The same week that Microsoft issued a press release providing further details about some of the technological advances that will result from the November 2006 technology agreement between Novell and Microsoft, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer told Wall Street what he really thinks the deal means to Microsoft. During a forecast update meeting for financial analysts and shareholders on February 15, Ballmer reiterated that, to him, the deal is more about Microsoft exerting intellectual property pressure on Novell than anything else.
I really wish it wasn’t about that.
Of course it is Ballmer and listening to him is almost as bad as listening to Bush. I mean I can’t stand either of them.
Edited 2007-02-18 21:12
I don’t know how Novell could trust that idiot on the first place. I can’t stand either of them too.
Edited 2007-02-18 21:19
Everyone has a price
“Everyone has a price”
I guess Steve Ballmer is the Million Dollar Man.
( sorry for the bad reference)
>I guess Steve Ballmer is the Million Dollar Man.
Six, six, six.
Six, six, six
The number of the beast! That’s more like it. 😀
I do not know how Novell could have trusted him, however, I don’t think Ballmer would have been allowed anywhere near that meeting.
Monkey-boy… and I mean Ballmer, not Bush, is retarded. He keeps speaking before thinking. Do a Google search for Ballmer quotes….
Unless you are a Ballmer fan, do not do a Google search, “MSN it” hahaha
If Ballmer and Microsoft keep up this patent and IP crap, it will be both Microsoft and the US economy that suffer…. wait.. I think this is Ballmer on his own, I dont think there is official Microsoft backing to this…
Decent countries like us in the EU who do not recognise software IP and software patents will carry on as usual, advancing and leaving Ballmer to fight it out in US courts who only have juristiction over US companies.
Which raises a point.
Nothing is stopping Novell moving to a EU country and continuing trading from there, Suse was a German company after all. This would make all ballmers complaints moot.
Yeah “thanks” Novell. Good deal
miserj,
Here we go another anti Bush person, and you probably supported Clinton or Gore.
The cheek of it, from a company who’s latest and greatest is a shameless rip off of ideas in other OS beggars belief. I suspect this is all about FUD, however, sometimes if you make enough people believe a lie is true it becomes true.
I do hope that at least a few European legislators are looking at how this company is hoping to use the law to guarantee it’s profits for ever, why innovate when you’ve got lawyers.
These day, lawyers are the guys who innovate
Hmmm yeah… inventive ways to make more cash…
This sounds like since SCO is losing, now MS wants to do it outright instead of funding others to do it. Now, if this is true, lets see the infringing code. SCO was unable to produce any patent infringing code, so now lets see if MS can.
SCO was unable to produce any patent infringing code, so now lets see if MS can.
The SCO case was not about patent infringement, it was about copyright infringement.
True and I don’t think the rest of the world will fall for MS patents, as it amounts to little more, than a lets all pay Microsoft tax. Possibly the sooner MS brings on some patent claims in the US the sooner the rest of the world will say no, maybe Ballmer knows this and figures FUD is less risky
Edited 2007-02-18 21:54
Patent….copyright, you say tomato….whatever. Same BS, same thing.
Patent….copyright, you say tomato….whatever. Same BS, same thing.
Not quite. If you write some code that automatically generates Top 40 pop-hits and copyright it, I can do the same thing, as long as I write my own code and don’t plagiarize yours. But if you patent the idea, then no one else is allowed to implement it, regardless of how they do it, or the code they use.
Wow…what a remarkable display of ignorance!
Or, it could be true enlightenment.
first, a mountain is a mountain. Then, when I open my eye, a mountain is not a mountain. After practicing further, then once again a mountain is a mountain.
Whoa, that was deep.
“The SCO case was not about patent infringement, it was about copyright infringement.”
Not true, the first charge filed by SCO was that hat IBM had, without authorization, contributed SCO’s intellectual property to the codebase of the open source, Unix-like Linux operating system.
Then when they found that they prob would not find any offending code and that the code they did show was already in the public domain the charge changed to breach of contract.
SCO’s lawsuit has been consistent only in its claim of breach of contract (since the abandonment in early 2004 of its claim of misappropriation of trade secrets). SCO’s initial claims were:
Misappropriation of trade secrets
Unfair competition
Interference with contract
Breach of IBM Software Agreement
On July 22, 2003, SCO amended its complaint. It added two new claims:
Breach of IBM Sublicensing Agreement
Breach of Sequent Software Agreement
On February 27, 2004 SCO amended the complaint again. It dropped the trade secrets claim, but added the following claims:
Breach of Sequent Sublicensing Agreement
Copyright infringement
Interference with contract
Interference with business relationships
(Source: Wikipedia and Groklaw)
“The SCO case was not about patent infringement, it was about copyright infringement.”
Valid point. I confuse the 2 at times when it comes to written code.
Although Ballmer is unpleasant enough, it is interesting when Microsoft is in a tight spot like they are right now, with the MSFT price off a bit lately. Normally he would have greater discretion to deceive, but he must lay it out on this issue, if just a refinement of his previous threats.
Kudos to Jeremy Allison and the other skeptics who dismissed the rest of the deal as window dressing. Note his remarks about existing patent problems with Microsoft:
http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/07/02/11/1443211.shtml
Bill Gates and other executives at MS are well aware of this action by Ballmer. They are not personally making the statements, but if they were against this attack they would have intervened a while ago.
Maybe the OSS community should hold a fund raiser to really get behind Ubuntu and other projects that are replacing Windows installs.
Everybody at Microsoft must wince each time Ballmer feels compelled to make a personal statement and is simply unable to hide his arrogant personality. The powerful position he holds has corrupted his judgement and makes it unable for him to take a diplomatic stance when the situation clearly calls for it. How is Novell to save face after such a statement issued by their newly acquired business partner?
Edited 2007-02-18 22:14
How is Novell to save face after such a statement issued by their newly acquired business partner?
Honestly? By sending out a press release calling Steve Ballmer “mistaken”, “confused” and “not part of the negotiations”. Drawing comparisons to Ballmer’s rantings and Darl’s pronouncements from 2002/2003 wouldn’t hurt either.
Basically, Novell needs to do a put up or shut up routine on Microsoft. The question is whether they’re ready to do that.
not between customers, or a company and customers.
the patents deal is of no use at all. MS cannot go to me and ask nasty things because Novell has a patent deal. It’s simply a useless deal. The only part that’s useful is the interoperability deal.
Does any one know if they’re concerned about one sub-system, like Samba or FAT? If that’s the case we could put NFS or Coda on Windows. (FAT would be a more pressing problem).
However, the problem that I have with Microsoft are the vague nature of the alleged IP infringements. If they were able to identify a particular sub-system or technology, then it could be fixed or changed.
However, the Catbert in me thinks they won’t do that. With an arsenal of patents that probably includes “breathing through your nose,” I’m sure they have plenty of ammunition to initiate law-suits.
They can put the rest any Samba claims because they do not own license to SMB, IBM does.
Microsoft is not gonna use patents directly against anyone unless they can show that someone blatently used them. They know that if they sued Novell, or Apple (Which uses Samba and other open source tools) or anyone else they would draw too much attention from governments.
So they scare everyone! And like SCO tried to do, they make people PAY.
Apple would use their patents agains Microsofts if they sued Apple
Well Novell I am sure has close to as many as Apple. And I am SURE that Microsoft is running all over Novell’s patents.
I feel sorry for Novell because they look stupid!
Edited 2007-02-19 02:20
Why would they sue big vendors? They’ll sue customers, customers of other vendors…
They’re not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darl_McBride stupid. Suing big players means going to court, which means setting precedence, which means law.
Make sense to me. Even the threat of litigation is strong enough to make people nervous.
>However, the Catbert in me thinks they won’t do that.
>With an arsenal of patents that probably includes
>”breathing through your nose,” I’m sure they have plenty
>of ammunition to initiate law-suits.
Law-suits against who?
Where?
Should they go for that specific developer that coded function X or should they go for the entire project?
Either way, the max. they can do is to ban project X from the US, ’cause, as you may remember, not the whole world has laws concerning IP.
To be honest, I’m not sure. But they could raise patent claims against a company like Linspire. I believe they could also sue someone like Ernie Ball (the guitare strings people). That would be enough to put a lot of panties in very tight bunches, especially if they didn’t put up much of a fight.
As far as Apple and IBM are concerned, I bet a lot of the IP is covered under cross licensing agreements between the companies.
What surprised me about the SCO lawsuit is they hit IBM. A smaller company with shallow pockets would have probably rolled over. AutoZone made more sense than IBM. But then again, I’m just a lowly code jockey. What do I know?
They will probably raise claims against middle sized companies that use RHEL. They are least risky to blackmail.
Ballmer didn’t talk up technological cross-collaboration. He didn’t mention helping customers with interoperability challenges.
No of course he didn’t, and Novell has more chance of getting that than receiving a transmission from a remote alien species. Oh, sorry they already have. That was Ballmer :-).
Anyway, there is going to be no technical collaboration of any kind or work on interoperability, simply because Microsoft doesn’t have to do any of that. Microsoft are Novell’s competitor, Microsoft are in a dominant position in terms of taking Novell’s customers and they aren’t going to change a damn thing on that front. I take it Novell didn’t create any legally binding milestones into the agreement as to what Microsoft will deliver? No, I thought not.
I don’t generally advocate a SWOT analysis, but in Novell’s case I think it might have helped ;-).
As Jeremy Allison has already explained in another interview, Microsoft are already putting pressure on impressionable companies using Linux that open source software contains Microsoft’s IP, and they need to pay for it. This deal simply cements that view, and Microsoft will even be making money out of a competitor’s products who they are already crushing anyway. Get that, eh!
Microsoft want a precedent set that establishes this in the minds of organisations everywhere, as well as their legal department making some extra money. Novell have helped them to do just that.
dont forget novell are one of the main people in the OIN http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
20 years is much too long for a software patent.
If the entities behind OIN (Sony, IBM, NEC, Redhat Philips, Novell) want to, could the OIN be used, now or in the future, to attack non-Linux free/open software, such as FreeBSD or Haiku?
The Linux juggernaut is getting too large. When there’s only Linux left, we’ll be back on square one.
No we won’t, because Linux is open source, so you can fork it, and you can interoperate with it.
could the OIN be used, now or in the future, to attack non-Linux free/open software, such as FreeBSD or Haiku?
They could, but why? Haiku and FreeBSD are large projects with GPL compatible code. No sense in crushing easy available code factories.
If Haiku or FreeBSD come up with the Million Dollar Idea, it only takes one GPL attachment to make it a “Linux technology”.
Is to nuke all of MS’s Lawyers and board of directors.
If these deals are the only way MS can compete is through FUD and vailed IP threats, then MS needs to fall and fall hard and fast. The sooner they get out of the way, the sooner computing can move forward.
I am sick and tired of their business underhanded crap instead of trying to compete on a legit basis based on good products.
Just like the FSF move, with FUD and not good software, is not better than MS in that aspect, here are the proof:
http://badvista.fsf.org/
Just like the FSF move, with FUD and not good software, is not better than MS in that aspect, here are the proof:
What a load of baloney.
First, the following is just a hint of what already is a general consensus among technically knowledgable people, i.e., that free software, in particular GNU software, has high quality and reliability:
http://www.gnu.org/software/reliability.html
http://www.fsf.org/resources/testimonials/useful.html
Second, it is patently ridiculous to compare any possible FUD of a nonprofit with a tiny budget with that of a huge multinational with huge budgets (half a BILLION for Vista alone!) for FUD.
Third, it is no secret that Vista is not doing as well as Microsoft expected, and it is not too hard to look around and learn why. Hence, any campaign to dissuade people from an already problematic product is quite reasonable. Moreover, the reason for the campaign is to alert the public about the harmful consequences of using Vista, such as being subjected to its DRM technologies.
Finally, perhaps the least appreciated difference is simply transparency. That is, the FSF has always operated out in the open, warts and all. Microsoft, however, operates by equivocal language and stealth, which even its supporters would have to acknowledge. Indeed, the subject of this story — the deal with Novell — is precisely the kind of deleterious result of Microsoft’s years of secret planning. Such secrecy, combined with their enormous power, raises FUD to a level virtually unmatched. It has long been known that some of their FUD is implemented through secretive means such as shilling and astroturfing:
http://www.inlumineconsulting.com:8080/website/msft.shilling.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Edited 2007-02-19 01:48
Right, because a bunch of vague threats about intellectual property infringement made by Microsoft is exactly the same as an organized grass-roots campaign that makes it’s agenda crystal clear and points to specific things it finds wrong with a product?
bring it on fat man, we will prevail against any Microsoft nonsense.
Edited 2007-02-18 22:28
Two words: prior art.
Two words: Xerox Alto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xerox_Alto
Until they specify what IP they are talking about its all pointless posturing.
One of these “reporters” should ask for specific patent numbers. If the software infringes then they can remove it. And it doesnt really matter if its removed. If it is there it they would be able to point to it at some future point with an archived package or whatever.
Ballmer reminds me a of an opossum, lots of noise but if you push back enough it will play dead. The problem is Novell hasnt pushed back, yet. And I bet they will, regarding AD in windows and NDS/e-directory.
>>Until they specify what IP they are talking about its all pointless posturing.
It is not pointless at all. Imagine a PHB who’s a little iffy about Linux anyway. Then the PHB starts getting all this news about how linux is a legal minefield, with all kinds of liability for whoever uses linux. Might that PHB decide: “um, maybe we better put off that linux installation, until we know for sure.”
That is how fud works. This about what fud stands for. Fud works to create an uneasy feeling, not to provide verifiable evidence.
I agree to a certain level. But they should be more concerned with their ability to stay in the clear with the MS licenses they have
I know that our legal department doesn’t take vague threats too seriously, but that is just us and we are a small company. Until a cease and desist letter shows up we wouldn’t do anything.
But you do have a point. But until they show someone the patents that are in question its still posturing, much like the mafia does. I just find it really strange that they havent pointed to anything definitive.
According to the article, Steve ballmer is supposed to have said the following:
“The deal that we announced at the end of last year with Novell I consider to be very important. It demonstrated clearly the value of intellectual property even in the Open Source world. I would not anticipate that we make a huge additional revenue stream from our Novell deal, but I do think it clearly establishes that Open Source is not free and Open Source will have to respect intellectual property rights of others just as any other competitor will.”
Notice how Microsoft is not mentioned in the text. Could it be that Novell have patents that Microsoft infringes on. Novell owns a lot of patents. I suppose there could be some NDS stuff, that conflicts with Microsoft active directory.
The strange thing is, why isn’t Ballmer jumping up and down in a wild monkey dance of joy if Microsoft owned patents infringed upon by Novell, and Microsoft was totally in the clear with regard to patent infringements in their own code. Instead he gives this very toned down message to the shareholders.
If Microsoft was totally in the clear, wouldn’t Ballmer impress the shareholders more by going after people infringing on Microsoft code.
Could it be that Novell have patents that Microsoft infringes on. Novell owns a lot of patents. I suppose there could be some NDS stuff, that conflicts with Microsoft active directory.
Look at the numbers… Microsoft is giving Novell a *lot* more money, and is also pushing SuSE linux as part of the deal.
Certainly looks like Microsoft is infringing, and they bought themselves 5 years to clean it up.
That’s just my opinion, however.
Read this: “I would not anticipate that we make a huge additional revenue stream from our Novell deal, but I do think it clearly establishes that Open Source is not free and Open Source will have to respect intellectual property rights of others just as any other competitor will.”
The GPL is also about copyrights (intellectual property). It restricts what the person can do with the source code. And one must respect that.
Patents are also intellectual property. A lot of companies are making a full stop in generating content and are folding into patent holding company. Making other companies are vulnerable to patent abusers. I remember reading about the patent attacks on Nintendo, Sony and MS about the rumble feature. And how can we forget Jobs proudly telling us about Apple’s 300 patents for the Apple Phone.
Until someone starts lobbying for complete removal or rechecking of valid patents from the system. Expect to see more of these patent news/agreements.
For once, I do agree with you. Something is royally fscked-up if the OSS community can toil for over a decade on open code with complete transparency and then get slammed with vague threats from patent holders. Ballmer is right: the patent system gives Microsoft the right to make a blanket claim of IP infringement and pursue patent covenants with whomever they can convince of their merit.
Shame on Novell for being the first to crack. We will never forget what they did to undermine the rights of the OSS community, without whose work their products would not be possible. SLED/S and openSUSE are fine distros, but the openSUSE community has to realize when their rights have been squandered by the corporation that solicits their contributions. Novell bought a Linux distributor and then sold us all out.
Maybe Mark Shuttleworth’s post on the openSUSE mailing list was inappropriate in its methods, but it was correct in its message. Novell is a Johnny-come-lately that threatens to destroy the OSS community with its lack of discretion. Every day that we continue to rationalize Novell’s regrettable and unilateral acquiescence is an implicit acceptance that we do not have the right to distribute OSS. It has to stop now.
Shame on Novell for being the first to crack. We will never forget what they did to undermine the rights of the OSS community, without whose work their products would not be possible.
This could be a double edged sword.
By entering into an agreement with Novell, they are spreading “FUD”, but at the same time by entering into an agreement that acknowledges these technologies and allows Novell to continue distributing said patented technologies under the terms of the GPL they are legitimizing it.
To GPL something is to give others rights to the patents involved.
At the point that this agreement not to sue Novell customers expires, MS may be forced to order Novell to cease and desist the distribution of these technologies, or be forced to allow the distribution under the terms of the GPL free and clear of any special licensing agreement.
By acknowledging the presence of these technologies and openly allowing them to be released as GPL without any special clauses, it could potentially be interpreted as consent to release them under the terms of the GPL.
Since MS and Novell reviewed the GPL before deciding the terms of this agreement, there is reasonable evidence to believe that MS is aware of what the terms of the GPL are.
So yes, the potential bright side of this agreement is that if Linux does contain MS patents, MS just consented to have them released under the terms of the GPL.
If they are planning a legal attack on Linux, this is going to be a problem.
I hadn’t really considered this perspective, but I think it’s a flawed argument. What Microsoft is doing falls outside of patent law per se. They are merely preying on the fears of impressionable Linux users by making threats of future legal action. Novell’s acceptance of this deal lends credibility to these threats.
This has no effect on the outcome of any patent claims that might be asserted on Linux or the OSS with which it is distributed. Microsoft is not granting permission to Novell, they are merely promising not to sue Novell’s enterprise customers. That’s the danger of this agreement. There is not implicit admission or denial of infringement and no implicit permissions being conferred. It’s merely a resolution to ensure that the IP status of Linux distributions remains vague for the next two years.
This benefits both parties, to the severe detriment of the OSS community. Microsoft ensures that concern over the IP status of Linux remains strong in spite of the flagging SCO case, and Novell becomes the only consequence-free island in the sea of Linux offerings.
There is no second edge to the sword. The sharp side is wedged firmly at the throat of the OSS community.
And how can we forget Jobs proudly telling us about Apple’s 300 patents for the Apple Phone.
Yeah, you can’t forget Apple telling you about 300 patents for the iPhone, but you can forget about IBM and its 13 consecutive year of US patent leardership.
“IBM holds more than 40,000 patents worldwide and has been awarded the most U.S. patents for 13 consecutive years.”
http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/20481.wss
It’s like nuclear weapons… it’s crystal clear that the existence of many of them is inherently bad, but everyone has GOT to have them, “just in case”.
The patent system is even worse, since companies are *already* using them as a method of attack. And real harm is being done. “but hey, it’s virtual harm, so it doesn’t matter”, right?
Edited 2007-02-19 08:04
he patent system is even worse, since companies are *already* using them as a method of attack
Just as an info: nuclear weapons have also already been used as a method of attack.
Or at least that’s what I learned in school, maybe the place you are from is teaching it as an act of defense
Right you are. For a moment I forgot… that’s a bit sad now that I think about it.
In any case, that’s the exception and -happily- not the rule <gasp>
The long term effect wild be to drive development away from the US software industry. The Russian courts have dropped the piracy case against the school headmaster. In effect the Russian court said piracy is illegal but not serious enough to prosecute anyone for it.
Novell is tainted and developers will switch to Ubuntu or other ‘free’ distros.
Vista is proving to be a technical and commercial dud and MS is seriously worried about their share price.
Expect IBM, Intel, Dell, HP and everyone else to who has been screwed by MS in the past to take revenge once MS weakens a little more.
Honestly, people make their own trouble with Microsoft. It’s Little Red Riding Hood all over again. I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down says the big bad Ballmer. Actually your house won’t suffer so much as a rattled windowpane unless you are silly enough believe the wolf, in which case, admittedly, you are in the soup.
So, imho, just tell the Microsofties that they are evil usurers with faces like a sweaty baboon’s bum, and send them on their way. Patents, copyrights, EULAs, etc., etc. – MS just want money and any excuse will do. But they know full well that if they ever did sue on the basis of vague menaces they would a) bring down a storm on themselves; b) provoke outfits like the EU as well as some very large competitors, and c) very likely be obliged to reveal huge chunks of their own, oh-so-secret-and-pure Windows code as part of any discovery process.
”
Honestly, people make their own trouble with Microsoft. It’s Little Red Riding Hood all over again. I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down says the big bad Ballmer. Actually your house won’t suffer so much as a rattled windowpane unless you are silly enough believe the wolf, in which case, admittedly, you are in the soup.
So, imho, just tell the Microsofties that they are evil usurers with faces like a sweaty baboon’s bum, and send them on their way. Patents, copyrights, EULAs, etc., etc. – MS just want money and any excuse will do. But they know full well that if they ever did sue on the basis of vague menaces they would a) bring down a storm on themselves; b) provoke outfits like the EU as well as some very large competitors, and c) very likely be obliged to reveal huge chunks of their own, oh-so-secret-and-pure Windows code as part of any discovery process.
”
But they’re already getting paid for things that are GPL’d, as in the Novell deal and apparently with companies who are paying off MS (according to Jeremy Allison of Samba), so it’s not just a sleeping tiger threat here IMO.
“It’s Little Red Riding Hood all over again. I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down says the big bad Ballmer.”
… actually, that’s the Three Little Pigs.
In Little Red Riding Hood it’s “…all the better to EAT you with, my DEAR!”
Then he does eat her, but the woodsman breaks in and chops him open with an axe and RRH and Granny spill out. Grody, huh?
is msft paying money to novl, and not the other way around?
As I understand it, novell is netting over $150M on the deal.
It’s like: “how dare you copy from my book! Here’s one million dollars, I hope you learned your lesson!”
Because MSFT looks at it as a small fee for the main goal, which is to make people believe that Open Source is not free and that OSS companies owe MS access to them and any patents they may own etc.
Remember preception is more important most times then facts. If people THINK that they might be sued they will run and hide instead of finding out the facts.
possible businesses from using Novell’s Linux products and possible from using any open source or Linux products. Microsoft knows that it doesn’t have to be true they just have spread the fear.
I think it’s a very sad day for Novell more than anybody. Not only are they having to defend themselves against the community that is outraged at the deal, but now they have to defend themselves against the company they made the deal with. And yes they did it to themselves.
I’m sure that if Microsoft had any other similar deals in the works they are going to go by the way side after that statement.
I’ll say this. My next OS will be either Linux, BSD, or Mac OS. Microsoft isn’t even an option anymore. (Lucky for me I don’t play games.
)
I’m sorry for the cheap shot! It was just too easy. From Steve Ballmer’s constant bellowing and ranting, he seems no more stable than his company’s “software.” I think the open source genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
Microsoft claimed that Linux is infringing on their patents but refused to ray which ones. Does that means that this deal etc. was a waste?
And to think I was kind of opening my mind to MS a bit.
Stupid me.
I’ve been in programming/ IT for eight years, getting my start in MS products – Visual Studio, SQl Server, and the like.
Then XP came out, with it’s product activation, and .Net came out, with MS screwing over legions of loyal VB and VC++ devs (huge, huge, huge migration costs), and of course there has been all the stealing of IP, anti-trust violation, etc.
Then I started getting into Linux, Unix, Java, LAMP, and all sorts of both open source, cross platform, and mutil vendor supported technology. For me that is the way to go.
But then Mono came out, and I started opening my mind a bit to C# and .Net – it’s pretty good technology.
And I figured that MS is being forced by the market to play nice at least a little bit.
How naive I’ve been in that area.
It’s now crystal clear that we’re dealing with the same old Microsoft – IP thieves, anti-trust violators, bullies, monopolists, extortionists, liars, criminals.
Thus f*&^ MS, and Mono (as good of a job as Miguel and company have done).
I’m for using both good technology, and technology that is not tarnished by being produced by complete criminal organizations like Microsoft.
And Steve Ballmer is going to meet his maker. One’s karma always catches up, eventually. He will suffer the consequences of his actions, either legally, or, heh heh, H – E double hockey sticks. 😉
1) First they ignore you – Complete
2) Then they laugh at you – Complete
3) Then they fight you – In Progress
4) Then you win – TBA
…let the battle begin…
First of all, let us consider the forum for Mr. Ballmer’s statements…a financial analyst briefing concerning revenue forecasts/projections for Microsoft over the next year (or so). His statements were used to give Wall Street and investors that warm fuzzy feeling you get when your investment provides you with a +20% return. This was not a technical nor legal forum and as such is really more of a “pep rally” than a “policy statement” by Ballmer of Microsoft’s future actions.
Secondly, keep in mind that Microsoft reached an almost 5 year high in it’s stock price about 2 weeks before the January 31 release of Vista…since that date…stock is down ~ $2.37 (or 7.5%) and about 1/3 of which occurred *after* this briefing we are discussing. (No link, check it out at nasdaq.com)
Third, this article is only taking a portion of what Ballmer referenced concerning Open Source during the briefing. I would recommend reading the entire transcript to get a handle on what ‘ole Steve was trying to say and keep it in context of the entire briefing. (Sorry the link is only in .doc format — go figure?! http://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/transcripts/fy07/Financial~*… )
Here’s the part of the briefing I think this article is taken, but take the whole section into context, not just the Novell reference….Steve said:
“The second style of competition comes form Open Source. We have done very well versus Linux on the desktop and on the server, and I am actually hopeful that we will build share, particularly in Web Servers and high performance clusters, from Linux in the next year.
But you cannot be confused: Having a competitor out there who at least nominally looks to be close to free is always a challenge, and there always is a set of pressure on us, particularly on pricing, there’s a set of pricing pressure that nobody should ignore. We are competing with a value equation. We are higher priced, but we bring greater value. But I don’t want to eliminate in your minds the notions of risk of pricing that comes from competition from Open Source.
The deal that we announced at the end of last year with Novell I consider to be very important. It demonstrated clearly the value of intellectual property even in the Open Source world. I would not anticipate that we make a huge additional revenue stream from our Novell deal, but I do think it clearly establishes that Open Source is not free and Open Source will have to respect intellectual property rights of others just as any other competitor will.”
Sounds like Ballmer is now trying to include “IP shielding” into the price vs. value proposition that Microsoft is trying to sell to the investment community (and the technical community). I guess Microsoft product “value” based on technical features alone isn’t enough anymore to compete against open source. The Novell deal appears to be a ruse to point out that Microsoft is “IP safe” and that extra “value” is worth purchasing Microsoft products. Without that the price/value proposition, alternative open source solutions are as good or better than Microsoft’s.
But I have to ask that now they have come down to flexing their IP swords, as many have already said, where’s the conflicting IP? Until we know what that is supposed to be, it has to be perceived as just more FUD from Microsoft. And now Microsoft is using this FUD to keep both the investment and technical communities at bay while they figure out how to deal with an open source assault on the company’s crown jewels.
This is a Microsoft sales and marketing ploy…unfortunately open source has little or no sales nor marketing to respond.
…who don’t use MS Office.
http://www.offsetdesign.co.uk/static/Financial%20Analyst%20…
“The second style of competition comes form Open Source. We have done very well versus Linux on the desktop and on the server, and I am actually hopeful that we will build share, particularly in Web Servers and high performance clusters, from Linux in the next year.
But you cannot be confused: Having a competitor out there who at least nominally looks to be close to free is always a challenge, and there always is a set of pressure on us, particularly on pricing, there’s a set of pricing pressure that nobody should ignore. We are competing with a value equation. We are higher priced, but we bring greater value. But I don’t want to eliminate in your minds the notions of risk of pricing that comes from competition from Open Source.
The deal that we announced at the end of last year with Novell I consider to be very important. It demonstrated clearly the value of intellectual property even in the Open Source world. I would not anticipate that we make a huge additional revenue stream from our Novell deal, but I do think it clearly establishes that Open Source is not free and Open Source will have to respect intellectual property rights of others just as any other competitor will.”
I am a huge Linux supporter and disagree with Microsoft tatics and ways, however I am also for ending the community bickering. When it is deserved I am all for it but just as the quotes above state this article was taken out of context.
This was deliberate. Ballmer’s comments were not about IP claims in this article. It was not about Linux is and Microsoft owned IP. Do we hate them so that we don’t even read or do the research ourselves. We are just a sheep following being pushed in any direction. Examine the actual transcripts is my advice to the community think before reacting.
I was going to point out the transcript as well thanks for being open minded enough to read!
Edited 2007-02-19 15:11
I am a huge Linux supporter and disagree with Microsoft tatics and ways, however I am also for ending the community bickering. When it is deserved I am all for it but just as the quotes above state this article was taken out of context.
You have not at all refuted that Ballmer’s general intent is to spread FUD. Even Novell has had to distance themselves a tiny bit from what Ballmer has been dishing out. Moreover, as some have noted, what else would be the rational thing to do from Microsoft’s POV, assuming that they should cling to their business model, but to spread FUD as Ballmer does?
All the public knows when they see Gates and Ballmer is Mr. Computer and his business partner, so it is all the more important to point out the pattern of FUD these two engage in. Here’s yet another recent look at their FUD in the area of computer security:
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/433
Edited 2007-02-19 16:00
All right.
Let me translate mister Ballmer for you then.
The deal that we announced at the end of last year with Novell I consider to be very important.
This is for real, so it’s about power – and cash.
It demonstrated clearly the value of intellectual property even in the Open Source world.
It demonstrated that, no matter what, we are going to drag money out of open source, not by working hard and innovating, but by IP-taxation (by threat, of course).
I would not anticipate that we make a huge additional revenue stream from our Novell deal,
It’s still a bit tricky for us now to be sure we will get that money very soon, after all we really haven’t got much code to point to in court..
but I do think it clearly establishes that Open Source is not free
..but open source will cost anyone who uses it *real cash*, and that money is coming to us, one way or another..
and Open Source will have to respect intellectual property rights of others just as any other competitor will.
.. and the most convenient way for us to extort them is by deals like this one, and the FUD it entails.
This laptop, from which I made my previous post, was dual booting Win2k (with Visual C#), and Kubuntu, with Ubuntu-desktop, Xubuntu-desktop, and Mono.
I just wiped the drive (after backing up my important files, of course) clean, and reinstalled Kubuntu. And this time, no Mono. I’ll have gcc, Java, Kdevelop, NetBeans, JBoss, Eclipse, and all sorts of the awesome desktop and KDE goodies, and live MS free.
I don’t want to be an over-idealistic zealot – I’m a pragmatist at heart – thus my previous interest in Mono/C#, and being somewhat open-minded towards MS tech, and willingness to use proprietary codecs, drivers.
But MS is being the scorpion here, while the rest of us suckers are the turtle trusting MS to not sting us as on the way to us giving it a ride on our backs across the river.
And don’t even get me started about all the DRM, and auto disabling of drivers (globally), embedded into Vista.
I’m a pragmatist, but I’m not stupid or foolish.
Happily, there is a ton of great technology out there that liberates one from MS tyranny. Linux (with KDE or Xfce, to name a few) is an awesome desktop. Java is a great cross platform language (as are Python, Ruby, C, C++, PHP, Perl, etc). Apache is the standard bearer for web servers. MySQl is great. Tomcat and JBoss are great. There are oodles of great open source and/or cross platform desktop apps. Yahoo and Google offer great products and services. The list goes on.
It’s never been better to be completely MS free. And it’s getting better all the time. I happily use no MS stuff. I strongly suggest others do the same.
Edited 2007-02-19 05:53
If you shake hands with these people,
count your fingers.
End the FUD, Mr. Ballmer, and start throwing in evidence. I hate how companies in such cases refuse to reveal exact code they are referring to, as if they are trying to prevent “infringing” software from fixing it. What’s the point of this unless they want to push Linux out of the market? I believe this is only the beginning: they are planning to start a serious campaign of FUD and blackmailing in parallel to releasing Longhorn server (based on Vista).
Now we are waiting for the first MS vs. Linux court case which will finally reveal their true intentions. They funded SCO to try this, now they are going to try themselves. I hope big competitors (IBM etc.), which see Linux as their chance to stay in business, will jump in and crush their case completely, with some bonus counter-suing. I also hope foreign countries will recognise Ballmer’s (and MS) attitude and start gradually moving away from MS Windows (especially if US system legal system decides to thwart software freedom and place itself on the side of a big fat corporation).
doesn’t Windows infringe on patents from:
– Linux & Open Source Software
– IBM
– Novell
– Red Hat
– …
?
Maybe some of them might like the idea of getting a cut on every Windows license sold…
Hey, one can dream, no?
Edited 2007-02-19 14:01
The big problem for MS is the fact that they can’t compete with Linux on they’re terms. There is no large single entity to out maneuver or buy and this has them running a bit scared IMO.
Novell has decided to get the money they are owed by MS patent infringement. I suspect that MS having payed SCO for a UNIX license has something to do with this as well.
I would say that MS is trying to make the best out of a major defeat and is spinning this as best they can.
The fact remains that they cannot defeat OSS/Free software. It’s from the people, for the people and you cannot put a price on that.
Many companies have voiced they’re opinion on Linux being the future, a one size fits all solution that can be tailored to any type of situation. These companies realize that for this to happen, they have to work together and their is where MS’s problem lies.
If MS is not top dog, the don’t want to play.
…what to get Mr Ballmer for Christmas, Channukah, whatever: a FUD-spreader. Similar to a muck-spreader, but much more dangerous.
The Ball-meister and his McSofies all sing in unison – “Surprise – Surprise – Surprise!”
which are illegal in EU… at least theorically.
“Ballma balls big as coconut…. Balma alpha male…
uhuhuhu…
Balma wants Banana…”