I could not have made this up, It came straight from the Microsoft press release site.
“Microsoft and Novell have agreed to disagree on whether certain open source offerings infringe Microsoft patents and whether certain Microsoft offerings infringe Novell patents. The agreement between our two companies puts in place a workable solution for customers for these issues, without requiring an agreement between our two companies on infringement.”
So what kind of “agreement” or contract was signed? How is the public supposed to perceive this “agreement” if the two parties involved cannot even agree on what was in the “agreement”.
The FUD has now reached a frenzy point, and everyone is now looking over their shoulder, not sure who to believe or what is going to happened next. I think this reaction was anticipated by one of the parties. It was not a misstep, the community reaction was already calculated .
Mary Jo Foley and blogs.zdnet.com raises the real question. What did Novell buy for $40 million, if it was not for patent infingment claims?
Microsoft basically is calling Novell and other Linux vendors thieves. Under what circumstances would a pro-customer company encourage its users to buy software from a partner who was stealing its own IP? I’m having trouble coming up with any justifications for that kind of behavior. And Microsoft isn’t supplying any convincing ones , either.
That really sums it up. Why would a company encourage users to buy software from a partner that is stealing its intellectual property?
