Ballmer: Novell deal proves open source needs to 'respect IP rights'
Summary: 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 the two companies, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer told Wall Street what he really thinks the deal means to Microsoft.
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 (IP) pressure on Novell than anything else.
Ballmer didn't talk up technological cross-collaboration. He didn't mention helping customers with interoperability challenges. He didn't mention new sales opportunities. Instead, he said:
"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."
Ballmer has riled the Novell management team more than once by hinting that Microsoft believes that Novell and other open-source vendors are violating Microsoft patents.
(This past weekend, in an interview with LinuxWorld, former Novell employee and lead Samba developer Jeremy Allison, when asked about supposed Microsoft threats over alleged open-source patent violations, said the rumors were true.
"I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute. I think that would be the restriction. I would have to look quite carefully. So, essentially that’s not allowed. But they’re not telling anyone about it. They’re completely doing it off the record," Allison said.)
Until customers come forward and admit these Microsoft threats, it's gong to be tough to prove Allison's contention.
But it isn't difficult to see that Microsoft's brass sees the Microsoft-Novell deal as being, above all else, about setting a precedent by getting an open-source vendor to pay royalties for IP.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Funny that Novell was infringing...
No one said that at all...
Everyone else except...
Shutup Troll!
Re: Shutup Troll!
pot, kettle, black.
Who is casting the first stone?
Microsoft paid for Novell IP...
So what you're saying here....
[i]"I think that obtaining money was the major reason Novell called to request negotiations."[/i]
So Microsoft was violating Novell's IP big-time? Is that what you're saying?
Sure.
And it was probably Novell's need to money that led its management to call Microsoft. The cash and assistance Microsoft provided will be essential to Novell's continuation.
Think of Novell as Apple managed by Sun.
"Think of Novell as Apple managed by Sun."
All the more reason why I am so happy I put my ethics first and no longer support Microsoft with a single dollar. It's really a sad commentary on business in America when people ignore ethics for the hope of cash.
The danger is Real! The Danger is Microsoft!
Funny you mention Apple and SUN.
You really are nothing but a troll.
Learn YOUR history, jack!
Novell Didn't Call Microsoft.
Then, when Novell bent over to pick up the bundle....
Now, Microsoft is claiming that Novell wanted, it and really needed it -- and that they must have liked it or they wouldn't have let it happen.
I see nothing not accurate in his statement.
I see nothing there that is not accurate, open source, like everyone else must respect others IP. Now that is not a claim in anyway that there is any IP violation, just stating that he is right in saying everyone must respect it.
If you read the link about the interview with Jeremy...
Sorry but Jeremy lacks any credibility...
Heck, everyone has an opinion on what their "intent" is, but the fact is the license wording is all that matters. Jeremy couldn't accept that fact and had a temper tantrum over it.
Credibility = Zero
And yet he appears to have more credability than No_Ax.
No, Jeremy has credibility
Do you really expect someone who is upset about a situation to [b]not[/b] come out and say, "Ok, this isn't what was supposed to happen, and I'm upset about it."
Putting yourself in the picture. Have you not railed long and loud about how unfair the EC is to Microsoft? Did you feel the need to quietly suck it in and stay quiet? Your postings say you were/are very upset about it, and you haven't been as polite as Jeremy has been in expressing his feelings over that either.
Hypocrisy, thy name is No_Ax.
its funny,,
but Open Source cry about it anyway,, why, because it involves Microsoft !!!.., (childish).
so Open Source, not liking the way people are playing by the rules, choose to CHANGE the rules, in a vein attempt to maintain "control" of their "FREE" babay...
ofcourse, Open Source EXPECTS everyone to play BY THEIR RULES, (or their modified rules to keep advantage),, but Open Source dont seem to want to also play by EVERYONE elses Rules..
You know, the LAW, IP, Patents, or in the FREE and OPEN Market.
you choose the change the rules, price fix your product and prefer to attack your perceived competition rather than try to compete on quality and innovation.
we guess you've given up on trying to win by quality and innovation, and have chosen to try to "win" by making the "rules" of the game support your argument.
Get over it FOSS, play by the big boys rules, or dont play at all,
all you are doing is losing the respect of EVERYONE,
(then get RMS to "sell" Free/Open Source to cuba just to top it off.. !!!)
*** a "fanatic is someone who wont change their mind, and cant change the subject!". churchill
So...
Just to mess with you, what would you think if Microsoft was forced to endure a code audit because it might be taking code from FOSS in violation of the GPL or whatever? Would you complain about it, or what?