56 PM EST |
This was the whole point of the deal from the Novell perspective. The UK and
other Euro countries see patents on software as "that funny thing the yanks
do". But they have concerns about doing business with a US software
supplier because of it, if they also do business in US (patents may be void in
UK, but US operations can still be shut down.
This deal gives Novell the opportunity to say "see, not us!" when
talking about this risk to the European market. It happens to also make them a
lot of money. It happens also to jeopardize their Gpl v2 section 7 compliance
with respect to the GPL components of SUSE.
I don't like the deal but I understand it from this angle - they want to buy
back the market in Europe. SUSE came from there and now it's a foreigner (as
has been pointed out) so this is a way to counter the percieved risk. A clumsy,
hamfisted way that might sink the business, but they tried.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 07:05 PM EST |
Maybe the new guy likes to shoot from the hip and take shortcuts.
Maybe he is too clever for his own good?
Maybe Novell just made a big blunder?
From the money side of things, mayne the one-time cash payment made up for
everything. $230 is a load of money. Question is: If Novell had soemn IP
leverage over MSFT, why throw in such a big bonus?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ansak on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 07:46 PM EST |
| I would laugh if she weren't taken so seriously by those with more money than
discernment. As it stands, she is not yet widely-enough recognized for what she
is (a source of ridiculous drivel) for her opinions to be particularly
droll.
cheers...ank [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 07:48 PM EST |
And if you don't mind my asking one teeny tiny question: Are
software patents legal in the UK?
The counterpoint
immediately springs to my mind: can Microsoft assert patent infringement claims
in the UK for patents they hold through the United States Patent and Trademark
Office?
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." --
Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 22 2006 @ 08:43 PM EST |
I guess groklaw is a very popular site fro Novell workers, and the latest SNAFU
must have left them in a bit of a redfaced bind. On one hand they're loyal to
their employer, but on the other hand, the leadership in their company just sold
them up the river.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 01:57 AM EST |
| Not all versions of the announcement are the same. The version for the UK is the
same as issued in the US, but the version issued for Canada has some subtle
differences. The differences don't change the overall nature of the
announcement, but it does show that the offices for each country do have (or can
have) some influence over what is in the version of the statement issued for
their country. This appears to show that if the UK office didn't make any
changes in wording, its not because they couldn't.
One interesting thing to
notice is that the Canadian version says more or less (in the fine print), that
they are not too familiar with Microsoft, so if you need any information on that
company, you need to ask them (and er, Novel Canada isn't sure what Microsoft's
phone number is, so you'll have to find that out for yourself). It might just be
the Canadian subsidiary's standard boilerplate, but it gives the rather amusing
the impression that there are no sudden feelings of love and friendship between
Novel and Microsoft in Canada.
They also point out that the Canadian version
of the Novel press release can be found at: Novel Press
Release, (which is at novell.com) but that the Novel web site for Canada is
Novell News Canada , (which is at
novellnews.ca).
If you go to the Canadian web site, there is lots of news about
all the wonderful things Novel is doing, but no mention of the new Microsoft
deal. If you search for "Microsoft" on their web site, you only get hits related
to how how Novel deals with Microsoft by "threaten(ing) to spill a battle onto
the desktop, and put office workers on the front lines". There is nothing about
co-operation.
In summary, this seems to show that the local subsidiaries of
offices are allowed to make changes in wording in the announcement, although
perhaps not to any degree that may change the essential meaning of it. If
someone from the UK office tries the excuse that "we can't change the wording
of the press release in any way", the Canadian version shows they are wrong.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Well, not quite - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 10:55 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 03:30 AM EST |
"This is a win-win for customers," says Laura DiDio, a research fellow
in the application infrastructure Relevant Products/Services and software
platforms division at the Yankee Group. "First, by pledging not to assert
patent rights against SUSE Linux, Microsoft silences many of its critics in the
open-source community. Secondly, by stating they will cooperatively build
products that make SUSE Linux and Windows Server coexist, Microsoft and Novell
are guaranteeing interoperability."
Yes, and smoking and coffee are good for your health. At least, the
advertisements used to say so... :][ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 04:15 AM EST |
After all, the message that is going out is
1. Windows interoperability with Linux
2. Protection from Microsoft patents.
Perhaps once the message is garbled, there will be a greater uptake of all Linux
Distros.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: schaste on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 07:33 AM EST |
Does the Microsoft-Novell agreement not essentially come down to something akin
to Microsoft saying to Linux (OK, SuSE) users: "we won't sue you for not
using Windows"...?
---
- Still working on a signature...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Exactly. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 24 2006 @ 09:25 AM EST
- Uh...no - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 24 2006 @ 02:29 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 08:55 AM EST |
After all, wasn't the SCO marketing/threatening/posturing in Germany what got
them hauled into a court, quickly ordered by a judge to hand over real evidence
to buttress their claims or shut all the way up?
I'm not German and have only been there once, but it does seem that the
directness of some of their laws could make that the LAST place to start
threat-marketing or FUD-marketing.
It also strikes me that this would be a problem for either Novell or Microsoft
if they take their efforts over there.
Comments from anyone more familiar with the system and how SCO got themselves
slapped down?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 10:14 AM EST |
I think the time has come for someone to fork the distro and start a new
"TRUE SUSE". I am sure most of the real SUSE organization would be
willing to go with the new startup as long as it has the right financing behind
it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 10:18 AM EST |
I can buy rights to any Microsoft patent for the price of a SLES license? Does
OpenSuSE count?
he he[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 01:01 PM EST |
Maybe I'm dumb but I'm having a hard time understanding this Novell/Microsoft
agreement. Examples might explain my questions.
If I hold a software patent that I think Windows XP violates, then I can sue the
users (customers) for patent infringement?
Would this be the same thing as Ford suing me because the Chevy I drive violates
their patent?
If I use program foo, how can I be sued as a user when I have relied on the
assurances of the foo programmers that it is legal? If the programmers are are
sued and lose, does that not effect me? Or does this agreement say-as a SUSE/MS
customer it is okay for me to break the patent laws?
Does the law say that I can be sued for using a product that might break the
patent laws? I don't see how this can be and if it is then "we the
people" need to change the law.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 23 2006 @ 01:56 PM EST |
This seems to be a quite exact translation of the original English press
release. For example, the date says 2 November 2006, and the general
"structure" of the text looks similar. If you simply change the
"locale=de" in the URL to "locale=en", you seem to get the
original English press release.
(Disclaimer: I'm a native German speaker, but only skimmed the German text, so I
might be wrong.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 24 2006 @ 02:37 AM EST |
| Perhaps this deal has to do with undermining the EC ruling, thus the PR, boycottnove
ll has an article.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 24 2006 @ 07:25 AM EST |
Its doubtful that the customer owe something to Microsoft
at all, inclusive when Novell would have violated any
patent right. And apearently the Microsoft / Novell
deal and propaganda violates law, inclusive diffaming
Linux users being crime without paying license to
Microsoft.
Already the a priori unexistence of any responsibility by
consumers makes the deal with Novell to be a fake: a
corruption of some 300 Mio. $ that Novell participates,
and the establishment of a constant forwarding of money to
Ms. for each used Linux -- in order to establish
publically and (at least in effect) for administration and
justice a 'recognize' of patent rights and royalty rights
over Linux. There is no room for other interpretations,
observing Ms. statements like: all users and programmers
would owe Microsoft; they are potentially object of sues
by Microsoft; programmers can buy them free by
programming gratuitly (only) for SuSE/Novell/Ms.-Linux .
And Linux users should not make the mistake enter now in
defense and try to justify them -- but oversee that its
Microsoft whom have to justify heself.
a)The legislations of more and more countries follows
the 'objective, solidaric/collective responsibility' of
the conjoint of the producers in front of the customer.
The customer dont need to enter in the game of 'division
of rights and acumulation of obligations' by the
producers, or know/proof the (easily fakeable)
distribution of responsibilities and faults among them.
For any objective defect of product or service, the
customer can sue any, some or all of the firmas
contributing anyhow on the process of production or
profits. And its problem of them afterwards regress them
among them sukcessively in the same manner. And anywhom
who claims patent rights, is automatically within the
conjoint of producers, because he claims any contribution
and profit on the object/service.
From this its completely clear, that any defect of the
product (such like, patent rights) have to be cleared
among the producers and not with the customer.
In the same sense, the Microsoft / Novell deal is also
a clear violation of the GPL. Already against GPL2,
and sharpening it is good but really not necessary. In
some proposed itens even useless: When any N makes a
damage to any W, and by any law C would be co-responsable
with N, then its irrelevant that N 'assumes' - before or
after (f.ex. by adhering to GPL3) - the only and exclusive
responsibility: anyway C would continue co-responsable in
a sue by W, because the damage of W by C lies outside the
assumption (of GPL3) by N, moreover when this became
inefective by the deal between N and W. Other example:
When A lends money to (or get thieved by) B , B lends/pass
it to C (which could be poor and spend/sell it quickly),
A want back his thing from B, then its irrelevant that B
claims he gave it to C. Generally, a credor dont need to
accept a transference of a credit to others.
b) Microsoft dont have any patent or copyright on Linux
code. This one can say clearly, until they proofs the
contrary. Inclusive, because of the presumption of the
inoccency. In opposite, the claimings by M. could be -
depending on what country - mobbing, calunia, difamation.
c) Microsoft would not have to proof their patents, but
also that the user without Linux would have buyed Windows
(instead of f.ex. FreeBSD. Minix); what exact advantage he
had by using Linux; etc.
d) Parts of the informatics, especially an operation
system, are nowadays Public Service, unpatentable, earlier
patents ressolve them. Linux is the official, public OP
sistem; Microsoft in sensus strictus illegal and need a
concession.
Certain constitutional and basical rights defined by
the International Law defin the international public
order. Any people has only right to peace, souvereignity,
state when it respects the Int. Right and its objects.
Thus its an obligation and a right of every state to
maintain this basical functions. These are the public
services, intimely connected with the souvereignity. The
state can concess such services to privates, however,
always completely under its rules and disponibility.
i) The public service of each country has the right,
and also do, to perform autonomy in the administration,
ensign etc. Almost all countries, by means of their
universities, administration, financied by public money
(salaries; subvention) etc. contribute to open source
projects, nowadays mainly Linux. Thus, open source
programs are a public service and a souvereingity function
which cannot be limited by other countries or
their 'firmas'. The products belongs, moreover, to the
public domain.
ii) The international right (f.ex. UNO Res. 2200A)
includes the right of each person to participate on the
tecnical progress. This includes nowadays the use of
computers, inclusive in ensign; thus, its delivery by the
state is a public service. Children f.ex. in Africa
cannot use computers because/when there is a privat OS.
It may be a 'problem' of the state to warrant this right -
this however dont mean that then the state would have to
pay some foreigner firma to buy these things, in contrary,
to adquire autonomy by own forces.
Unnecessary to explain, that the function of patents is
only to give a preference against other sellers in
commerce in order to stimulate inventions, but not to
justify conrtolling, disturbing the development of the own
and other socyities or similar practics from the book of
the 12 mafiosos of Zinon. Because of this, the
Microsoft / Novell - Deal / Behaviour should also be a
reason to think about the justification of the patent
sistem, its abuses and dangers, and about a better
not-adhering by other countries.
Microsoft passed all limits. The only adequade is now,
denuncions and penal persection, IN SO MANY COUNTRIES AS
POSSIBLE, by diffamation, extorsion etc of the Linux
users; attentat against the use of a public service
(users); attentat against publical functions
(administration, universities to contribute on Linux);
usurpation of a publical function (sell without concession
Windows); because of the faked agreement with Novell,
fraude, inclusive fraudulent preparation of documents and
proofs for administration and justice (trying to establish
with Novell a 'recognize' that Microsoft have patent
rights on Linux). For be committed such crime, its
sufficient that by the Suse / Novell / Microsoft words
the privat or public Linux user or developer felt
constrained heself to not-use or not-program only a small
peace or program line of Linux or open-source code what
certainly have no patent rights by them. And Novell and
SuSE are co-responsable because they draw profits from
that behaviour of Microsoft, besides of their
participation on the deal (Novell as contract partner, and
SuSE by elaborating programs for Novell / Microsoft
limited to / protected by the contract)
And such attentates against their souvereignity and
publical functions and administration, any state has the
right to punish with the dead penalty. When then the US
government protests, would it be one more reason to think
about the real function and intention of Microsoft and the
justification of patent and economic conventions and US
politics and hegemony.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 24 2006 @ 08:05 AM EST |
This marketing says nothing about patents being in GPL'ed software.
This marketing simply says: Microsoft has agreed not to sue Novell customers
using SLED, or other Novell products (not specified in the write-up). That's it.
Period. End of story.
This does not admit that there is infringement of MS IP in SLED. It simply says
that due to the nature of the deal made with MS, MS will not sue SUSE customers.
This marketing read in NO way contradicts ANYTHING within the announced
MS-Novell deal, nor the Open Letter from Novell.
You're beating a dead horse here.
How does collecting Novell Marketing material advance the cause of FOSS?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 24 2006 @ 03:03 PM EST |
| Equal time for Didio. read it, really.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: iraskygazer on Saturday, November 25 2006 @ 09:09 AM EST |
PJ,
After reading Laura DiDio's statement I came to wonder if this isn't a
technique for Microsoft to skip around the EU commissions fine for
non-compliance in delivering a usable set of API documentation.
Just think, if M$ pulls this off with Novell they could then claim "Why
do you need more thorough documentation? Look, Novell was able to interoperate
with M$ products with the documentation provided."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: unum on Monday, November 27 2006 @ 04:29 PM EST |
Someone representing Novell at a Utah State Technology Commission meeting on the
14th of Nov. Presented this same idea to the CTO of Utah. I wasn't listening
when he talked to the CTO but spoke with the representive(Steven Handy) later
and he told me that he asked the CTO if he had heard of the new agreement and
suggested that it should him feel better about using Novell technologies.
unum[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
