Posted on 11/17/2006 8:06:18 AM PST by Señor Zorro
In a question-and-answer session after his keynote speech at the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) conference in Seattle, Ballmer said Microsoft was motivated to sign a deal with SUSE Linux distributor Novell Inc. earlier this month because Linux "uses our intellectual property" and Microsoft wanted to "get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation."
The Nov. 2 deal involves an agreement by Novell and Microsoft to boost the interoperability of their competing software products. It also calls for Microsoft to pay Novell $440 million for coupons entitling users to a year's worth of maintenance and support on SUSE Linux to its customers. In addition, Microsoft agreed to recommend SUSE software for Windows users looking to use Linux as well.
A key element of the agreement now appears to be Novell's $40 million payment to Microsoft in exchange for the latter company's pledge not to sue SUSE Linux users over possible patent violations. Also protected are individuals and noncommercial open-source developers who create code and contribute to the SUSE Linux distribution, as well as developers who are paid to create code that goes into the distribution.
Many open-source advocates criticized the deal, nevertheless. They argued that it was tantamount to an admission of patent violations by a key Linux supporter that bolstered Microsoft's case if it decided press its patent claims.
At the time, Microsoft officials, including Ballmer, were mum on whether the Linux kernel, which is governed by the General Public License and takes contributions from programmers all around the world, violated Microsoft's patents.
Ballmer was more open today.
"Novell pays us some money for the right to tell customers that anybody who uses SUSE Linux is appropriately covered," Ballmer said. This "is important to us, because [otherwise] we believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability."
"My reaction is that so far, what he [Ballmer] said is just more FUD [fear, uncertainty and doubt]," said Pamela Jones, editor of the Groklaw.net blog, which tracks legal issues in the open-source community. "Let him sue if he thinks he has a valid claim, and we'll see how well his customers like it."
Officials at Red Hat Inc., the leading Linux distributor, also dismissed Ballmer's comments. "We do not believe there is a need for or basis for the type of relationship defined in the Microsoft/Novell announcement," said Mark Webbink, deputy general counsel.
Red Hat has called Microsoft's legal threat a looming "innovation tax." It also said that it can protect its customers against patent claims.
Jones noted that after the Nov. 2 deal was announced, Novell said on its Web site that "the agreement had nothing to do with any known infringement. So which is true?"
Jones also challenged Ballmer to "put his money where his mouth is" and detail exactly what part of the Linux kernel source code allegedly infringes upon Microsoft patents, so that "folks will strip out the code and work around it or prove his patent invalid."
Ballmer did not provide details during his comments today. But he was adamant that Linux users, apart from those using SUSE, are taking advantage of Microsoft innovation, and that someone -- either Linux vendors or users -- would eventually have to pay up.
"Only customers that use SUSE have paid properly for intellectual property from Microsoft," he said. "We are willing to do a deal with Red Hat and other Linux distributors." The deal with SUSE Linux "is not exclusive," Ballmer added.
Robert McMillan, of the IDG News Service, contributed to this report.
I appreciate your point - that may be the underlying reality. But there is a lot of print devoted to the two parties paying each other money and agreeing to hold each other blameless. I read an article somewhere (I think it was Lee Gomes in the WSJ) who said that this was more about MS strengthening the hand of the weak sister (Novell) to the possible detriment of the stronger brother (Red Hat). Of course Oracle is going after Red Hat in a different way.
I confess to having no idea of what the *real* agenda or agendas are. Could be it's all of the above including your points, and then even more besides!
Microsoft is putting the possible infringers on notice, as necessary.
So does Planned Parenthood and communism.org. And your point is?
It's pretty straightforward. Novell and Microsoft and SCO represent the original PC server software companies, and they want to be make money from the new "free" PC server operating system if possible. Unfortunately for them, it was mostly created by a bunch of anti-capitalist "free software" fanatics, who want to put them out of business instead. These two opposing forces are now separating, by the announcement of this deal, and the forthcoming GPLv3 license by free software leader "RMS". One side capitalist, one side anti-capitalist. But only the capitalists are the ones with capital, of course, in all its different forms.
SCO does not belong in that group. SCO was originally a Linux company named Caldera and has nothing to do with the original SCO Unix.
RNC uses Windows, DNC uses Linux. Howard Dean even coined the phrase "Open Source Politics", and his campaign manager is (was?) a former Linux exec, of which there are few. The DNC also created a site named demzilla.org, in tribute to the "Mozilla" group of open source programmers. None of this is news to you, of course. You're here always defending it.
SCO develops and supports SCO Unix, they are the modern incarnate of the original SCO, certainly the closest thing. And SCO Unix was the original Unix for PC's, it's too bad IBM dropped the ball on making it better, and left everyone with Linux and all these leftists and IP issues instead.
And Windows is the operating system of choice for Planned Parenthood and communism.org. Of course you make no ideological connection there, since it ruins your argument.
Bingo. The SCO FUD didn't work, so Ballmer is taking personal charge of this scam.
Betcha he won't reveal anything with specificity either.
1987: The year that Xenix (what SCO Unix was at the time) was ported to the x86, and the year that Minix was written for the x86. In other words, it's about a tie. But I'd say Minix is the original x86 UNIX since it was actually written for the x86, not ported to it.
Simply more proof your lies never, ever cease. Planned Parenthood runs Linux.
http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http://www.plannedparenthood.com
I don't know what's going on over at Netcraft, but I just did a direct query of their .com and .org addresses and they both return "Server: Microsoft-IIS/6.0." They are also on a different IP address than the one Netcraft gives (although in the same subnet).
Go ahead and verify, if you know the simple network tools you need to do so.
Nah, I decided to actually go out tonight--after all, I have a life...
Oh yeah, I also got the source from their home page and found that the main form targets an ASP page. So unless they're running ChiliSoft (unlikely), they're running Microsoft.
So Netcraft shows plannedparenthood.com is actually or has been running on linux, and your other supposed example communism.org actually has this right on the front page:
"An example of communist work relationships is provided by the Linux computer operating system"
http://www.communism.org/
So much for your diversionary defense of Howard Dean and his open source commitments.
Netcraft is wrong. Planned Parenthood is running Windows 2003 Server, and it's using ASP to serve up its pages.
Hilarious, since you just cited them as a reference back in post 33, when you posted that pic of your hero John Kerry.
Terrorist computers captured in raids show that the al Qaeda uses Microsoft Windows XP exclusively. Looks like the Borg is in bed with bin Laden. How does that make you feel?
No, antiRepublic tried to excuse Howard Dean and the DNC's commitment to open source by claiming plannedparenthood.com ran on Windows. I don't really see the relevance, since planned parenthood isn't one of the two major political parties in this country, especially since his own source for server stats shows they've been running Linux, anyway. Easy to see how you were confused, hope that explains it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.