> The only problem with Red Hat's assertion though,
> is that according to a comment I got late
> yesterday from the OIN, they didn't think the
> actual patents were all that strong or that open
> source software actually infringed on the patents.

If the patents were strong and/or FOSS infringed on them, then it wouldn't be FUD. The fact that they aren't strong and FOSS doesn't infringe is consistent with Red Hat's assertion... right?

I would assume that a public company with a good reputation like Red Hat, likely has information from someone, who is afraid to talk publicly, that this is the game that Microsoft is/was playing.

Many people know that Microsoft has many, many smart lawyers constantly looking at how they can put glass-in-the-tracks of open source software.

This sounds to me like one of those lawyers, with their creative thinking cap on, had this idea and got authority to try it out, to see if it works. For whatever reason it did not, and now it is being exposed.

It is okay to come up with creative ideas, but if Microsoft lies about doing this, and it comes out that they actually did do this (as things about Microsoft fairly often seem to come out in courts down the road), it will be yet another public reason for many to distrust them.

Microsoft are not interested in money as much as they are interested in long term control. Money by itself is seen as a means to that end.

That being the case, despite Microsoft making money with Novell, if they view Novell as a potential source of competition for whatever reason, they could well engage in scorched earth tactics. They've done so many times in the past.

I don't know what Microsoft's angle would be in releasing these patents. Maybe they're doing it as a PR move. The company aren't really a monopoly in practical terms any more now, (at least not long term) and as such, it would be logical to expect their behaviour to change, somewhat.

I'm inclined to believe that, not only with this, but with the submission of hypervisor code to the Linux kernel, that is what we're seeing from Microsoft as a long term trend.

Namely, that Microsoft aren't king of the hill any more, that they can't be, and that someone within Redmond has started to realise that, even if it isn't Ballmer himself.

The shift, then, is from monopoly behaviour to PR building behaviour. I'm not suggesting for one moment that Steve is suddenly going to emerge as the kindly uncle of the industry, but I think what we're seeing is a start.

Microsoft don't have the kind of leverage where they can afford to ignore what the rest of the world thinks, any more. Linux and OSX both make sure of that.

I couldn't give two hoots for this whole patent mess the American legal system has allowed to disrupt the computing landscape of the world.

When all is said and done Open Source is free source, it can't be litigated and we, the end users, will use it over and above MS's trash forever. The mockery they make of the legal system is only matched in levels of pathetic by what they sell the world in the way of software.

Oh for the day their stock is worth .04c.

"To argue devil's advocate here, Microsoft has an interoperability agreement with Novell which includes a patent covenant. If the patents that Microsoft sold off could have been used by patent trolls against Linux, they also could have been used against Microsoft's partner Novell."

i don't think this is entirely accurate.. if Novell has a deal with MS.. to use their patents.. and MS then sold them.. if im not mistaken in a court of law novell continue to have a right to use those patents until the end of that agreement..

yes.. after the 5 year agreement novell is fair game... but until then....

AND.. im not going to be as gracious as you towards MS... until proven otherwise, i believe red hat when they say MS was marketing the patents they were selling towards patent trolls as a way to "EXTORT" money from OSS companies..

Petrus -> The code that MS contributed to the VM Hypervisor was GPL'd code and they contributed it to the VM to keep from getting stomped on in court by the SFLC.

> The only problem with Red Hat's assertion though,
> is that according to a comment I got late
> yesterday from the OIN, they didn't think the
> actual patents were all that strong or that open
> source software actually infringed on the patents.

Whether the patents are strong, valid, or applicable isn't really a problem with Red Hat's assertion. The current patent litigation environment is heavily skewed in favor of patent owners, so much so that even weak, bogus, or non-applicable patents are still dangerous weapons in the wrong hands.

> To argue devil's advocate here, Microsoft has
> an interoperability agreement with Novell which
> includes a patent covenant. If the patents that
> Microsoft sold off could have been used by
> patent trolls against Linux, they also could
> have been used against Microsoft's partner
> Novell.

It's also possible that part of the Novell agreement includes a perpetuity clause on the patent licenses/covenants, which could easily remain in effect even if the patents are sold off. That's partly how Allied Security Trust works, after all (they're the ones that bought the patents and sold them to OIN).

Even if Novell has no such clause in place, Microsoft backstabbing its parters is nothing new or unusual.

> Maybe they had a scorched Earth plan in place,
> but Microsoft is interested in one thing,
> making money. Microsoft is making money with
> the Novell deal and I don't see how it would be
> in their interest to mess it up.

Again, is Microsoft really making money off this deal? Even if they say they are, there's all sorts of clever ways to dress up a pure fluff deal as a money-maker.

As others have mentioned, the Microsoft/Novell deal appears to be more about control. It's a long-term strategy experiment more than a quick cash grab. The same thing goes for Microsoft's patent saber-rattling, Microsoft's back-alley support of SCO, the Microsoft/TomTom deal, and all the other fishy Microsoft/OSS patent deals.

Microsoft's problem is that every time they try one of these anti-OSS experiments, they find themselves facing ridicule and/or customer backlash, and they have to abandon each approach for a yet-more-roundabout attack. It's especially sad because I believe there are forces at work within Microsoft (mostly led by Sam Ramji) that genuinely want cooperation and interoperability with OSS. Apparently there's a sort of corporate schizophrenia inside Microsoft, with the old guard still trying the old tricks and basically sabotaging the efforts of Ramji's camp.

"Apparently there's a sort of corporate schizophrenia inside Microsoft, with the old guard still trying the old tricks and basically sabotaging the efforts of Ramji's camp."

All the more reason for anyone with a conscience to quit Microsoft and work with companies who "get it". To fight Microsoft's culture and simultaneously take a pay cheque from them seems like a pretty bad ethical compromise to me.