Now things should start getting interesting.

The DoJ said it was closing its investigations into not only this acquisition, but also into Acquisitions by Apple, Microsoft and RI of Nortel patents, and Apple’s acquisition of Novell patents.

As you may recall, said patents were a major driving force of Google’s Motorola Mobility acquisition from the start, as Google CEO Larry Page even referenced the “patent war” when the acquisition was announced. The company positioned the acquisition as a defensive strategy to “anti-competitive attacks” from companies like Apple and Microsoft. Page wrote at the time:

We recently explained how companies including Microsoft and Apple are banding together in anti-competitive patent attacks on Android. The U.S. Department of Justice had to intervene in the results of one recent patent auction to “protect competition and innovation in the open source software community” and it is currently looking into the results of the Nortel auction. Our acquisition of Motorola will increase competition by strengthening Google’s patent portfolio, which will enable us to better protect Android from anti-competitive threats from Microsoft, Apple and other companies.

The combination of Google and Motorola will not only supercharge Android, but will also enhance competition and offer consumers accelerating innovation, greater choice, and wonderful user experiences. I am confident that these great experiences will create huge value for shareholders.

This passage from the DoJ’s announcement sums up its conclusion: ““After a thorough review of the proposed transactions, the Antitrust Division has determined that each acquisition is unlikely to substantially lessen competition and has closed these three investigations.”

Here’s the release in its entirety:

WASHINGTON – The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division issued the following statement today after announcing the closing of its investigations into Google Inc.’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc., the acquisitions by Apple Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Research in Motion Ltd. (RIM) of certain Nortel Networks Corporation patents, and the acquisition by Apple of certain Novell Inc. patents:

“After a thorough review of the proposed transactions, the Antitrust Division has determined that each acquisition is unlikely to substantially lessen competition and has closed these three investigations.  In all of the transactions, the division conducted an in-depth analysis into the potential ability and incentives of the acquiring firms to use the patents they proposed acquiring to foreclose competitors.  In particular, the division focused on standard essential patents (SEPs) that Motorola Mobility and Nortel had committed to license to industry participants through their participation in standard-setting organizations (SSOs).  The division’s investigations focused on whether the acquiring firms could use these patents to raise rivals’ costs or foreclose competition.    

“The division concluded that the specific transactions at issue are not likely to significantly change existing market dynamics. 

“During the course of the division’s investigation, several of the principal competitors, including Google, Apple and Microsoft, made commitments concerning their SEP licensing policies.  The division’s concerns about the potential anticompetitive use of SEPs was lessened by the clear commitments by Apple and Microsoft to license SEPs on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, as well as their commitments not to seek injunctions in disputes involving SEPs.  Google’s commitments were more ambiguous and do not provide the same direct confirmation of its SEP licensing policies.

“In light of the importance of this industry to consumers and the complex issues raised by the intersection of the intellectual property rights and antitrust law at issue here, as well as uncertainty as to the exercise of the acquired rights, the division continues to monitor the use of SEPs in the wireless device industry, particularly in the smartphone and computer tablet markets.  The division will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action to stop any anticompetitive use of SEP rights.”

BACKGROUND

Google/ Motorola Mobility

On Aug. 25, 2011, Google entered into an agreement to acquire Motorola Mobility, a manufacturer of smartphones and computer tablets and the holder of a portfolio of approximately 17,000 issued patents and 6,800 applications, including hundreds of SEPs relevant to wireless devices that Motorola Mobility committed to license through its participation in SSOs. 

Rockstar Bidco

Rockstar Bidco, a partnership that includes, among others, RIM, Microsoft and Apple, was formed to acquire patents at the June 2011 Nortel bankruptcy auction, and to license and distribute them to certain partners.  Nortel’s portfolio of approximately 6,000 patents and patent applications includes many SEPs that Nortel committed to license through its participation in SSOs and that are relevant to wireless devices (the Nortel SEPs).   

Apple/Novell

Apple also proposes to acquire patents held by CPTN Holdings LLC, formerly owned by Novell, following CPTN’s acquisition in April 2011 of those patents on behalf of Apple, Oracle Corporation and EMC Corporation.  As a member of the Open Invention Network (OIN), Novell committed to cross-license its patents on a royalty-free basis for use in the open source “Linux system,” a defined term in the OIN. 

Competitive Landscape

Google, Apple, Microsoft and RIM have each developed mobile operating systems for smartphones and tablets. Apple and RIM manufacture and sell the smartphones and tablets that run on their proprietary mobile operating systems.  In contrast, Microsoft licenses its proprietary mobile operating systems, Windows Phone 7 and Windows Mobile, to non-affiliated wireless handset original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).  Google, in turn, sponsors Android, a mobile operating system that it distributes to OEMs without monetary charge under an open source license.  These operating systems provide platforms for a variety of products and services offered by competing handset and tablet manufacturers, as well as, application developers.

At the end of 2011, Google’s Android accounted for approximately 46 percent of the U.S. smartphone operating system platform subscribers and Apple’s iOS was used by about 30 percent of subscribers.  RIM and Microsoft accounted for approximately 15 percent and 6 percent of the share of smartphone subscribers, respectively.

Apple’s iPad is the leading tablet in the market, although the recently introduced Android-based tablets are rapidly gaining share.  Thus far, tablets running RIM’s and Microsoft’s operating systems have a minimal presence in the marketplace.

The Importance of Standard Setting in the Wireless Industry 

Today’s wireless device industry, which includes smartphones and tablets, relies on complex operating systems that allow seamless interaction with wireless communications technologies while providing audio, video and computer functionalities. 

To facilitate seamless interoperability, industry participants work through SSOs collectively to develop technical standards that establish precise specifications for essential components of the technology.  For example, wireless devices typically implement a significant number of telecommunication and computer standards, including cellular air interface standards (e.g., 3G and 4G LTE standards), wireless broadband technologies (e.g., WiFi and WiMax) and video compression technologies (e.g., H.264).  As with other industries, these standards facilitate compatibility among products and provide consumers with a wider range of products and capabilities than would otherwise be available.

Often, many technologies adopted by the SSOs fall within the scope of existing patents or patent applications.  Once a patent is included in a standard, it becomes essential to the implementation of that standard, thus the term “Standard Essential Patent.”  After industry participants make complementary investments, abandoning the standard can be extremely costly.  Thus, after the standard is set, the patent holder could seek to extract a higher payment than was attributable to the value of the patented technology before the standard was set.  Such behavior can distort innovation and raise prices to consumers .  A comparable harm may also arise in situations outside of the SSO context where a patent holder’s prior actions, such as open source commitments, lead others to make complementary investments (See U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Enforcement & Intellectual Property Rights:  Promoting Innovation and Competition, April 17, 2007 at 35-6). 

Most SSOs therefore require the owners of patents essential to the proposed standard that are participating in the SSO’s standard-setting activities to make disclosure and licensing commitments with respect to their essential patents.  These commitments are intended to reduce the subsequent inappropriate use of the patent rights at issue, and thus prevent disputes that can inhibit innovation and competition.  One com mon licensing requirement is to require SSO members to commit to license patented technologies essential to a standard on reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) terms (for SSOs based in the United States) or on fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms (for SSOs based outside the United States) (collectively F/RAND).  In practice, however, SSO F/RAND requirements have not prevented significant disputes from arising in connection with the licensing of SEPs, including actions by patent holders seeking injunctive or exclusionary relief that could alter competitive market outcomes.

ANALYSIS

The division’s investigations regarding the acquisitions of the Motorola Mobility and Nortel SEPs focused on whether the acquiring firms would have the incentive and ability to exploit ambiguities in the SSOs’ F/RAND licensing commitments to hold up rivals, thus preventing or inhibiting innovation and competition (The division’s analysis was limited to SEPs encumbered by F/RAND commitments).  Such hold up could include raising the costs to rivals by demanding supracompetitive licensing rates, compelling prospective licensees to grant the SEP holder the right to use the licensee’s differentiating intellectual property, charging licensees the entire portfolio royalty rate when licensing only a small subset of the patent holder’s SEPs in its portfolio, or seeking to prevent or exclude products practicing those SEPs from the market altogether.  In this analysis, the critical issue is whether the patent holder has the incentive and ability to hold up its competitors, particularly through the threat of an injunction or exclusion order.  The division’s analysis focused on how the proposed transactions might change that incentive and ability to do so.  

The division concluded that each of the transactions was unlikely to substantially lessen competition for wireless devices.  With respect to RIM’s and Microsoft’s acquisition of Nortel patents, their low market shares in mobile platforms would likely make a strategy to harm rivals either through injunctions or supracompetitive royalties based on the acquired Nortel SEPs unprofitable.  Because of their low market shares, they are unlikely to attract a sufficient number of new customers to their mobile platforms to compensate for the lost patent royalty revenues.  Moreover, Microsoft has cross-license agreements in place with the majority of its Android-based OEM competitors, making such a strategy even less plausible for it. 

Apple’s and Google’s substantial share of mobile platforms makes it more likely that as the owners of additional SEPs they could hold up rivals, thus harming competition and innovation.  For example, Apple would likely benefit significantly through increased sales of its devices if it could exclude Android-based phones from the market or raise the costs of such phones through IP-licenses or patent litigation.  Google could similarly benefit by raising the costs of, or excluding, Apple devices because of the revenues it derives from Android-based devices. 

The specific transactions at issue, however, are not likely to substantially lessen competition.  The evidence shows that Motorola Mobility has had a long and aggressive history of seeking to capitalize on its intellectual property and has been engaged in extended disputes with Apple, Microsoft and others.  As Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobility is unlikely to materially alter that policy, the division concluded that transferring ownership of the patents would not substantially alter current market dynamics.  This conclusion is limited to the transfer of ownership rights and not the exercise of those transferred rights.

With respect to Apple/Novell, the division concluded that the acquisition of the patents from CPTN, formerly owned by Novell, is unlikely to harm competition.  While the patents Apple would acquire are important to the open source community and to Linux-based software in particular, the OIN, to which Novell belonged, requires its participating patent holders to offer a perpetual, royalty-free license for use in the “Linux-system.”  The division investigated whether the change in ownership would permit Apple to avoid OIN commitments and seek royalties from Linux users.  The division concluded it would not, a conclusion made easier by Apple’s commitment to honor Novell’s OIN licensing commitments. 

In its analysis of the transactions, the division took into account the fact that during the pendency of these investigations, Apple, Google and Microsoft each made public statements explaining their respective SEP licensing practices.  Both Apple and Microsoft made clear that they will not seek to prevent or exclude rivals’ products from the market in exercising their SEP rights.  

Apple outlined its view of F/RAND in a letter to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) on Nov. 11, 2011, stating among other things:

“A party who made a FRAND commitment to license its cellular standards essential patents or otherwise acquired assets/rights from a party who made the FRAND commitment must not seek injunctive relief on such patents.  Seeking an injunction would be a violation of the party’s commitment to FRAND licensing.” (emphasis supplied) 

Microsoft stated publicly on Feb. 8, 2012, among other things:

“This means that Microsoft will not seek an injunction or exclusion order against any firm on the basis of those essential patents.”

If adhered to in practice, these positions could significantly reduce the possibility of a hold up or use of an injunction as a threat to inhibit or preclude innovation and competition. 

Google’s commitments have been less clear.  In particular, Google has stated to the IEEE and others on Feb. 8, 2012, that its policy is to refrain from seeking injunctive relief for the infringement of SEPs against a counter-party, but apparently only for disputes involving future license revenues, and only if the counterparty:  forgoes certain defenses such as challenging the validity of the patent; pays the full disputed amount into escrow; and agrees to a reciprocal process regarding injunctions.  Google’s statement therefore does not directly provide the same assurance as the other companies’ statements concerning the exercise of its newly acquired patent rights.  Nonetheless, the division determined that the acquisition of the patents by Google did not substantially lessen competition, but how Google may exercise its patents in the future remains a significant concern.

For these reasons the division continues to have concerns about the potential inappropriate use of SEPs to disrupt competition and will continue to monitor the use of SEPs in the wireless device industry, particularly as they relate to smartphones and computer tablets.  The division’s continued monitoring of how competitors are exercising their patent rights will ensure that competition and innovation are unfettered in this important industry. 

All three of the transactions highlight the complex intersection of intellectual property rights and antitrust law and the need to determine the correct balance between the rightful exercise of patent rights and a patent holder’s incentive and ability to harm competition through the anticompetitive use of those rights. 

Agency Cooperation

During the course of its investigation of the Google/Motorola Mobility transaction, the Department of Justice cooperated closely with the European Commission.  In addition, the Department of Justice had discussions with the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, Canadian Competition Bureau, Israeli Antitrust Authority and the Korean Fair Trade Commission.  In connection with the investigations relating to the Nortel patent assets, the division worked closely with states of New York and California and with the Canadian Competition Bureau. 

The Antitrust Division’s Closing Statement Policy

The division provides this statement under its policy of issuing statements concerning the closing of investigations in appropriate cases.  This statement is limited by the division’s obligation to protect the confidentiality of certain information obtained in its investigations.  As in most of its investigations, the division’s evaluation has been highly fact-specific, and many of the relevant underlying facts are not public.  Consequently, readers should not draw overly broad conclusions regarding how the division is likely in the future to analyze other collaborations or activities, or transactions involving particular firms. Enforcement decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, and the analysis and conclusions discussed in this statement do not bind the division in any future enforcement actions.  Guidance on the division’s policy regarding closing statements is available at:www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/201888.htm.

Novell originally filed the suit claiming that Microsoft purposely suppressed and sabotaged WordPerfect, a word processing platform developed by Novell, in order to consolidate users to Microsoft Word. Consequently, Novell claims they suffered severe financial loss due to Microsoft’s tampering. Alternately, Microsoft has cited Novell’s own mismanagement for the decline of WordPerfect’s popularity and usability.

From Network World:

In a filing to U.S. federal judge J. Frederick Motz, Microsoft’s lawyer said Monday that the company intends to renew its motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In ruling on the renewed motion, under Rule 50 the court may allow judgment on the verdict if the jury returned a verdict, order a new trial, or direct the entry.

Incredibly, some jurors were reported to be in tears after being dismissed. Attorneys on both sides admitted to being disappointed as they were hopeful to get some kind of verdict after all of this time.

Oddly, the jury was hung at an 11-1 decision against Microsoft, which causes me to fondly recall all of those episodes of The Sopranos where the mob dudes would terrorize one poor juror into holding out from agreeing on a verdict. Members of the Sopranos mob family would intimidate and threaten one vulnerable juror in order to coerce them into dissenting from the otherwise unanimous jurors’ decision against the accused gangster. Without an agreement among jurors, the case ends in mistrial and the mobster walks free.

But who knows if Microsoft actually has that kind of menacing clout; it all just sounds very odd.

The actual request to dismiss the case is expected to be filed early next year.

Novell made its closing arguments in the trial yesterday, reiterating their claim that Microsoft deliberately sabotaged WordPerfect by tampering with programmer’s access to extensions and thus making it impossible for WordPerfect to run properly on Windows. Novell has argued that their precipitous decline of shares in the word-processing market, falling from 50% in 1990 to a lowly 10% in 1996, is a direct result of Microsoft suppressing WordPerfect’s access and successful operation.

Microsoft has countered Novell’s claims in press releases, stating that the lack of quality in WordPerfect was due to Novell’s “own mismanagement and poor business decisions.” Microsoft defends itself further by arguing that, as of 1994, WordPerfect had already begun to decline in popularity and value and again places that blame on Novell, who they say had hoped to deprive “Windows of a key application [and] limit the success of Windows.”

Jurors are scheduled to begin deliberating tomorrow if not later today.

I barely remember even using WordPerfect in my youth, but should Microsoft be found liable for the lack of availability of WordPerfect, I will then have to wonder how many times in my past I wouldn’t have gritted the words, “I hate Microsoft Word,” or, “I hate OpenOffice,” because I could’ve been using WordPerfect instead.

Then again, if it was still around, it’s just as likely I would’ve been muttering, “I hate WordPerfect,” too. Some people. They’re never satisfied.

Novell explained on its website, "With Novell Pulse, people continents apart can work together in real-time, sharing and co-browsing information or creating or editing a document.  Individuals can also manage content overload by choosing people and topics to follow and stashing files – both native and office type – along with their related groups and conversations."

Then here’s the Google-y part (although anyone who paid attention will note that Pulse already sounds a lot like Mountain View’s AIM-on-steroids offering): Pulse "will also work seamlessly with Google Wave so you and anyone you want to work with can . . . get down to business."

As for availability, there’s good news and bad news.  The bad: Pulse isn’t supposed to launch until 2010, so it’ll be a while before anyone can evaluate it.  The good: everyone should be able to evaluate it, because Novell has promised that there’ll be a free version.

A lot is riding on Pulse because, as Zee M Kane observed, Novell’s the first major corporation to embrace Google Wave.  What happens here could help determine if it catches on.

Related Articles:

> Will Google Wave Shape The Future Of Online Communication?

> Google Wave Simplified: How It Basically Works

> Google Wave Invitations Roll Out

Well today, they have expanded on that partnership with Microsoft, buying an additional $100 Million in certificates for expanded support from Novell. This includes SUSE Linux Enterprise Server support and support for moving toward an enterprise-class Linux platform.

The two companies are working closely to make it easier for companies to enhance the interoperability of the two operating systems.

"The collaboration between Microsoft and Novell has been built on our desire to meet our customers’ real-life IT requirements as well as give our partners greater breadth in their solution offerings," said Microsoft COO Kevin Turner.

"Some customers have told us they want to be able to run Windows Server and Linux together seamlessly, but in many cases, they need help with the transition to SUSE Linux Enterprise Server from other Linux environments," he added.

Among companies who are already running Windows Server and SUSE together are BMW, Wal-Mart, and SouthWest Airlines.

The new elements of the deal between Microsoft and Novell will take effect in November, around the two-year anniversary of the partnership’s beginning.

The more Linux fans Microsoft can get on its side, the better the company will probably fare in the OS wars as it struggles with Vista discontent and Apple success.

Hell Freezes Over: Microsoft Supporting Linux

Silverlight for Linux will be called Moonlight, and Microsoft’s Linux pal Novell will do the heavy lifting in porting the software. Microsoft made the announcement that to be cross-platform with Silverlight, they would extend support to Linux.

Miguel de Icaza and the Mono Project team at Novell will be the ones to take Silverlight beyond Windows and Mac. He had more details about the announcement on his blog:

The highlights of the collaboration are:

•  Microsoft will give Novell access to the test suites for Silverlight to ensure that we have a compatible specification. The same test suite that Microsoft uses for Silverlight.

•  Microsoft will give us access to the Silverlight specifications: details that might be necessary to implement 1.0, beyond what is currently published on the web; and specifications on the 1.1 version of Silverlight as it is updated.

•  Microsoft will make the codecs for video and audio available to users of Moonlight from their web site. The codecs will be binary codecs, and they will only be licensed for use with Moonlight on a web browser (sorry, those are the rules for the Media codecs).

•  Novell will implement Silverlight 1.0 and 1.1 and will distribute it for the major Linux distributions at the time of the shipment. We will offer some kind of one-click install for Linux users (no "Open a terminal and type su followed by your password…" as well as RPM and DEB packages for the major distros and operating systems.

"This is an historical collaboration between an open source project and Microsoft," he continued. "They have collaborated with other folks on the server space (Xen, PHP and) but this is their first direct contribution to the open source desktop."

Microsoft’s "past contributions" to Linux have been much different, including an assortment of veiled threats, highly critical white papers, and other unpleasantness that has been revealed over the years through leaked memos and other accounts.

This is a significant change from the Microsoft that generated the infamous "Halloween documents" listing The Fear Microsoft had of Linux and its inroads into the lucrative server software market.

SCO Thwarted In Unix Decision

Some final matters of law still need to be hammered out, but it looks like a decision handed down in Utah by federal judge Dale Kimball has finally knocked out SCO’s claims to Unix copyrights.

Their lawsuit against Novell has drawn a 102-page ruling from the bench, and as Pamela Jones at Groklaw noted, it’s all about Novell:

Here is what matters most:

[T]he court concludes that Novell is the owner of the UNIX and UnixWare Copyrights.

That’s Aaaaall, Folks! The court also ruled that "SCO is obligated to recognize Novell’s waiver of SCO’s claims against IBM and Sequent". That’s the ball game. There are a couple of loose ends, but the big picture is, SCO lost. Oh, and it owes Novell a lot of money from the Microsoft and Sun licenses.

Groklaw also said the trial scheduled for September 17th "appears it will mostly (but not all) be about what SCO owes Novell. Novell’s slander of title counterclaim goes to trial, for example, but SCO’s does not."

SCO responded to the decision with a statement, saying they were "obviously disappointed" in the ruling.

"However, the court clearly determined that SCO owns the copyrights to the technology developed or derived by SCO after Novell transferred the assets to SCO in 1995," said SCO.

Both Microsoft and Sun licensed Unix technology from SCO in 2003.

Neither licensee has released a statement yet regarding the Utah court’s decision. The stock market has weighed in with its opinion, and the verdict from Wall Street has been a bigger bloodbath than the last Harry Potter novel.

Shares of SCO plunged from their 1.56 open to a current price of 44 cents. SCO may present a defiant tone in their post-verdict statement, but investors aren’t listening.

The Geek.com reports:

The Free Software Foundation may ban Novell from selling new versions of the Linux operating system due to concerns over the close partnership with Microsoft, since its Windows product is a direct competitor. The Free Software Foundation controls access to all of the latest versions of Open Source code. Without it, Novell would have to do its own research and development to upgrade its version of the Linux operating system.

General Counsel for the foundation, Eben Moglen, says the board has yet to make a decision on whether to ban Novell from access to new versions of Linux beginning in March. Moglen added he expected an announcement regarding a decision in the next two weeks.

This would be a bad thing for the FSF to strip Novell of its Linux distro, bad for business, bad for Novell, and bad for any remediation actions between the open and closed source communities. The open source community had a moral high ground in their competition with closed source companies. The current FSF position puts that moral high ground into question.

Open source showed the way to make money off of volunteer work, open intellectual property, and the ability to develop a grass roots programming group that basically extended, enhanced and improved Linux to the point where Red Hat and Novell can make money off of it. Open Source turned “free” into a workable business model, the only real one that can be used as an example for other open source projects.

To strip Novell of its ability to get new Linux distro’s removes the moral high ground right out from underneath the entire open source movement.

In general, it’s a bad idea, its bad for business, bad for everyone involved.

Bryan Richard from Linux Magazine states clearly:

What the Reuters article and the FSF’s comments illustrate is just how fearful the Linux community is of the Microsoft-Novell agreement. In general, the concern is that Microsoft or Novell will attempt to introduce patent-infringing code into Linux or other some other large Open Source project, thus opening a large audience of developers and companies to legal assault.

Touches deeply on the issue, if the Linux community allows fear, or even the GPL V3.0 which has been panned a lot as being too restrictive is used against Novell, every other Linux distro has to stop and ask the question “when am I next depending on who I make an agreement with?”.

This doesn’t drive people towards Linux, it drives them away from a fairly decent operating system, with a lot of commercial product support.

Its time for the FSF to stop and think about what it is doing before it deals a blow to Linux, and a excellent marketing opportunity for anyone who makes closed source software.

Comments

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

Dan Morrill has been in the information security field for 18 years, both
civilian and military, and is currently working on his Doctor of Management.
Dan shares his insights on the important security issues of today through
his blog, Managing
Intellectual Property & IT Security, and is an active participant in the
ITtoolbox blogging community.

Concerns over the patent agreement reached as part of Novell and Microsoft’s deal has motivated Allison to submit his resignation to Novell. A copy of the letter posted at Groklaw highlighted the conflict Allison sees with the deal:

Samba is one of those open source works that made system administrators truly excited over the past decade. With Samba, a system running the Linux operating system could be configured to handle print and file duties for Windows desktop clients, and do so invisibly to the users on the network.

That meant older hardware could be packed with voluminous hard drives and a copy of Linux for far less expense than a newer system complete with Microsoft licenses to act in the same capacity. Samba might be the most significant project to emerge over the years, save Linux and the Apache web server.

Samba’s supporters have protested the Novell-Microsoft agreement almost since it was made public. On November 12th, the Samba team announced its strong disapproval, and called the deal an exchange of “the long term interests of the entire Free Software community for a short term advantage for Novell over their competitors.”

Allison will move on, and land at Google, as Mary Jo Foley of Microsoft Watch learned from him. It’s an interesting development, considering Google’s reputation for lengthy interviews and lead times between interviews and job offers.

But like other notable Googlers Guido van Rossum, the creator of the Python language, and Vint Cerf, the father of the Internet, Allison brings a pretty solid reputation to the mix, so fast-tracking his move to Mountain View probably became a priority for Google. It should be a win for Samba’s devotees as well.

—

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.

Part of that Microsoft-Novell deal involves selling licenses for Novell’s SuSE product, with Microsoft’s expansive sales force handling those customer purchases. Some have criticized the agreement, by contending Microsoft comes out ahead at Novell’s expense.

Microsoft is touting some recent deals as evidence that the maligned agreement will benefit Novell.

Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank and AIG Technologies, a member company of the massive American International Group, have all taken up Microsoft on the Novell licenses.

Representatives from all three companies extolled the interoperability between Linux and Windows stemming from the work completed by Novell and Microsoft.

Similar platitudes came from the executive offices of Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, and Novell CEO Ron Hovsepian.

“Deutsche Bank’s, Credit Suisse’s and AIG Technologies’ decisions to deploy SUSE Linux Enterprise, following so closely on the heels of our announcement with Microsoft, are powerful, early proof points of the value of our joint collaboration, and we expect more success stories like this over the coming quarters,” said Hovsepian.

Criticism of the deal rose quickly through the Internet, and Hovsepian addressed it in a letter to the Linux community.

“Our agreement with Microsoft is in no way an acknowledgment that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property,” said Hovsepian.

A Microsoft spokesperson likewise asserted this was the case in a separate statement.

Although the deal has been characterized as one that leaves Linux distributor Red Hat on the outside looking in, Red Hat brushed off such assertions and hinted Novell had signed its own death warrant by partnering with Microsoft.

—

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Reddit | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

David Utter is a staff writer for WebProNews covering technology and business.