Joint Venture Involving Apple and Microsoft Acquires Novell Patents For $450 Million

[cmaier]

One: For example, Apple may have a patent that it feels is not part of the consortium's IP. If Microsoft starts to infringe on the Apple patent, and then claim it's part of the Novell package - so fair use - they will need a way to sort that out. Possibly the consortium's admin section includes a mediation function, and the partners have agreed to be bound by it's decisions. This would be a lot cheaper than settling things in Court.

Two things:

1) ownership of a given patent won't be in dispute. They are like property. They initially belong to the inventor. The inventor may assign (i.e. sell) the patent to anyone else, who then may sell it again, etc. Usually these sales are recorded in the USPTO. In any event, if someone claims to own the patent, he will have a document that shows that he bought it.

2) patents do not give you the right to do anything. They only give you the right to prevent others from doing something.

So if MS starts to infringe an Apple patent, it can't defend itself by saying that it is actually using the Novell patent. (It may be true that the product uses both patents, in fact, but the fact that MS "owns" the Novell patent doesn't give it the right to infringe the Apple patent).

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Interesting. Is this Apple admitting that they're not threatened by Microsoft's mobile phones? That they're happy to share them with MS as long as Google and RIM don't get them?

Or am I reading too much into this?

You're reading too much into this because these are Novell Patents that include LINUX/UNIX Patents, nothing to do with Smartphones.

 

[blahblah100]

Could you give any examples of that?

.

Count up all the authorized resellers that got screwed over when Apple bulit Apple stores next door. Radio Shack on the iPhone 4, OEM builders when Apple released an update to Mac OS (8?) just to terminate the agreements, etc.

It gets even worse if you consider App store developers as partners .

I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't screw over their partners on occasion, but Apple does as well (although I'm sure according to this forum, they have excuses, justifications, and have done NOTHING wrong, 'it was their partners fault', 'that's what they get', etc...).

 

[shartypants]

That is cool that companies are coming together to own patents, good for consumers.

 

[blahblah100]

You may have this a bit backwards, it's definitely the other way around. I don't think Apple's ever felt threatened by companies that follow them and make cloned phones.

So are you supporting the position that Apple is not threatened by Android, or are you trying to suggest that Android phones are not 'cloned phones', as others have suggested? Or something else?

Given the attention that Android is gaining (regardless of how you feel about it), and even the attention Steve has given Android in keynotes and quarterly conference calls with investors would suggest that Apple feels threatened by Android, at least on some level.

 

[alent1234]

Count up all the authorized resellers that got screwed over when Apple bulit Apple stores next door. Radio Shack on the iPhone 4, OEM builders when Apple released an update to Mac OS (8?) just to terminate the agreements, etc.

It gets even worse if you consider App store developers as partners .

I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't screw over their partners on occasion, but Apple does as well (although I'm sure according to this forum, they have excuses, justifications, and have done NOTHING wrong, 'it was their partners fault', 'that's what they get', etc...).

apple stores are very well thought out. they are almost always far enough away from partner stores like best buy not to compete. and they are usually in different neighborhoods

 

[RaZaK]

Wow

I wonder if this means Groupwise is officially done for.

on a plus side, maybe future versions of OS X will be based on a hardened version of SUSE Linux.

One can always dream FTW

 

[blahblah100]

apple stores are very well thought out. they are almost always far enough away from partner stores like best buy not to compete. and they are usually in different neighborhoods

'Almost always?' They 'almost always' never infringe on X. Almost only counts in horse shoes.

Just where I live (west coast), there is a Best Buy that is across the street from a mall containing an Apple store. The Best Buy was their first. In a different part of town, there is another Apple store across the street from a Best Buy, but I can't remember which came first.

But, ironically, I was talking about the smaller authorized stores, stores like 'the mac store', etc.

 

[nefan65]

I wonder if this means Groupwise is officially done for.

on a plus side, maybe future versions of OS X will be based on a hardened version of SUSE Linux.

One can always dream FTW

Um..don't really see the benefit of Linux? OS X runs on UNIX now; why would they change that? Doesn't add any value...

GroupWise...blah. Used it before, and not impressed. From an Admin side it was good; no viruses like Exchange/Outlook. However, to use it you need eDir vs. just a native connection to AD, or other Open directory service.

 

[Winni]

Um..don't really see the benefit of Linux? OS X runs on UNIX now; why would they change that? Doesn't add any value...

Just four points:

1. Linux performs MUCH faster than OS X on the same hardware.
2. Linux runs on MUCH more hardware architectures than OS X.
3. Linux is more robust, stable and secure than OS X.
4. Unlike OS X, Linux is a first class citizen in data centers with industry-wide acceptance and support.

But, of course, Apple won't switch to Linux. Because of the GPL, they couldn't add any proprietary, closed source DRM stuff into the Linux kernel. And having to open source some of their walled garden code certainly is not in the interest of Apple.

 

[SandynJosh]

Interesting. Nice seeing some companies cooperate instead of litigate. I wonder if they are pursuing Nortel patents as a group or individually.

Didn't you read the article? It's a done deal. Past tense. Acquired. Over with.

One interesting fact: The patents were estimated to be worth a billion or so, but were bought up for less than half that amount. It sounds like those who wanted the patents said to each other, "Rather then fight each other with competitive bids and drive the price to the moon, let's cooperate and steal these puppies."

 

[Jaro65]

Particularly whether some of the patents in this package are already the subjects of lawsuits.

You're right, but that would have been obviously priced in.

 

[SandynJosh]

Interesting. Is this Apple admitting that they're not threatened by Microsoft's mobile phones? That they're happy to share them with MS as long as Google and RIM don't get them?

Or am I reading too much into this?

I think you are reading the wrong things into this.

Novell was more about networks. Any patents relating to phones in the package likely are very tangential.

 

[SandynJosh]

Apple and MS make money in totally different markets with very little overlap. Microsoft makes a lot of money on very big products that most people have never heard of

Like dining table sized iPads. /sarcasm

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Just four points:

1. Linux performs MUCH faster than OS X on the same hardware.

WRONG. Now are we going to compare Darwin to Linux Kernel in a speed test? Are we going to dare compare Xorg to WindowServer in performance? How about Quartz/Extreme Compositing and it's capabilities to KWIN/GDM?

2. Linux runs on MUCH more hardware architectures than OS X.

This is a matter of choice, not a limitation in Mach/XNU. NeXT perfected the Way-Fat architecture before any part of the industry could touch it.

3. Linux is more robust, stable and secure than OS X.

Generalizations are useless. Here is mine: OpenBSD stomps both for out-of-the-box Security. I can crash Debian Linux SID more easily than I can Darwin. With > 12 years in Linux and > 20 years in NeXT/Apple such a claim is useless as I can make both dump.

4. Unlike OS X, Linux is a first class citizen in data centers with industry-wide acceptance and support.

Linux is developed by IBM, ORACLE, RED HAT, DELL, INTEL, and more who all have a vested interest in it being a first class citizen in data centers. Linux is still not POSIX compliant and does not touch UNIX 03 certification that Apple reached in 10.5. Next you'll state, Linux is not UNIX.

But, of course, Apple won't switch to Linux. Because of the GPL, they couldn't add any proprietary, closed source DRM stuff into the Linux kernel. And having to open source some of their walled garden code certainly is not in the interest of Apple.

GPLv3 is an issue for Linus and Linux. GCC moving to GPLv3 brought us LLVM/Clang/Libc++ which has accomplished in a fraction what has taken GCC decades to reach.

Linux is a MONOLITHIC Kernel. XNU is a Mach Micro-kernel Hybrid. By default they are different birds.

For the greater than $12 Billion invested in the Linux Kernel it's still unstable and kludgey at handling the most commonly expected Desktop environment behavior.

Linux is now ready to jettison it's Window Server and fracture even more with Wayland vs. Xorg.

Linux is just the Kernel. OS X is the entire beast through to the Desktop Environment.

 

[LagunaSol]

Ironic statement, considering Apple's history of screwing over their partners...

Microsoft wrote the book on the subject.

 

[rdowns]

Didn't you read the article? It's a done deal. Past tense. Acquired. Over with.

One interesting fact: The patents were estimated to be worth a billion or so, but were bought up for less than half that amount. It sounds like those who wanted the patents said to each other, "Rather then fight each other with competitive bids and drive the price to the moon, let's cooperate and steal these puppies."

I think you are confusing Novell with Nortel.

 

[kdarling]

Interesting. Is this Apple admitting that they're not threatened by Microsoft's mobile phones? That they're happy to share them with MS as long as Google and RIM don't get them?

Consider that Apple is still dependent on Microsoft for things like the licensing of ActiveSync, without which they would not be taken seriously in the business world.

However, even without that need, I don't think they're as much enemies as some people seem to think. Also, there are rumors that the patent sharing they were forced into because of the GUI trial result, is really broad.

 

[kiljoy616]

Interesting. Nice seeing some companies cooperate instead of litigate. I wonder if they are pursuing Nortel patents as a group or individually.

I would think considering Nokia that these big companies are just tired of the lame duck companies and their patent trolling. I wonder who else they will try to buy out next?

 

[Rodimus Prime]

If I had to guess MS would of force Apple to take them on. MS is part of an alliance of companies who will buy up patents from companies when force sells happen (bankruptcy, mergers, ect) just to keep them out of the hands of patent trolls.

I could easy see this as a way to keep Apple honest because I do not trust Apple not to abuse the tech and sure as hell I do not see Apple make good use out of it since my guess most of those patents are good for enterprise useage which lets face it Apple sucks at. MS on the other had has huge interested on those.

This will in the end keep both companies honest and keep them more importantly out of the hands of trolls.

 

[MattInOz]

Interesting. Is this Apple admitting that they're not threatened by Microsoft's mobile phones? That they're happy to share them with MS as long as Google and RIM don't get them?

Or am I reading too much into this?

I think both Apple and Microsoft are saying that the bigger threat to either of their phone businesses is poor infrastructure.

The easier it is, at reasonable license terms, for everyone to build 4G and 5,6,7G networks the better it is for Apple and MS.

Apple and MS compete on their interaction with the user and everything else seems to be far game for co-operation.

 

[snberk103]

....
One: For example, Apple may have a patent that it feels is not part of the consortium's IP. If Microsoft starts to infringe on the Apple patent, and then claim it's part of the Novell package - so fair use - they will need a way to sort that out. Possibly the consortium's admin section includes a mediation function, and the partners have agreed to be bound by it's decisions. This would be a lot cheaper than settling things in Court.

Two: As an example, Apple may have been working collaboratively and cooperatively with an Open Source project. If the Open Source project is alleged to have infringed on the consortium's IP, then it will be the consortium that gets to play the heavy and demand the Open Source project stop the activity. Apple can look all sweet and innocent, can claim that the "cease and desist" letter has nothing to do with them.

It would be interesting to know more about the patent package, eh?

...
It doesn't work that way. If you infringe on a patent, you infringe, even if you can point to another patent that seems to describe the same thing. For example, I can get a patent for a machine that does A, and you improve on my machine and create a machine that does A and B. If you build and sell that machine then you infringe on my patent (as long as the way it achieves A is covered by my patent).

Don't think 'feeling' is involved in ownership of patents. The patent states who applied for it - that will show if it Apple applied for it or if it was from Novell. It is not the case that they now share all patents - only the ones they bought 'together' - you can be sure that it is very well document which patents those are.

Two things:

1) ownership of a given patent won't be in dispute. They are like property. They initially belong to the inventor. The inventor may assign (i.e. sell) the patent to anyone else, who then may sell it again, etc. Usually these sales are recorded in the USPTO. In any event, if someone claims to own the patent, he will have a document that shows that he bought it.

2) patents do not give you the right to do anything. They only give you the right to prevent others from doing something.

So if MS starts to infringe an Apple patent, it can't defend itself by saying that it is actually using the Novell patent. (It may be true that the product uses both patents, in fact, but the fact that MS "owns" the Novell patent doesn't give it the right to infringe the Apple patent).

I do actually know what a patent is, and how they work. I must not explained myself clearly enough, because you've missed my point entirely. Perhaps I should have said "Patented IP" since it can be unclear which patents may be applicable to any IP.

Substitute "believes" for "feels" .

My point is that some of these companies are going to have different ideas about which patents will apply to certain bits of IP. If Apple "believes/feels" that Microsoft is infringing on their patent, then they talk and perhaps go to court to settle the matter, and perhaps MS pays Apple money.

With the consortium, what happens if Apple claims MS is infringing on a patent, and MS claims that this particular patent is part of the consortium - and those patents have (we assume) been cross-licenced. Apple has to agree that this particular IP is part of the Novell package, otherwise it's just MS infringing on an Apple patent.

We know patents are not cut-and-dried, otherwise the courts would not be clogged with companies trying to prove their cases in front of a judge.

 

[cmaier]

With the consortium, what happens if Apple claims MS is infringing on a patent, and MS claims that this particular patent is part of the consortium - and those patents have (we assume) been cross-licenced.

This makes no sense. MS can either prove that there is a written assignment document assigning the patent to the consortium, or it can't. There can't be any misunderstanding any more than I can "claim" that your automobile is part of my family's community property. I can either produce title or I can't.

Not to mention that right on the face of the patent will be the first assignment - either it came from Novell or it came from Apple. Anyone can tell the difference just by reading the top left side of the front page of the patent.

 

[snberk103]

This makes no sense. MS can either prove that there is a written assignment document assigning the patent to the consortium, or it can't. There can't be any misunderstanding any more than I can "claim" that your automobile is part of my family's community property. I can either produce title or I can't.

Not to mention that right on the face of the patent will be the first assignment - either it came from Novell or it came from Apple. Anyone can tell the difference just by reading the top left side of the front page of the patent.

I'm not talking about the patent specifically, I'm talking about the "thing" that the patent covers... Patents are not like automobile ownership, they are description of how to do something.

For example: Apple has a process that makes A turn into B, and they patent that process.

MS complains and says that they've been using a patented process that turns B into C, and that Apple's A>B process is while not quite the same, similar enough it infringes on the MS patent. There is no question that Apple owns it's patent, and that MS owns their patent. The whole question is whether Apple's process is similar to the MS's patented process. It can take a long and expensive court fight before these questions are settled.

With the consortium, Apple there are going to be certain processes that MS and Apple (we assume) have cross-licenced to each other. But now, is Apple's A>B process similar to MS's B>C process, Novell's C>D process (now cross licensed, we assume). Or, perhaps MS is blowing in the wind, and the Apple A>B falls entirely within a sound patent.

If patent law was easy as automobile ownership, there wouldn't be all of these lawsuits flying around. The big corps would just sit around the table and compare pink slips.

 

[qtx43]

You're reading too much into this because these are Novell Patents that include LINUX/UNIX Patents, nothing to do with Smartphones.

Smartphones have nothing to do with Linux except for the fact that Android is Linux. And Google is conspicuously absent from this deal. I don't really know enough details to have an opinion one way or the other, but your statement doesn't make sense.