[ale] Interesting note from the Wall Street Journal today

[Charles Shapiro]

PJ's take on this is pretty hostile. She believes that it's the beginning of
a patent-based attack on the use of open-source software, and that it
basically violates the GPL as well.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061107194320461

So far the FSF doesn't seem to be reacting.

-- CHS

On 11/8/06, H P Ladds <householdwords at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/6/06, James P. Kinney III <jkinney at localnetsolutions.com> wrote:
> >
> > Good point. But I am cynical enough to see it from a different
> > standpoint:
> >
> > M$ funded the SCO debacle. They thought they could shut down Linux that
> > way. But during the mess, it was revealed that the code SCO is claiming
> > they "own" and thus is the core of the infringement is actually "owned"
> > by Novell. Thus the M$ interest in Novell is not so much to sway it's
> > big buyers into placation by actually offering better interoperability.
> > If they are able to leverage a strategic partnership into a co-ownership
> > of Novell code, they can require a license fee for the use of that code
> > and effectively shut down RedHat and everyone else. Thus M$ can then
> > claim the interoperability issue is _caused_ by Linux as they have
> > "stolen" M$ property.
>
>
> Goldman Sach's analysis...
>
> > <snip>
> > it is curious as to why Microsoft would make such a large payment to
> > Novell...
> >
> > since the agreement does involve the cross licensing of patents, we
> > suspect
> > Microsoft's motivations may have significantly been to resolve patent
> > related
> > issues. Although the two companies did settle patent issues related to
> > Netware and anti-trust issues in 2004, this did not appear to resolve
> > all
> > outstanding patent issues, and we believe the substance of this latest
> > agreement may relate to the resolution of some of the outstanding patent
> > issues. The financial arrangement appears too one sided to simply
> > reflect
> > joint development activities and royalties to Microsoft for the use of
> > its
> > intellectual property in Linux. We are unsure of any specifics at this
> > point,
> > but we do believe the patent issues of the agreement are the more
> > substantives ones.
> >
>
> It's possible M$ figured that they might as well buy Novell as opposed to
> paying them big bucks to settle intellectual property issues.
>
> More ominously, M$ bought Novell's patents, and intends to enforce them.
>
> Can I call M$ "Microvell" now, or is that a better name for Suse? :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...