-- Leo's gemini proxy
-- Connecting to gemini.techrights.org:1965...
-- Connected
-- Sending request
-- Meta line: 20 text/gemini;lang=en-GB
Posted in FUD, Intellectual Monopoly, Marketing, Novell, Red Hat at 1:43 am by Shane Coyle
Mark Webbink has responded, point by point, to the Novell open letter to the community. Here is an excerpt, where he responds to Novells assertions that they have not changed their stance on Patents and Open Source:
> We have stated our commitment to use our own software patents to protect open source technologies. But what they have really said is: “Novell will use its patent portfolio to protect itself against claims made against the Linux kernel or open source programs included in Novell’s offerings, as dictated by the actions of others.“We have spoken out against EU legislation that would liberalize the standards for granting software patents. But read what they have really said: “Novell has sought to use and will continue to use patents as a legitimate means of protecting Novell’s software offerings. We believe that the current system in the European Union has served the industry, the individual Member States and Novell well, and generally promotes innovation and competition in the industry. And compare this passive statement to the actions taken by Sun Microsystems and Red Hat in actively working with the Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure in fighting off the Computer Implemented Inventions directive.We offer indemnification to our Linux customers accused of intellectual property infringement. But read what they have really said: “Indemnification is offered for copyright infringement claims.” This statement doesn’t address any form of intellectual property other than copyright.We have teamed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other industry leaders to reduce the issuance of �bad patents� in the software area. But the lead sponsors for the peer review project underway between the USPTO and the New York Law School are IBM, Red Hat, GE, HP, and Microsoft. There is a significant difference between participation and commitment, just ask a pig about breakfast.In 2005, we co-founded Open Invention Network (�OIN�), �an intellectual property company that was formed to promote Linux by using patents to create a collaborative environment.� Novell’s substantial contributions to OIN were made to benefit not only ourselves, but also other Linux vendors, distributors and developers, and anyone else willing to commit not to assert their patents against Linux. Absolutely true. Novell was an active and dynamic participant in establishing OIN. And the fact that Novell has (or perhaps I should say had) such a strong patent portfolio and worked diligently to establish OIN only emphasizes my original point – the deal they entered can best be understood as appeasement.
>
Webbink calls Novell an appeasor, invoking images of Neville Chamberlain declaring “Peace in our time” in 1938, and poses the rhetorical question: “Ron, what were you thinking?”
I have a rhetorical followup: “Was the short-term payoff worth it?” The 10% gain in Novell stock is eroding already, Credit Suisse has downgraded Novell to underperform – noting the one time nature of the payment and lack of community support for your deal, and it appears your primary competitor Red Hat is now poised to take advantage of your misstep.
Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Permalink Send this to a friend
----------
➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.
-- Response ended
-- Page fetched on Sun Jun 2 12:37:43 2024