ie8 fix

Ballmer: Novell deal proves open source needs to 'respect IP rights'

By | February 16, 2007, 9:03am PST

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 e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for more than 25 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Disclosure

Mary-Jo Foley

Freelance journalist/blogger Mary Jo Foley has nothing to disclose. WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). I do not own Microsoft stock or stock in any of its partners or competitors. I have no business ventures that are sponsored by/funded by Microsoft or any of its partners or competitors.

Biography

Mary-Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley has covered the tech industry for 25 years for a variety of publications, including ZDNet, eWeek and Baseline. She has kept close tabs on Microsoft strategy, products and technologies for the past 10 years. In the late 1990s, she penned the award-winning "At The Evil Empire" column for ZDNet, and more recently the Microsoft Watch blog for Ziff Davis.

Got a tip? Send her an email with your rants, rumors, tips and tattles. Confidentiality guaranteed.

119
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Ballmer: Novell deal proves open source needs to 'respect IP rights'
makrekdw4701-24353683446298209931137830159757 12th Nov
ttwmnp,good post!
0 Votes
+ -
Funny that Novell was infringing...
mrlinux 16th Feb 2007
But Microsoft paid them 150 million for it ???? Don't companies normally sue when you infringe on their IP not give money to the infringer ???
0 Votes
+ -
No one said that at all...
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Feb 2007
Go back and read it again. All Ballmer said was open source must respect IP just like everyone else.
0 Votes
+ -
Everyone else except...
jasonp@... 16th Feb 2007
Microsoft. It's one thing for a software company to talk about respecting IP rights. It's another thing for a company that is consistently being sued and settling out of court for infringing upon IP rights to lecture anyone else. Three words...Pot, Kettle, Black.
0 Votes
+ -
Shutup Troll!
An_Axe_to_Grind 18th Feb 2007
sheesh
0 Votes
+ -
Re: Shutup Troll!
handydan918 9th Apr 2007
Same three words...
pot, kettle, black.
0 Votes
+ -
Who is casting the first stone?
JJQ1000 9th Apr 2007
Microsoft has never respected anyone else's Intellectual Property rights! They have often plagiarized numerous other developers' applications and called it "innovation". This is just another tactic for Microswipe to maintain its monopoly position. The real question is not whether Microswipe's IP rights are being respected, but whether these so-called software patents truly belong to them in the first place, as in the case of the MS-Symantec suit.
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft paid for Novell IP...
Anton Philidor 16th Feb 2007
... and Novell paid for Microsoft IP. The net result was, of course, a cash transfer from Microsoft to Novell. I think that obtaining money was the major reason Novell called to request negotiations.
0 Votes
+ -
So what you're saying here....
bportlock 16th Feb 2007
... it that Novell's IP is worth a great deal more than Microsoft - nearly ten times as much IIRC.

"I think that obtaining money was the major reason Novell called to request negotiations."

So Microsoft was violating Novell's IP big-time? Is that what you're saying?
0 Votes
+ -
Sure.
Anton Philidor 16th Feb 2007
Of course the Novell IP in Microsoft products generates more income than the Microsoft IP in SuSE. That makes the Novell IP worth more.

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.
0 Votes
+ -
Naw...I just think what obvious is the truth...Microsoft steals and pays when caught. This thief has enough money to pay damages and not be labeled the crook that the company is.

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!
0 Votes
+ -
Funny you mention Apple and SUN.
xuniL_z 19th Feb 2007
Every American taxpayer has paid and Apple/Sun tax for decades and you are talking about MS? Get real. Know the facts before you open your big mouth. SUN invented nothing except what it's incrementally added on top of what was given to it via government sponsored research void of anti-trust law. Same with Apple...a conglom of several research projects and not one bit of innovation from apple. At teh very least, MS writes it's own code dude. If they are "copying" then it's a high compliement to a dev. to nail someone elses implementation from scratch. It's harder than creating something new where the dev. if free to let their own creative juices flow more freely.

You really are nothing but a troll.
0 Votes
+ -
Learn YOUR history, jack!
JJQ1000 9th Apr 2007
Apple was started through true innovation. Steve Wozniak was truly innovative in his initial designs of the first apple computers. And you just gave an argument confirming that Microswipe is indeed plagiarizing other people's IP.
0 Votes
+ -
Novell Didn't Call Microsoft.
darkonc 21st Feb 2007
Microsoft bugged Novell for the deal, and offered them millions of dollars to take it.

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.
0 Votes
+ -
I see nothing not accurate in his statement.
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Feb 2007
"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 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.
There is a reference that Ballmer stated Linux infringed on Microsoft's IP.
0 Votes
+ -
Sorry but Jeremy lacks any credibility...
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Feb 2007
After all, he is the one that said the GPL conditions had been met but "HE" didn't think that in his "PERSONAL OPINION" it's intent was met.

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
At least he is not trolling the ZDNet talkbacks almost every day trying to defend Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
No, Jeremy has credibility
zkiwi 16th Feb 2007
It's rather your assertion that he doesn't have credibility that lacks credibility.

Do you really expect someone who is upset about a situation to not 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.
0 Votes
+ -
its funny,,
Aussie_Troll 18th Feb 2007
Open Source, makes the rules, (the GPLv2) some companies do business BY THOSE RULES.. (ie, they dont violate the GPLv2).

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
0 Votes
+ -
So...
zkiwi 18th Feb 2007
Do you think you'd complain if you'd been messed with successfully albeit legally?

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?
0 Votes
+ -
What would be in violation
xuniL_z 19th Feb 2007
If that were true? Is it using it w/o it being open?


Have you ever considered that Google is using OSS and selling their product with it, w/o opening up their ad-sense software or whatever? Has this ever occurred to you? Show me where in the original license language that companies could hide the code if they are only using it for a serach engine and advertising engines and web based enterprise suites? Is it because that latter is service based or what? Microsoft only licenses it's software so it's essentially service based. They don't sell it.

I'm not saying MS has ever touched open source code but if they had, what rule would they be breaking that Google is not as an example. I want to understand this better.
0 Votes
+ -
Erm...
zkiwi 19th Feb 2007
Learn to read, before you go off.

I wrote, "Just to mess with you..."

I guess you didn't read that part. Now go back to your delusions.
0 Votes
+ -
Guess all you are about is cash.
nomorems 16th Feb 2007
Jeremy ethics = 100%
Microsoft ethics = 0%

Sorry, but I like many people think the value of something is not just based on cash.

Pray to the devil lately? You sound like someone who would sell his soul for some extra cash.
0 Votes
+ -
No, I own
No_Ax_to_Grind 17th Feb 2007
the Devil. Got him is a swap deal from Steve Jobs.
Not sure how many times he has said here that he still lives on his parents farm (and is about 50ish).
0 Votes
+ -
Ballmer makes statements of FUD and you reckon Jeremy lacks credibility?

In ANY law, intention, not just the LETTER of the law, is important. It is the same with licences. When and if it ever ends up in court, the judge will take into account intent as well as the literal sense of the licence.

When you add Law to your long list of skills No_Ax, let us know. At least then we might be able to take some of what you say seriously.
0 Votes
+ -
You have railed about respecting IP while suggesting that those that hold IP but release the source under one license or another should relinquish all rights to their IP (release Copywrited works as Public Domain). Yet here you are saying that one group or another has to learn to respect IP?
0 Votes
+ -
You seem to be confused.
No_Ax_to_Grind 16th Feb 2007
I am not saying anyone should do anything. What I have said is that calling it open when in fact it is encumbered by the GPL limitations is both inaccurate and misleading.
0 Votes
+ -
Open just means that you can read it.
B.O.F.H. 16th Feb 2007
All Open Source means is that you an look at the source code, compile it and if needed, enhance it. If you release a product based upon it, you must abide by the license as set forth and applied by the code author/Copywrite holders. This is the same as with the BSD license, Artistic License (Perl) and several other licenses that are designed to allow you to look at the (source) works of others. The licenses do not (generally) allow youto take someones work product, ignore their Copywrites and make a profit from them. Most licenses are like this (regarding source code distributed in this manner).

Stop being so thick!

I want all your IP, free of charge, without compensating you for any of your efforts. Are you cool with that agreement? I thought so!
0 Votes
+ -
Let me help you out.
No_Ax_to_Grind 18th Feb 2007
"I want all your IP, free of charge, without compensating you for any of your efforts. Are you cool with that agreement?

I I post it and say it's FREE, then that is exactlly what I mean and you may use it ANYWAY you like. You see, I am not like the FOSS folks, I do actually understand the meaning of the word "free".

So I have a question for you, accourdoing to what you wrote, your saying all the MS code that is shared (patented or not) is open source? I mean it meets everything you said...
0 Votes
+ -
Free is defined as:

1. enjoying personal rights or liberty, as a person who is not in slavery: a land of free people.
2. pertaining to or reserved for those who enjoy personal liberty: They were thankful to be living on free soil.
3. existing under, characterized by, or possessing civil and political liberties that are, as a rule, constitutionally guaranteed by representative government: the free nations of the world.
4. enjoying political autonomy, as a people or country not under foreign rule; independent.
5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted.
6. able to do something at will; at liberty: free to choose.
7. clear of obstructions or obstacles, as a road or corridor: The highway is now free of fallen rock.
8. not occupied or in use: I'll try to phone her again if the line is free.
9. exempt or released from something specified that controls, restrains, burdens, etc. (usually fol. by from or of): free from worry; free of taxes.
10. having immunity or being safe (usually fol. by from): free from danger.
11. provided without, or not subject to, a charge or payment: free parking; a free sample.
12. given without consideration of a return or reward: a free offer of legal advice.
13. unimpeded, as motion or movement; easy, firm, or swift.
14. not held fast; loose; unattached: to get one's arm free.
15. not joined to or in contact with something else: The free end of the cantilever sagged.
16. acting without self-restraint or reserve: to be too free with one's tongue.
17. ready or generous in giving; liberal; lavish: to be free with one's advice.
18. given readily or in profusion; unstinted.
19. frank and open; unconstrained, unceremonious, or familiar.
20. unrestrained by decency; loose or licentious: free behavior.
21. not subject to special regulations, restrictions, duties, etc.: The ship was given free passage.
22. of, pertaining to, or characterized by free enterprise: a free economy.
23. that may be used by or is open to all: a free market.
24. engaged in by all present; general: a free fight.
25. not literal, as a translation, adaptation, or the like; loose.
26. uncombined chemically: free oxygen.
27. traveling without power; under no force except that of gravity or inertia: free flight.
28. Phonetics. (of a vowel) situated in an open syllable (opposed to checked).
29. at liberty to enter and enjoy at will (usually fol. by of): to be free of a friend's house.
30. not subject to rules, set forms, etc.: The young students had an hour of free play between classes.
31. easily worked, as stone, land, etc.
32. Mathematics. (of a vector) having specified magnitude and direction but no specified initial point. Compare bound1 (def. 9).
33. Also, large. Nautical. (of a wind) nearly on the quarter, so that a sailing vessel may sail free.
34. not containing a specified substance (often used in combination): a sugar-free soft drink.
35. (of a linguistic form) occurring as an independent construction, without necessary combination with other forms, as most words. Compare bound1 (def. 11).
36. without cost, payment, or charge.
...

In the case of FOSS (and specifically regarding software/source covered by Copywrite and released under a given Open Source license (required to use Copywrited materials): Free as in libre, not free as in beer.

By the way, is it safe to say that No_Ax_to_Grind means too poor to afford a common woodworking tool. We all know that oyu have no money and are bitter about this detail.

2 can play at the word games bubba, and there are more definitions of free than just listed here. See: the dictionary and Free Software Foundation. Nice try at he word games and best of luck finding work, the market has changed since you had a job 10 years or so ago!
0 Votes
+ -
Humpty Dumpty's Dictionary
Still Lynn 18th Feb 2007
The term in question was "open". Resolving the dispute by limiting the allowed usable meaning of the term of "free" and then applying it to a situation it doesn't fit doesn't do a very good job of addressing the claim you would appear to be trying to defend.

It's now your turn to proclaim what a bad person I am.
0 Votes
+ -
Perhaps then
xuniL_z 19th Feb 2007
you could reel in the shills making it seem otherwise on a daily basis.

As I asked another, how is Google not breaking the license if they are profiting from it's use commercially w/o opening the code?
0 Votes
+ -
The article has nothing to do with Google. Open Source apparantly has no problem with the way Google uses Open Source code. If that's the case then maybe Google uses Open Source code appropriately. Otherwise Open Source might be up in arms about Google. But I don't see that happening.

So, as far as I'm concerned, Google = no problem with Open Source, Microsoft = potential problem with Open Source.

No how about getting back on topic!!
0 Votes
+ -
...open source, like everyone else must respect others IP.

Hmmm ... maybe, if you mean "IP" like Microsoft means "IP". It will gladly take another's invention and turn it into their own "IP." It does it all the time, and it even wants to abolish prior art (even that provided by the original inventor) as a barrier to creating "IP" for itself so it can steal more ideas.



happy
0 Votes
+ -
Nope...
No_Ax_to_Grind 17th Feb 2007
Evryone must respect IP and if MS is found guilt of taking it then they pay the price like anyone else.
0 Votes
+ -
Nope, nothing inaccurate except that Open Source infringes far less than Microsoft does.

In fact Open Source goes to great lengths to avoid infringement, even developing their own sound codecs, etc.

Microsoft, OTOH, has a long history of ripping things off, starting back in the MS-DOS days with DriveSpace (stole code from Stacker) right up until last month when they tried to patent BlueJ after stealing it.


http://www.msversus.org/archive/stac.html
http://www.bluej.org/vs/vs-bj.html
0 Votes
+ -
YOu mena no one has taken
No_Ax_to_Grind 17th Feb 2007
open source to court over IP and/or patent violations yet.

Oh I know, you think nothing about MS office is under patent and Open Office has not violated any of those patents as they copied MS Office. Uh huh, right...
0 Votes
+ -
What are your talking about!
DemonX 17th Feb 2007
You act like you think Microsoft invented and has a patent on word processing! 99.9% of everything MS sells was around way before they arrived on the scene. The facts are that MS is primarily a marketing and packaging company. On top of that many of their marketing practices have gotten them in to hot water here and all over the world. Microsoft Word is just a word processor. Nothing more and nothing less. One of many available products. If your point is concerning the document conversion features in open office then you're still wrong. The documant generated in word are the property of the user and not MS. Users have a right to their own documents even if they choose another vendor. Any attempt by MS to say they own it would validate what states and governments have doing regarding maintaining long term access to files. All you guys need to stop acting like Microsoft is all that when you know they are not. Makes you sound like you're either lying or aren't to bright.
0 Votes
+ -
Would you care to put a bet on
No_Ax_to_Grind 18th Feb 2007
how many patents there are for MS Office?
From the humble origins of writing wrappers for other companies products to acquiring other companies (PowerPoint was acquired via a purchase of a company) to copying Visicalc (or similar)... The origins of the MS Office suite was not created by Microsoft. MS SQL Server started out as an outgrowth of work with Sybase. etc. etc. Try again!
0 Votes
+ -
More legit
xuniL_z 19th Feb 2007
than *nix beginnings as a government sponsored research. Government granted monopolies (AT&T, the government granted to monopoly before it was later dismantled), SUN's beginnings with their privitization of Stanford, PARC and other research granted by the government. The list goes on...Apple..invented nothing that they didn't take from research or other companies...


so what is your point? Every taxpayer has paid a *nix tax since DARPA began and all of the offshoots of it since. Talk about sincerely a crock, paying tax on software that is commercializing at the government's bequest.
0 Votes
+ -
To quote Monty Python
zkiwi 19th Feb 2007
Once again, "You're a loony."

You don't know history. And your assertions of "fact" are merely conspiracy theories.

If you really believe that government funding of IT is wrong, then the DoD's funding Microsoft to improve its Virtual Earth must stick in your craw. Your tax dollars at work once more!
0 Votes
+ -
Balmer is his own worst enemy.
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 16th Feb 2007
I would not anticipate that we make a huge additional revenue stream from our Novell deal

Give Novell 500 Million $s. Tell Novel you want to be free from any patent problems (if they exist) Novel owns, give us back 50 Million of the 500 Million and you have no worries from the patents we own. Deal!

OK - Look, world, hello, see, Open Source is riddled with our code! It only cost us $450 million to be able to say that, but what's a 1/2 a billion $s one way or the other? No, it doesn't matter that the patent protection Novel gave us is from their proprietary software, they are an open source company, therefore it's all the SAME! grin

I wouldn't expect a lot of revenue from this deal either. grin

Beyond the choir Balmer preaches too, does anyone take him as a reliable source about, really, anything important?

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Novell isn't all open source.
Anton Philidor 16th Feb 2007
There were claims in Court that Microsoft was violating Novell IP, and Novell probably had a good chance to win. That makes settlement a good idea for Microsoft.

So your statement... :

"No, it doesn't matter that the patent protection Novell gave us is from their proprietary software; they are an open source company, therefore it's all the SAME!"

... doesn't make sense to me. Please clarify.
0 Votes
+ -
Clarification
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 16th Feb 2007
Any company can be both Open Source and Proprietary, like Novell. The offer, support and deliver a complete Open Source solution complying with all the terms of the GPL. Now, they also have a whole other side that creats proprietary software, has a ton of patents. The "protection" MS bought is on the proprietary side, but MS wants to paint it as BOTH the propreitary side and the Open Source side all exchanged patent protection.

Balmer : No, it doesn't matter that the patent protection Novel gave us is from their proprietary software, they (Novell) are (also) an open source company, therefore (we are deliberatly confusing things by saying) it's all the SAME!

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
Would that you were right.
Anton Philidor 16th Feb 2007
But unfortunately Mr. Ballmer meant exactly what people thought he meant.

A quote from Mr. Ballmer in the article:

"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."


They escaped a potential GPL problem by promising not to sue each other's customers rather than a direct cross-patent deal, but that's just more proof the intent was to cover Novell's GPL portion.


Free software does have to respond to IP holders who want money or equivalents. But picking out Novell in this situation to make the point vitiates his argument.
0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely
TripleII-21189418044173169409978279405827 16th Feb 2007
Open Source must restect copyright, stolen code, all of that. Mr Balmer is implying, however, that the cross patent deal proves that Open Source in fact DOES contain Microsoft "intellectual property". This has been the contention ever since he stated "Linux users owe an unpaid debt to Microsoft".

TripleII
0 Votes
+ -
for once I can agree with you Anton
mdsmedia 20th Feb 2007
Free software has to respect IP.

Microsoft should also respect IP.

In cases where MS has violated IP it has bought its way out through settlement.

Ballmer is both a FUDster and a hypocrite, and as the face of MS he shows the truth of MS practices.
0 Votes
+ -
WHERE??
justanitguy 20th Feb 2007
Did you read THAT!?!? I went back and read the Mary Jo blog again, and NOWHERE did I see any thing remotely resembling the words that you attributed to Mr. Ballmer, whether or not you exclude the parenthetized attributions.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Ballmer: Novell deal proves open source needs to 'respect IP rights'
makrekdw4701-24353683446298209931137830159757 12th Nov
ttwmnp,good post!

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix