backtop

Software Steve Ballmer Makes Claim on Linux Code
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - November 20, 2006 9:08 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 37 comment(s) - last by NoSoftwarePate.. on Nov 21 at 7:49 PM
Analysts and open source fans have been watching the Novell/Microsoft partnership closely

Microsoft recently signed a deal with Novell because Linux currently uses Microsoft's intellectual property and Microsoft hopes to get "appropriate economic return" while Linux continues to use its intellectual property.  While participating in a question and answer session during a conference in Seattle last week, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer acknowledged that Microsoft signed the deal because Linux "uses our intellectual property."

Microsoft originally entered the deal to offer sales support and technology sharing for Novell SUSE Linux at the beginning of the month.  A reported $440m payment from Microsoft to Novell for coupons that would allow users to receive a year of support and maintenance for SUSE was one of the stipulations in the deal.  More importantly, however, is an alleged $40m payment made to Microsoft so that the company would not sue Novell users for alleged patent infringement.  

Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian recently issued a letter to the community that addresses some of the details between the Novell and Microsoft agreement.  Here is an excerpt from his letter:
On November 2, Novell and Microsoft announced a significant, multi-part agreement to work together to improve the interoperability between Linux and Windows and for Microsoft to redistribute more than 350,000 subscriptions for SUSE Linux Enterprise to the Windows customer base over a five-year period. This agreement is at the heart of what IT users demand -- to deploy both Linux and Windows, and to have them work well together -- and many companies have spoken out in support of this new cooperation.

Customers told us that they wanted Linux and Windows to work together in their data centers, and so we agreed to develop new technologies and standards in server management, virtualization and document file format compatibility. CIOs want to focus on their business, and they want their suppliers to focus on improving operating system interoperability. The Linux community will benefit from the creation and release of the open source code to improve Linux's interoperability with Windows that will result from this agreement.
Click here to read the entire letter

Novell SUSE Linux currently is the second largest commercial Linux distribution, following behind Red Hat.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
I think Microsoft is bluffing
By Saist on 11/20/2006 10:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
I, for one, take the opinion that Microsoft, through Ballmer and Gates, are bluffing.

The first reason is that we've already seen this type of attack before, with SCO. SCO went out claiming that their Unix code was in Linux. We saw where that got them. SCO was not able to bring any proof of their accusations before hand. The fallout from SCO though meant a massive audit of available Linux code and attempts to certify ownership of the code. From what I've seen of Ballmer's comments, and Gates, they are now taking the line that SCO took. Their code is in Linux, and they want to get paid for it. The problem is, at least as I see it, most of the Linux Kernel Code is accounted for. Almost all of the GNU/OS code is accounted for. The only portions that I see that Microsoft could go after are Samba and W.I.N.E. Both of these projects are very clearly documented as reverse engineering projects.

The second reason is that if there really was Microsoft technology wholesale in Linux, we would have already seen action before this. Microsoft has not been quiet in any shape or form about their bitter hatred of anything open-source in the past. If Microsoft really did have a gun ready to draw and fire at Linux code, I don't think they would have waited till now. Rather, giving Microsoft's past history with other competitors both in and out of court, Microsoft would have already pulled the trigger the moment they had any inkling that their code or Technology could possibly be in Linux.

The third reason is that Gates is leaving Microsoft. It isn't any secret that stockholders and shareholders are not pleased with Ballmer. The debacle that is Vista is layed square at Ballmer's feet, and once Bill leaves, Ballmer will not have anyone to protect himself within Microsoft. I commented when the Novell/Microsoft deal was announced that Ballmer might be spearheading the deal in order to put a feather in his cap. I believe that Ballmer would do anything that could or would counter act the loss of money, time, features, and anything else related to or with Vista. It fits with his past behavior in relation to other technology companies and even his own employees.

I personally believe that Ballmer is desperate to not be remembered as the failure behind Vista, and he is being protected by Bill Gates who also has a legacy to uphold.

The overall problem I think that Microsoft has is that a lot of the company has matured past the antics of Bill Gates and Ballmer. The rest of the company has grown up and gotten used to living in a world where there are competitors and where you might not win. It is my opinion that we will continue to see many more outburts and F.U.D. attempts until Gates and Ballmer are no longer employeed by Microsoft. It is also my opinion that it will hurt Microsoft as relatively nobody within the I.T. sector is taking the "stolen" code arguments seriously after SCO's failure in court.




RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By msva124 on 11/20/2006 11:04:49 PM , Rating: 2
Gates is still with Microsoft?


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By tuteja1986 on 11/21/2006 1:01:59 AM , Rating: 2
lol , Anything Microsoft says or does wrong , the hate is turned towards Bill gates instantly. Most of the time words really get taken out of context and blown out of proportions.



RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By Murst on 11/20/2006 11:13:57 PM , Rating: 2
However, if Novell admits that they used Microsoft IP in writing a portion of the Linux code, and that code has found its way into other Linux distros, there could certainly be some issues there.

Its one thing if its only MS claiming that its IP is stolen... if a writer of some of the code admits he stole IP, its a totally different story and basically a guaranteed win for MS.


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By wien on 11/21/2006 7:24:48 AM , Rating: 3
There would only be an issue until the offending code has been removed, and that would happen almost instantly if Microsoft would just point out what code/IP/whatever it is they're having problems with.

The open-source community is usually quite the helpful gang when it comes to issues like this, given of course the people making claims can back it up with some evidence, instead of a FUD campaign. It should be easy enough for Microsoft to do that. All they really want is to protect their IP, right?


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By montgom on 11/21/2006 6:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There would only be an issue until the offending code has been removed


I am not sure. I am no expert, but my logical side say you cannot "steal" something (code) and then, but just giving it back (removing it) say "no harm, no foul."
Bob


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By Motley on 11/20/2006 11:22:08 PM , Rating: 4
You would be wrong.

First, no we haven't. There is a huge difference between stolen code and IP infringement. Obviously you don't understand the difference, perhaps you should research it.

Second, most people who have used linux already know this to be true. Perhaps you should review what patents and IP Microsoft has been proving in court over the past 18 months to get a glimpse as to just some of the IP that linux is using.

Third, Gates leaving has nothing to do with the article, so I'll just stop there.

I think you would be greatly mistaken to think that "nobody in the I.T. sector is taking [their arguments] seriously" (I fixed the quote since the argument is not about stolen code, but IP infringement).


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By Saist on 11/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By TomZ on 11/21/2006 1:35:31 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I couldn't read your whole post, because it is too lengthy, but I wanted to respond to your somewhat misguided impression about software IP protection.

Your argument seems to be that all software developers, when faced with a certain set of requirements, will arrive at the same design. But nothing could be further from the truth. And we as a society and as consumers benefit from more of the financial rewards flowing towards those with the better approaches to software.

While I agree that software patents are a less-than-ideal solution, there is a business need for IP protection for non-trivial software inventions, and I don't see any alternative system proposed. Eliminating software patents, which is proposed by many, is basically the equivalent to anarchy, and I don't see how that is constructive in any way. We have to realize that large corporations, as well as small businesses and many individuals, all invest heavily in software R&D, and an effective means to protect their investments is a necessary evil.


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By Hare on 11/21/2006 5:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
Taking away patents is not anarchy. Just take a look at other countries without software patents. There are other ways to protect your creations. You can always protect design etc.

I do agree that software patents on some level are a good thing but the current system in the states is a joke and is abused badly. Software is also something that developes so rapidly that patents should be valid for a reasonably small while and the actual patents should be truly innovative to go through.

Stuff like "buy it now"-button should not qualify. Or patenting electronic catalogues (webcommerce, ala IBM).


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By Gooberslot on 11/20/2006 11:23:43 PM , Rating: 4
I don't think MS is claiming that there is MS code in Linux (how would that even be possible). I think the IP they're talking about is far more evil, patents.


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By smitty3268 on 11/20/2006 11:47:09 PM , Rating: 1
Of course there are MS patents being used by Linux and it's ecosystem. Heck, I've probably broken some patents without realizing it and I'm just a junior developer a couple years out of college. However, MS is never going to sue over them for one important reason. IBM and other large companies have promised to sue MS for 1000's of patent violations in return if they step out of line. Just like the Cold War never resulted in nuclear war, the patent cold war won't either.


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By Nehemoth on 11/21/2006 7:07:14 AM , Rating: 1
And also Mono.

But i supposed Microsoft just want to scary some people, course must be lies and more lies.


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By MrDiSante on 11/21/2006 8:16:55 AM , Rating: 2
You remember that FAT patent Microsoft won a while back? That's IP that belongs to Microsoft and is in Linux. Just off the top of my head and I haven't even bothered looking up what other patents they may have. There's such an absurd amount of patents out there that if people were to go through my source code I'd probably be infringing on at least 20 and I'm just 3 years out of university. If Red Hat and IBM can say that they're not infringing on any patents of MS's then they either have a far-too-large legal division or are simply parading their bravado.


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By Dfere on 11/21/2006 10:25:49 AM , Rating: 2
Who owns Linux? No One. Who can Microsoft sue for individually using Linux? No One.

MS wants to intidimate, and ultimately control, the major companies that make money from developing Linux. Since MS does not need the profits, the author and I agree it is the future of the direction of the industry that is at stake. If MS wins, it will stop any COMMERCIAL development of Linux, which will most likely diminish or kill any corporate applications. As much as we complain about the cost of Windows for our own PC's, I would argue business revenue, and control of that segment of software industry( business PC licenses, server licenses, Microsoft Office products, etc), is still very important to MS.


RE: I think Microsoft is bluffing
By cubdukat on 11/21/2006 10:29:17 AM , Rating: 3
Now, see, this is why you don't get in bed with the enemy; they'll leave you sticky, broke and confused in the morning.

Guess Vista must be a more irredeemable POS than was previously expected. Then again, who's fault is that?

I want to give MS the benefit of the doubt about Vista, but when they admit that DX9 gaming performance on their allegedly next-gen OS is at least 15% slower than on XP, they lose the right to claim $150+ for an upgrade.

There's no reason why they can't write more efficient, more bulletproof code instead of taking out other OS that may be better written.

If it weren't for the fact that my HD tuner card isn't supported in Linux, I'd be dumping XP as we speak.


$400 million so you can sue for billions
By RogueSpear on 11/20/2006 10:42:38 PM , Rating: 3
You can see the specious legal argument already. "Novell paid us to properly license our intellectual property. Everybody else should have to as well." The handwriting is on the wall in so many ways with this one. Microsoft must really have a concern that a fair number of people will be investigating Linux as an alternative to Vista. And this is their ticket to create Linux FUD.




RE: $400 million so you can sue for billions
By milomnderbnder21 on 11/20/2006 10:51:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Microsoft must really have a concern that a fair number of people will be investigating Linux as an alternative to Vista.

This quote is simply comical.

If linux made any sort of gain in public use due to the release of vista, I'd be shocked. If anything, I would expect the opposite...Bigger market share for Microsoft.


By Tsuwamono on 11/21/2006 7:17:30 AM , Rating: 2
The only way i could see more people buying Windows because of vista is because as of this point you cant pirate Vista which means you will have to pay for it there for enlarging Microsoft's market share. They for sure will not have more people using windows because if you think about it almost every freelance technician(and i use this term loosely) just wipes people's hard drives and installs a pirated version of XP. Lets stop denying it, we know it is true.

Microsoft may lose these customers to Linux but it will not be a loss in dollars as they don't pay for it anyway.


By RogueSpear on 11/21/2006 11:13:39 AM , Rating: 4
I wouldn't say it's a comical quote. I would agree that Linux making any serious kind of gains in the next few years is highly unlikely. However that still doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't have some kind of concern. They've spent a considerable amount of time, money, and effort to demonize Linux and Open Source in general with half truths and lies.

The ONLY reason that Vista is going to be a success of some sort is the preloading of it on computers. I hardly think that there's going to be a mad rush of home users or businesses to upgrade to a bloated pig. Yes, Vista is not much more than a facelift and not a very attractive facelift even.


By montgom on 11/21/2006 7:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If linux made any sort of gain in public use due to the release of vista, I'd be shocked


Linux will struggle in the home user market because of one word, "dependencies". Every time I try any version of Linux, "dependencies" always ruin my trip. If I could learn how to fix this problem, I would be using Linux right now. Vista will make no difference with regards to Linux and "dependencies".
Bob


By peternelson on 11/20/2006 11:34:33 PM , Rating: 3
From the full letter from Novell:

"Since our announcement, some parties have spoken about this patent agreement in a damaging way, and with a perspective that we do not share. We strongly challenge those statements here.

We disagree with the recent statements made by Microsoft on the topic of Linux and patents. Importantly, our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property. When we entered the patent cooperation agreement with Microsoft, Novell did not agree or admit that Linux or any other Novell offering violates Microsoft patents."

Novell make it clear they don't believe linux enfringes Microsoft IP irrespective of what MS claims on the matter.


RE: $400 million so you can sue for billions
By BladeVenom on 11/21/06, Rating: 0
By mofo3k on 11/21/2006 12:14:39 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously have no idea what open-source means.


MS found out Linux exists
By mforce on 11/21/2006 2:44:09 AM , Rating: 1
It looks like MS actually found out there's a "thing" out there called Linux and it also works , people are using it , just imagine what a shock. I mean how can you even use a PC and not have Windows , well it turns out you can. Sure, the Linux desktop is not there yet and most people will be using Windows. The server market however is a different story and Linux is doing quite well there when compared to Windows because it's open and if you want it's even free. Slowly but surely though Linux is gaining share on the desktop too and I disagree that Windows can actually gain market share with Vista ... Nobody I know will give up their Linux to switch to Vista while I hear of people getting sick and tired of Windows.
As for those silly IP claims sure , you have MS stuff in Linux like FAT , NTFS ( in the kernel ) or Samba and Wine but that's only through reverse engineering which I consider to be perfectly fair. Besides Linux is using those technologies only to be compatible with MS not because it actually needs the FAT filesystem or the NTFS one for example.




RE: MS found out Linux exists
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: MS found out Linux exists
By wien on 11/21/2006 7:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Before you go touting the holier than thou Linux distros. Keep in mind, on the server and professional level, Linux is not free.
Umm, yes it is. You can of course buy support if you want it, and most large companies do, but you don't have to. That's the point. Where can I get my free Windows Server 2003 copy, without support?


RE: MS found out Linux exists
By umerok on 11/21/2006 3:01:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where can I get my free Windows Server 2003 copy, without support?


BitTorrent.


RE: MS found out Linux exists
By shamgar03 on 11/21/2006 9:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Before you go touting the holier than thou Linux distros. Keep in mind, on the server and professional level, Linux is not free.


You my friend, are an idiot. Do you understand the definition of "open source."

quote:
Unix is the dominant server OS next to Windows, Linux is for small jobs.

I am guessing you are not talking about the MASSIVE number of corporate webservers that run apache. And I guess you must be ignorant of the fact that a good number of the "500 fastest supercomputers" are linux clusters. Hmm, but then I guess supercomputers are just too smile time for a guy like you...


By NoSoftwarePatents on 11/21/2006 3:34:10 PM , Rating: 2
Linux is for small jobs? Try doing some research first, assuming you don't work for the failing SCO Group who would rather complain about Linux than actually try to compete with it.

http://www.aaxnet.com/design/linux2.html

E-Trade also uses Linux, but the article doesn't list that for some reason.

Small jobs indeed.


If they wanted...
By exdeath on 11/21/2006 2:11:58 PM , Rating: 2
All Microsoft has to do is file formal patents for FAT12/16 used on floppy disks and flash drives as well as FAT16/32 (not sure if they have these or not)

Think of the damage that would do to every Linux machine, every digital camera, every flash drive, etc. that doesn't use Windows...





RE: If they wanted...
By TomZ on 11/21/2006 2:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
I think you are right - Microsoft, or any other big tech company with a huge "war chest" patent portfolio, could do serious damage to Linux (esp. commercial distros) if it wanted. But what's the point, really, from a business standpoint of doing that?

In any case, I think the deal with Novell is all about Novell acknowledging that fact, and with this deal, they buy some immunity from possible future legal actions. This deal may also help business users of Linux that might be concerned about liability - probably not a lot, but maybe just a little.


RE: If they wanted...
By NoSoftwarePatents on 11/21/2006 7:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
They already tried...and failed.

http://www.pubpat.org/microsoftfat.htm

Who owns more patents than Microsoft? IBM...way more. If Microsoft started an open, direct anti-Linux patent war, IBM would like open a can of whoop ass that would be very, financially bloody for Microsoft.

Software patents are just one of the unfortunate developments that happened in the late 90's. Things would be very different if software patents had been enabled in the 80's.

Thankfully, Europe hasn't formally embraced software patents...for now.


refresh my memory
By msva124 on 11/21/2006 2:29:45 AM , Rating: 2
What have been Microsoft's major lawsuits in the past? Who have they sued? Was it SCO-like, or something lesser?




They agreed to disagree
By crystal clear on 11/21/2006 10:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft Statement on Novell Agreement
Microsoft and Novell provide additional perspective on IP issues in landmark November 2nd agreement


REDMOND, Wash., Nov. 20, 2006 –

"Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents. The agreement between our two companies puts in place a workable solution for customers for these issues, without requiring an agreement between our two companies on infringement.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2006/nov0...

PLUS-

Open Letter to the Community from Novell
November 20, 2006

http://www.novell.com/linux/microsoft/community_op...

Minus-

Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal We'll fight them on the breaches...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/20/eben_mogle...


Equals-
AGREE to DISAGREE & Agreement that doesnt reguire an Agreement on Infringement .
DOESNT SMELL GOOD-LOT of INFORMATION/DETAILS BEING HELD
BACK ??????




The article is incorrect
By dlapine on 11/21/2006 3:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft recently signed a deal with Novell because Linux currently uses Microsoft's intellectual property and Microsoft hopes to get "appropriate economic return" while Linux continues to use its intellectual property. While participating in a question and answer session during a conference in Seattle last week, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer acknowledged that Microsoft signed the deal because Linux "uses our intellectual property."

This statement is simply an allegation by Microsoft, which is making the claim that MS patented code was being used in Linux. Novell very specifically refuted the claim, as well as the idea that the agreement between the companies was due to Novell's acceptance of that concept.

Perhaps the article can be edited in such a way that the first paragraph is more correctly expressed as an allegation by Microsoft, rather than being falsely authoritative on the debate.




Bad Monkeyboy! Bad!
By bersl2 on 11/21/06, Rating: -1
"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki