Ballmer's Email - Indemnification Comes Full Circle

Groklaw ^ | 27 October 2004 | Pamela Jones

[ShadowAce]

Just 6 easy steps, and we come full circle on the indemnification story:

1. First, we had SCO announcing it was suing IBM and threatening Linux users for contributory copyright infringement.

2. Then the chorus broke out in song about how Linux has no indemnification.

3. Then we found out from BayStar's lips that Microsoft inspired them to invest in SCO, an investment that made all the lawsuits financially possible. Thanks for nothing, BayStar.

4. Meanwhile, the Linux world began setting up indemnification and legal funds for Linux users and developers.

5. SCO sued everybody else. Terror ensued, sorta, briefly.

6. Now, today, there are reports about a Steve Ballmer email, which he just sent to subscribers to executive emails from Microsoft "and to other business decision makers and IT professionals, to share some of the data around these key issues - and to provide examples of customers who opted to go with the Windows platform rather than Linux or UNIX, and how that's playing out for them in the real world."

So now we see what it was all for, all the frogs in the SCO pond singing about indemnification. Of course, Yankee Group's study is given a prominent place, and Ballmer brazenly claims their products are more secure than Linux, ha ha, and then lo and behold, in one section he suggests that indemnification is another fine reason to choose Microsoft over Linux. Obviously, they think we all just fell off a turnip truck and can't connect the dots. Is it legal, I wonder, to help create IP legal issues for your chief competitor, and then use that trouble as a marketing ploy? If it is, somebody pass a law quick, will ya?

Here's a reaction from Mandrakesoft:

"Gael Duval, co-founder of Mandrakesoft, believes that Ballmer's email is indicative of a change of strategy from Microsoft.

"'We think that Microsoft is trying a new strategy to fight against Linux by spreading much FUD [Fear Uncertainty and Doubt] about Linux strongest points,' Duval told ZDNet UK.

"'In particular, the TCO argument can easily be modelled to fit their communication, but many studies -- in general the ones that aren't financed by Microsoft -- show that Linux' TCO is much lower than Windows', in particular because administering Linux is really a peaceful activity that doesn't require as many sysadmins as does Windows,' Duval continued, adding that big organisations such as governments are getting increasingly tempted by Linux."

I like that phrase, "a peaceful activity". That's truly what using GNU/Linux is like for me. Peaceful.

Here's the section on indemnification. I think I discern more than just FUD:

"INDEMNIFICATION

"Increasingly, we're hearing from customers that another factor in their consideration of computing platforms is indemnification. In 2003, we looked at our volume licensing contracts to see what we could do to increase customer satisfaction, and a top issue we heard about was patent indemnification, which then was capped at the amount the customer had paid for the software. So later that year, we lifted that cap for our volume licensing customers, who are most likely to be the target of an intellectual property lawsuit.

"Today, when a volume licensing customer - a business or organization ranging from as few as five computers to many thousands - licenses a Microsoft product, we provide uncapped protection for legal costs associated with a patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret claim alleging infringement by a Microsoft product. We do this because we are proud to stand behind our products, and because we understand that being on the wrong end of a software patent lawsuit could cost a customer millions of dollars, and massively disrupt their business.

"No vendor today stands behind Linux with full IP indemnification. In fact, it is rare for open source software to provide customers with any indemnification at all. We think Microsoft's indemnification already is one of the best offered by the leading players in the industry for volume licensing customers, and we're looking at ways to expand it to an even broader set of our customers. It's definitely something businesses want to think about as they're building or expanding their IT infrastructure.

"It was certainly a factor for Regal Entertainment Group, the largest movie theatre chain in the world. In 2001, they moved to Red Hat Linux. After evaluating Linux in their business for several months, however, they migrated to the Microsoft platform - not only because of lower TCO, stronger support and services, and greater reliability and manageability, but because they were more fully indemnified on IP. J.E. Henry, CIO of Regal Entertainment, told me that "reduced risk was a decision factor in selecting Windows over Linux. We needed to minimize our exposure to the distraction of potential IP infringement claims, and we had a big enough open source presence to be concerned. With the way that Microsoft stands behind its products, it's one less thing that I have to worry about."

So, there you have it, the full cynical circle. They offer their customers IP protection. And it's "rare" for Linux vendors to offer any indemnification at all? Which of them isn't doing that? And then there is the OSDL fund and OSRM and tools to prevent such issues in the first place, like Black Duck's offerings. How can he make such a statement? Oh. I get it. FUD. Meanwhile Microsoft is building up its patent portfolio and ups its patent indemnification, and I believe we can all fill in the blanks as to what comes next. This email would seem to be the clearest expression to date of their strategy. And is it not . . . what is the word? Soooo totally "Microsoft". Le mot juste, as I live and breathe. Never mind. Forewarned is forearmed. OSDL is doing some thinking and I know OSRM are having some deep thoughts on this subject of patents, too. OSRM's Daniel Egger puts it well: "When it comes to competing against Microsoft, hope is not a plan." Novell has done its part, so has IBM, and the wagons are circling. But to those of you in Europe, are you connecting some dots? If you wish to continue to use GNU/Linux, now would seem the ideal time to make sure you can.

If I got that email, I believe I'd ask Microsoft for indemnification for viruses and malware. No? They don't offer that? Zounds. That seems like a more common threat than patent infringement, don't you think? I believe they should offer that right away. Yes, definitely. I suggest you all ask for that, those of you stuck in the Windows world, right away. Virus indemnification. That's the ticket. After all, such troubles do affect your total cost of ownership to a significant degree, don't they? Then there's the worry that you might get sued after one of your employees unwittingly sends a virus to another company. For sure, we need some studies on the true total cost of using Windows.

Sender ID has been raised from the dead, like Frankenstein, with some new parts. Techweb says nothing has changed about the license though, but the patent has been narrowed, enough so AOL has happily hopped on board. Evidently, they don't care if we can't use Sender ID and still use our operating system. And if you were wondering how well those who make friends with Microsoft fare, I suggest this article by Bob Mims on SCO's current plight. I hear they are back in Brazil to try to stir up some business there. Either that, or they're planning a getaway to Rio. Joke, joke. That is a choice of venue that reflects their usual astuteness, don't you think?

[ShadowAce]

I believe I'd ask Microsoft for indemnification for viruses and malware.

[ShadowAce]

Linux/Microsoft Ping

[mnehring]

Here is the e-mail I just received:

In the thousands of meetings that Microsoft employees have with customers around the world every day, many of the same questions consistently surface: Does an open source platform really provide a long-term cost advantage compared with Windows? Which platform offers the most secure computing environment? Given the growing concern among customers about intellectual property indemnification, what's the best way to minimize risk? In moving from an expensive UNIX platform, what's the best alternative in terms of migration?

Customers want factual information to help them make the best decisions about these issues. About a year ago, a senior Microsoft team led by General Manager Martin Taylor was created to figure out how we could do a better job helping customers evaluate our products against alternatives such as Linux/open source and proprietary UNIX. This team has worked with a number of top analyst firms that have generated independent, third-party reports on cost of acquisition, total cost of ownership, security and indemnification. Some of the studies were commissioned by Microsoft, while others were initiated and funded by the analysts. In each case, the research methodology, findings and conclusions were the sole domain of the analyst firms. This was essential: we wanted truly independent, factual information.

At the same time, our worldwide sales organization is going even deeper with customers to understand their needs and create a feedback loop with our product development teams that enables us to deliver integrated solutions that support real-world customer scenarios, and comprehensively address issues such as manageability, ease of use and reliability.

I'm writing to you and other business decision makers and IT professionals today to share some of the data around these key issues - and to provide examples of customers who opted to go with the Windows platform rather than Linux or UNIX, and how that's playing out for them in the real world. Much more information on this is at www.microsoft.com/getthefacts.

This email is one in an occasional series of emails from Microsoft executives about technology and public-policy issues important to computer users, our industry, and anyone who cares about the future of high technology. If you would like to receive these emails in the future, please go to http://register.microsoft.com/subscription/subscribeMe.asp?lcid=1033&id=155 to subscribe.

TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP AND ACQUISITION COSTS

In the past few years, you haven't been able to open a computing magazine or visit a technology Web site without running into an article about Linux and open source. Not surprising: who doesn't like the idea of a "free" operating system that just about anyone can tinker with?

But as the Yankee Group commented in an independent, non-sponsored global study of 1,000 IT administrators and executives, Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Comparison, things aren't always as they seem: "All of the major Linux vendors and distributors (including Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Novell [SUSE and Ximian] and Red Hat) have begun charging hefty premiums for must-have items such as technical service and support, product warranties and licensing indemnification."

Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release. And nine out of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any tangible business gains.

Yankee also noted that, for larger organizations with complex computer networks, it's important to look beyond Linux's initial low investment cost and consider all of the TCO and ROI factors.

This is exactly what one of our large enterprise customers, Equifax, did recently. Equifax, a $1.2 billion U.S.-based enterprise with 4,600 employees in 13 countries, needed more computing power than its mainframe systems could deliver for rapidly searching the company's vast marketing database. They spent several months conducting an internal analysis, which proved that, compared with Linux, Windows would realize a 14% cost savings and shorten their time to market by six months. (Equifax Case Study - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=15528)

Another comprehensive, non-sponsored study by Forrester, entitled The Costs and Risks of Open Source, drew a similar conclusion: "The allure of free software is accelerating the deployment of open source platforms, but open source is not free and may actually increase financial and business risks."

In early 2004, Forrester conducted in-depth discussions with 14 companies that had been running Linux platforms for longer than one year to see what the costs really were. Several key themes emerged:

- Few companies know what they're really spending. Only five of the 14 kept detailed metrics - and each of those five found Linux more expensive (5% to 20%) than their current Microsoft environments.

- Preparation and planning activities took 5% to 25% longer for Linux than Windows.

- Training for IT employees was significantly higher for Linux than for Windows - on average, 15% more expensive. The reasons: training materials were less readily available, and customers spent more on training to compensate for the lack of internal knowledge about Linux.

- All 14 companies said it was difficult finding qualified Linux personnel in the marketplace to support their Linux projects. When they did find third-party help, they had less leverage negotiating hourly rates than with Windows consulting resources.

One of our mid-market customers, Computer Builders Warehouse (CBW), came to a similar conclusion. CBW builds computers to order for education, government, and corporate customers. Several years ago, it deployed Red Hat and Mandrake versions of Linux to support its corporate, retail and e-commerce applications. Challenged with high costs, CBW subsequently migrated to Microsoft Windows Server System, and reduced its total cost of ownership by 25 percent. It also consolidated its server population by 50 percent, reduced maintenance time by 50 percent, and boosted developer productivity by 200 percent. These benefits - totaling $650,000 in savings - are dwarfed by the millions of dollars in new revenue that CBW expects as a result of bringing a key security and monitoring product to market more than two years faster than it could have done using Linux. (CBW Case Study - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=15131)

SECURITY

About three years ago, we made software security a top priority, and since then we've invested heavily in a multi-pronged effort to improve software quality and development processes, and to reduce risks for customers through education and guidance, industry collaboration and enforcement. I think it's fair to say that no other software platform has invested as much in security R&D, process improvements and customer education as we have at Microsoft.

Still, Linux has often been touted as a more secure platform. In part, this is because of the "many eyeballs" maxim of open source software that claims a correlation between the number of developers looking at code and the number of bugs found and resolved. While this has some validity, it is not necessarily the best way to develop secure software. We believe in the effectiveness of a structured software engineering process that includes a deep focus on quality, technology advances, and vigorous testing to make software more secure.

A number of third-party reports have questioned how safe the Linux platform really is. For example, a recent independent study by Forrester, Is Linux More Secure than Windows?, highlighted that the four major Linux distributions have a higher incidence and severity of vulnerabilities, and are slower than Microsoft to provide security updates.

According to Forrester, Microsoft had the lowest elapsed time between disclosure of a vulnerability and the release of a fix. They found that Microsoft addressed all of the 128 publicly disclosed security flaws in Windows over the 12-month period studied, and that its security updates predated major outbreaks by an average of 305 days.

Other independent sources of data show similar conclusions. According to statistics posted on the security Web site Secunia (http://secunia.com/product/2535#statistics_month), Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 has averaged 7.4 security advisories per month, compared with 1.7 advisories for Windows Server 2003.

And as Yankee Group noted in its Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Comparison study, "Linux-specific worms and viruses are every bit as pernicious as their UNIX and Windows counterparts - and in many cases they are much more stealthy."

This was a deciding factor in farmaCity's selection of Windows over Linux. Headquartered in Buenos Aires, farmaCity is a rapidly growing Argentinian drugstore chain with 50 outlets and 1,200 employees. Although farmaCity's growth in recent years was a testament to its success, the company's aging technology infrastructure had become a hindrance to further expansion. After careful analysis, farmaCity concluded that Windows would reduce network administration by 30 percent compared with Linux, and would also simplify identity and desktop management. But the core reason for selecting Microsoft was the increase in network security, complemented by the ability to reduce patch-deployment time by 50 percent while cutting unsolicited e-mail by half. (farmaCity Case Study - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=15269)

INDEMNIFICATION

Increasingly, we're hearing from customers that another factor in their consideration of computing platforms is indemnification. In 2003, we looked at our volume licensing contracts to see what we could do to increase customer satisfaction, and a top issue we heard about was patent indemnification, which then was capped at the amount the customer had paid for the software. So later that year, we lifted that cap for our volume licensing customers, who are most likely to be the target of an intellectual property lawsuit.

Today, when a volume licensing customer - a business or organization ranging from as few as five computers to many thousands - licenses a Microsoft product, we provide uncapped protection for legal costs associated with a patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret claim alleging infringement by a Microsoft product. We do this because we are proud to stand behind our products, and because we understand that being on the wrong end of a software patent lawsuit could cost a customer millions of dollars, and massively disrupt their business.

No vendor today stands behind Linux with full IP indemnification. In fact, it is rare for open source software to provide customers with any indemnification at all. We think Microsoft's indemnification already is one of the best offered by the leading players in the industry for volume licensing customers, and we're looking at ways to expand it to an even broader set of our customers. It's definitely something businesses want to think about as they're building or expanding their IT infrastructure.

It was certainly a factor for Regal Entertainment Group, the largest movie theatre chain in the world. In 2001, they moved to Red Hat Linux. After evaluating Linux in their business for several months, however, they migrated to the Microsoft platform - not only because of lower TCO, stronger support and services, and greater reliability and manageability, but because they were more fully indemnified on IP. J.E. Henry, CIO of Regal Entertainment, told me that "reduced risk was a decision factor in selecting Windows over Linux. We needed to minimize our exposure to the distraction of potential IP infringement claims, and we had a big enough open source presence to be concerned. With the way that Microsoft stands behind its products, it's one less thing that I have to worry about."

UNIX MIGRATION

One of the hot topics among enterprise IT and business decision makers today is the costs and benefits of migrating enterprise resource planning systems (ERP) from costly, proprietary UNIX environments to Windows or other platforms. ERP integrates various company functions such as human resources, inventories and financials, and links a company to its vendors and customers.

An independent, qualitative survey of organizations that recently completed a migration of their SAP or PeopleSoft ERP system from a UNIX environment to the Microsoft Windows Server platform found a more than 20% reduction in the number of servers required compared with UNIX. The survey, by META Group, found that in one large telecommunications company, consolidation on Windows allowed a greater than 50 percent reduction in the number of required servers.

The survey also found a more than 50 percent improvement in areas such as reliability, accessibility and scalability; significant savings in cost management, IT staffing, performance monitoring and vendor management; and measurable savings in technical support and training. More than half of business function decision makers also saw significant improvements in areas such as consistency, accuracy, reporting enhancement and performance.

"Windows is now a mainstream option for the vast majority of ERP projects," META Group concluded.

A great case study is the Raiffeisen Bank Group, the largest private bank group in Austria with about 2,600 branches. It wanted to reduce costs and provide better customer service by consolidating the number of servers in its branches by 50 percent. Raiffeisen investigated migrating from UNIX to either Linux or Windows. After evaluating the possible solutions, the company found that Windows Server 2003 would provide the most economical solution along with better performance, while giving bank employees an integrated view of customer information that they needed to improve customer service. (Raiffeisen Bank Group Case Study - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=15519)

One of our mid-market customers had a similar experience. Grand Expeditions is a consortium of luxury travel companies that significantly reduced its Web development and hosting costs, and improved site reliability and performance, by moving from a combination of Linux- and UNIX-based servers to Windows Server 2003 and the Windows Server System. The new system was up and running in just 60 days, and is saving Grand Expeditions $200,000 a year. (Grand Expeditions Case Study - http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=15397)

IN CLOSING...

There is no question that customers are benefiting today from a healthy, competitive IT industry. Competition requires companies to really focus in on what customers want and need. At the same time, customers have a clearer opportunity than ever before to evaluate choices.

For example, BET.com, the Internet portal created by Viacom subsidiary BET Networks, did an in-depth comparison of Red Hat Linux and Windows Server System. They found that Windows offered 30% lower TCO, was more secure and reliable, and enabled quicker time to market. As BET.com's CTO, Navarrow Wright, said: "When I looked at all the costs - not just the straight price of software - a Windows Server System-based solution made better financial sense than sticking with our Sun and Oracle environment or switching to Linux. We decided to migrate the whole enterprise from various software vendors to standardize all of our software on Microsoft."

By implementing Windows Server 2003, Windows XP Professional, Office Professional Edition 2003, Exchange Server 2003, Content Management Server 2003 and Visual Studio .NET 2003, BET.com conservatively estimated that its workforce will increase productivity by 25-30%, while saving significantly in licensing and redevelopment costs.

As organizations increasingly rely on IT to perform mission-critical functions, and with complexity a growing challenge, choosing the right computing platform for the long term can make the difference between profit and loss, and between future success and failure. And it's pretty clear that the facts show that Windows provides a lower total cost of ownership than Linux; the number of security vulnerabilities is lower on Windows, and Windows responsiveness on security is better than Linux; and Microsoft provides uncapped IP indemnification of their products, while no such comprehensive offering is available for Linux or open source.

The vision and benefits of an integrated platform are what distinguish Microsoft's approach to software. The Windows platform today offers an unmatched level of value, applications availability, simplicity, security and productivity. For Microsoft, this is truly a cross-company effort that requires the server and client operating systems to seamlessly deliver great usability and manageability features, applications that deliver compelling scenarios, and tools that enable developers and ISVs to easily and quickly build new applications on the platform.

It's important that customers have all the information they need when making critical and expensive IT decisions. If the evidence at our www.microsoft.com/getthefacts Web site doesn't sufficiently convey the benefits and value of the Microsoft platform, we want to hear from you so we can work even harder to get that information to you. If you would like to have a more detailed discussion about your company's IT needs, email Martin Taylor at martinta@microsoft.com.

Steve Ballmer

To contact Microsoft, write to us at One Microsoft Way, Redmond, Wash, 98052. To manage your Microsoft.com subscriptions, please sign in at the Microsoft Profile Center here: http://g.microsoft.com/mh_mshp/48. To see the Microsoft.com Privacy Statement, please go to http://www.microsoft.com/info/privacy.mspx.

[DanTheAdmin]

Thanks for the ping - very interesting...

[steve-b]

We think that Microsoft is trying a new strategy to fight against Linux by spreading much FUD

This is like saying, "We think that Bill Clinton is trying a new strategy to elect Democrats by telling lies".

[Bush2000]

This is like saying, "We think that Bill Clinton is trying a new strategy to elect Democrats by telling lies".

That's hilarious, Stevie. When Redhat and IBM offer indemnification, please let us know. Meanwhile, Ballmer is right.

[Bush2000]

This is like saying, "We think that Bill Clinton is trying a new strategy to elect Democrats by telling lies".

That's hilarious, Stevie. When Redhat and IBM offer indemnification, please let us know. Meanwhile, Ballmer is right.

[TechJunkYard]

When Redhat and IBM offer indemnification, please let us know.

Red Hat Indemnifies Enterprise Linux Buyers

"We have provided this guarantee to many of our large enterprise customers, and we are now extending this guarantee to all customers who use Red Hat Enterprise Linux," vice president of business development Bryan Sims said. "Enterprise platform deployments are key investments that should be protected."

Defiant IBM Calls Linux Indemnification Unnecessary

"Our position hasn't changed," said Jim Stallings, IBM's general manager for Linux. "The claims that have been alleged [by SCO] against IBM [have] no basis," so indemnification is not needed.

Also keep in mind that Red Hat has a distro, while IBM does not.

[Bush2000]

LMFAO! What about Fedora users? Screwed?

As usual, IBM knows that it isn't a good idea to indemnify users when it knows that there's IP exposure.

[TechJunkYard]

LMFAO! What about Fedora users? Screwed?

Yup, just as screwed as the Microsoft customers who don't happen to be in the volume licensing program. Even though they paid their money and deserve their indemnification just in case it turns out that Microsoft lifted some of that spaghetti code from somewhere other than BSD.

Do Fedora users pay anything?

As usual, IBM knows that it isn't a good idea to indemnify users when it knows that there's IP exposure.

Heh... even SCO knows there's no IP exposure. If SCO had any evidence at all, the time to present it was in their opposition to the PSJ on CC10.

[Bush2000]

Yup, just as screwed as the Microsoft customers who don't happen to be in the volume licensing program. Even though they paid their money and deserve their indemnification just in case it turns out that Microsoft lifted some of that spaghetti code from somewhere other than BSD.

Let's be clear on what "volume licensing" means to Microsoft:

Today, when a volume licensing customer – a business or organization ranging from as few as five computers to many thousands – licenses a Microsoft product, we provide uncapped protection for legal costs associated with a patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret claim alleging infringement by a Microsoft product. We do this because we are proud to stand behind our products, and because we understand that being on the wrong end of a software patent lawsuit could cost a customer millions of dollars, and massively disrupt their business.

And consider this: Red Hat only earned $31.9M on $158.1M in revenue over the past year. Their ability to indemnify customers against liability that could easily approach "B"illions of dollars (think tobacco industry) is dubious, at best.

Do Fedora users pay anything?

No -- and neither do *most* Linux users. Which means that they're going to be twisting in the wind when the IP lawsuits are filed. It's simply bogus for you to suggest that Microsoft isn't going to absorb liability on behalf of its customers when it gets sued for IP issues.

Heh... even SCO knows there's no IP exposure. If SCO had any evidence at all, the time to present it was in their opposition to the PSJ on CC10.

Keep on spinning. If IP exposure weren't an issue, you wouldn't see Red Hat, Novell, and HP tripping over themselves to offer indemnification programs. Clearly, their customers are asking for indemnification -- despite what you guys would like to portray. You're simply misguided.

[TechJunkYard]

Let's be clear...

Yes, let's.

Volume Licensing
Microsoft Volume Licensing programs may be the right choice for your organization if you need multiple copies of Microsoft software. Volume licensing is a flexible and economical way to acquire from five to thousands of licenses for software. Microsoft Volume Licensing programs provide potentially substantial savings, ease of deployment, flexible acquisition, numerous payment options, and other benefits such as Software Assurance.

It's probably safe to say that the average home user will not share in the benefits of MS indemnification.

[Red Hat's] ability to indemnify customers against liability that could easily approach "B"illions of dollars (think tobacco industry) is dubious, at best.

I doubt that any of Red Hat's customers are as high-profile to rate a Billion-dollar lawsuit. For example, I think the IBM suit is based more on IBM's ability to pay than it is about IBM's alleged conduct.

And (I just noticed this) Red Hat doesn't really plan to fund lawsuit defenses.

This isn't indemnification in the classic sense. "It's a warranty," says Day. "If there is code found to be infringing on the valid intellectual property rights of another, Red Hat will replace that code." According to Day, this is significant because Red Hat is fixing the problem, enabling uninterrupted use of its Linux. However, Red Hat will not pay the cost of defending an infringement suit, nor does it take into account paying any damages for previous infringement. "But," Day adds, "Red Hat is very confident that we are not infringing on the intellectual property rights of others."

.. they're going to be twisting in the wind when the IP lawsuits are filed.

You see that in your crystal ball, do ya?

It's simply bogus for you to suggest that Microsoft isn't going to absorb liability on behalf of its customers when it gets sued for IP issues.

I don't think that I suggested that. My point is that Microsoft's indemnification program isn't all that special, or distinct from anyone else who's doing it.

Keep on spinning. If IP exposure weren't an issue, you wouldn't see Red Hat, Novell, and HP tripping over themselves to offer indemnification programs. Clearly, their customers are asking for indemnification...

Precisely. It's part of the software production business now, and business users are demanding it now, thanks to SCO. In order to sell to that market, you have to offer it.

Fedora users, however, are primarily hobbyists. As such, most are adopting IBM's stance regarding indemnification: There is NO infringing code in the Linux kernel.

[Bush2000]

It's probably safe to say that the average home user will not share in the benefits of MS indemnification.

Yes, they will. MS would be compelled by any hypothetical IP lawsuit to fix the violation. No MS customer has ever been sued succesfully for an IP violation in MS products.

I doubt that any of Red Hat's customers are as high-profile to rate a Billion-dollar lawsuit. For example, I think the IBM suit is based more on IBM's ability to pay than it is about IBM's alleged conduct.

I'm not talking about a single billion dollar suit. I'm talking about death by a thousand cuts.

And (I just noticed this) Red Hat doesn't really plan to fund lawsuit defenses.

So, when Red Hat and those customers get sued, they're basically on their own. That's not indemnification. That's total BS.

You see that in your crystal ball, do ya?

Yeah -- and it's already started. If there's one truth, it's that there are too many goddamned lawyers in this country. It's just a matter of time before they set their sights on you guys.

My point is that Microsoft's indemnification program isn't all that special, or distinct from anyone else who's doing it.

It's certainly special in the sense that it actually defends customers. Your OSS "indemnification" plans are worthless.

Precisely. It's part of the software production business now, and business users are demanding it now, thanks to SCO. In order to sell to that market, you have to offer it.

And, as you've pointed out, when you read the fine print, Red Hat, Novell, and others are not offering indemnification. It's nothing more than a lame publicity stunt intended to deflect attention from severe deficiencies in the OSS model.

Fedora users, however, are primarily hobbyists.

Not true. There are many companies running their businesses on Fedora.

As such, most are adopting IBM's stance regarding indemnification: There is NO infringing code in the Linux kernel.

Hilarious. You've gotta love how IBM has erected an artificial mote around the Linux kernel -- ignoring the fact that "Linux the Operating System" distributed by Red Hat, Novell, and others isn't just a kernel but a large collection of miscellaneous crap from dubious sources.

[TechJunkYard]

If there's one truth, it's that there are too many goddamned lawyers in this country.

You got that right.

It's just a matter of time before they set their sights on you guys.

If IBM is successful in defending against this lawsuit, they'll probably look elsewhere. They don't want hobbyists because we don't have any money. They want businesses with deep pockets.

There are many companies running their businesses on Fedora.

Seriously, dude. Core 1 and core 2 were buggy as hell. I can't see anyone running their business on that unsupported crap when they can buy a better, supported version of RHEL. Yeah, there may be some Mom & Pop stores doing it, but note that I said primarily hobbyists.

IBM has erected an artificial mote [sic] around the Linux kernel -- ignoring the fact that "Linux the Operating System" distributed by Red Hat, Novell, and others isn't just a kernel but a large collection of miscellaneous crap from dubious sources.

Well, that's the thing. IBM hasn't contributed code to the applications, just the kernel. IBM has written and released its own apps. The distros include supported apps with identified owners, not just any old crap from SourceForge.

But if you want to install crap with questionable heritage, you can do it on your own. Heck, you can even do that on Windows. With Linux, at least you get the source.

[Bush2000]

If IBM is successful in defending against this lawsuit, they'll probably look elsewhere. They don't want hobbyists because we don't have any money. They want businesses with deep pockets.

You're being a little naive. The tobacco lawsuits were a culmination of years of badgering the tobacco industry by trial lawyers. If offending IP is found in Linux, you can be certain that lawyers are going to line up to sue Red Hat, Novell, and whoever else distributes Linux -- as well as their corporate customers. You can pretend that liability isn't an issue -- and I'm perfectly willing to suffer your illusion -- but it is an issue for customers. With the piddly profits being made by Red Hat and Novell, they are in no financial position to cover losses to their customers. If I were a customer, I'd be seriously concerned because the fact of the matters is that nobody is certain whether IP in Linux violates copyright and/or patent rights. Seriously, dude. Core 1 and core 2 were buggy as hell.

Core 2 is pretty damned stable. Who are you trying to kid. I use it all the time. It's the same damned kernel.

Well, that's the thing. IBM hasn't contributed code to the applications, just the kernel. IBM has written and released its own apps. The distros include supported apps with identified owners, not just any old crap from SourceForge.

LMFAO! Yeahhhhh ... "identified owners"... aka people who erected a website. I wouldn't bet my business on that kind of liability.

[Bush2000]

If IBM is successful in defending against this lawsuit, they'll probably look elsewhere. They don't want hobbyists because we don't have any money. They want businesses with deep pockets.

You're being a little naive. The tobacco lawsuits were a culmination of years of badgering the tobacco industry by trial lawyers. If offending IP is found in Linux, you can be certain that lawyers are going to line up to sue Red Hat, Novell, and whoever else distributes Linux -- as well as their corporate customers. You can pretend that liability isn't an issue -- and I'm perfectly willing to suffer your illusion -- but it is an issue for customers. With the piddly profits being made by Red Hat and Novell, they are in no financial position to cover losses to their customers. If I were a customer, I'd be seriously concerned because the fact of the matters is that nobody is certain whether IP in Linux violates copyright and/or patent rights. Seriously, dude. Core 1 and core 2 were buggy as hell.

Core 2 is pretty damned stable. Who are you trying to kid. I use it all the time. It's the same damned kernel.

Well, that's the thing. IBM hasn't contributed code to the applications, just the kernel. IBM has written and released its own apps. The distros include supported apps with identified owners, not just any old crap from SourceForge.

LMFAO! Yeahhhhh ... "identified owners"... aka people who erected a website. I wouldn't bet my business on that kind of liability.

[TechJunkYard]

If offending IP is found in Linux, you can be certain that lawyers are going to line up to sue Red Hat, Novell, and whoever else distributes Linux -- as well as their corporate customers.

Point taken. Now look what you said next.

With the piddly profits being made by Red Hat and Novell, they are in no financial position to cover losses to their customers.

So whomever sues the distros isn't likely to get too many $Billions. At least not from Red Hat. Novell, perhaps. And no lawyer is going to get rich from filing lawsuits against hobbyists.

If I were a customer, I'd be seriously concerned because the fact of the matters is that nobody is certain whether IP in Linux violates copyright and/or patent rights.

Oh, it's a very real concern, no doubt about it. Even MS has been found to violate patents, so it can happen to anyone who doesn't immediately junk all of their computers and go back to using pencil and paper and calculators.

Core 2 is pretty damned stable. Who are you trying to kid. I use it all the time.

Welll.. good for you. PCMCIA wouldn't work in either laptop I tested it on, so that was a show-stopper for me.

"identified owners"... aka people who erected a website.

And have a contactable e-mail address. AND accept bug reports and patches. Mere presence on sf.net doesn't count.

Should Red Hat require notarized signatures from these folks attesting to the origin of their code? Does MS require that from their programmers?

[Bush2000]

So whomever sues the distros isn't likely to get too many $Billions. At least not from Red Hat. Novell, perhaps. And no lawyer is going to get rich from filing lawsuits against hobbyists.

Lawyers will have no problem taking a bite out of Red Hat and Novell's stock market capitalization (ie. "give us stock in exchange for your violations").

Welll.. good for you. PCMCIA wouldn't work in either laptop I tested it on, so that was a show-stopper for me.

There aren't many people running Linux on notebooks yet. Wireless *SUCKS* with Linux. But that's a marginal use. Most of these machines are being used as servers.

And have a contactable e-mail address. AND accept bug reports and patches. Mere presence on sf.net doesn't count.

Okay, I'll grant you that they can be contacted. But it's a very tenuous position for Red Hat to assume such liability on behalf of these kinds of relationships.

Should Red Hat require notarized signatures from these folks attesting to the origin of their code?

I would. It's not a guarantee -- but it would at least indicate to a jury that Red Hat didn't turn its head away and accept a disc without any kind of minimal certification.

Does MS require that from their programmers?

Absolutely. MS employees are required to sign IP contracts with the company regarding any code they generate or use. Again, that's not a shield against liability -- but having a corporate policy in place is essential. I'm only asking that Red Hat, Novell, and others play by the same rules. If they don't, they're gonna get seriously screwed in the courts.