“Three weeks ago I already commented on the recent announcement of Attachmate acquiring Novell and the sale of 882 Novell patents, in exchange for $450 million, to CPTN Holdings LLC,” Mueller reports. “At the time, the full list of CPTN Holdings LLC partners was not known. The entity was described as a ‘consortium organized by Microsoft.'”
Mueller reports, “Within the consortium, the four players will have to agree on a common denominator concerning the patents to be acquired. They’ve apparently been able to agree that those patents are valuable assets to own. I still don’t know the list of those patents, but it’s important progress that we now have the names of the companies, thanks to the German competition authority.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Fred Mertz” and “James W.” for the heads up.]
Working together – now that’s refreshing.
“The entity was described as a ‘consortium organized by Microsoft.”
Must be a mistake – since when has microshaft led/organized anything?
Who should be cacking their pants at this news I wonder?
I’ve long thought that patent sharing is more conducive to innovation than tight licensing.
Sounds like the anti-Google consortium to me.
they found enough value in the Novell’s 822 patents that they are willing to align their interest temporary and work together. Not bad…
One more thing… Did MSFT actually organized the consortium???
Oops.. Correction on my previous post… It should be 882 patents instead of 822. I do apologize of any confusion.
@Shan,
Exactly.
I was curious as to Google’s absence, then it hit me that all of these guys are engaged in major battles with Google.
Oracle and Microsoft in the same room together is hard enough to believe, but cooperating on patents, that is really unbelievable! Apple could have bought the whole mess for pocket change, why get into bed with the others? There is more here than meets the eye.
I’m commenting here because MDN is censoring the Zuckerpuke feed. BIG difference between Jobs & Zuckerpuke (except in Zucker’s own mind): World WOULD be a different place without Jobs. NO ONE would know the difference without the Schmuckberg…
Apple probably cooperated with MSFT et. al. in order to avoid a bidding war (the patents probably aren’t worth more [to Apple] than what they paid for it as a group).
@Amazin1,
MSFT, ORCL too could have bought those patents outright as well. However, keeping your ‘nemesis’ near to keep the real threat (Google) from Monopolizing the Net.
If MSFT is smart they will build Apps… for all OSs then they will be back to their roots.
In any case, sharing patents between these companies will ultimately SAVE on all the time and money wasted on attorneys and delaying products because of patents holders.
Don’t forget that Apple and MS have a long standing agreement on patent sharing. This goes back to 1997.
Apple and Microsofts patent sharing uses xerox technology. It’s the copier you can trust.
Microsoft and Apple did enter a mutual patent license deal in 1997, but it had a term of 5 years.
enemy of my enemy is my consortium partner
Sounds like the want to set groundwork for some new standards in the industry, well that keep the patents away from Google.
Google does not need to own patents. It will just define the technology as ‘open’ and openly copy it.
http://groklaw.net/ is quintessential if you follow these kind of stories.
Read this page – Microsoft-Organized Consortium Buying Novell Patents Are Apple, Oracle, MS, and EMC – Updated
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101216113816651
Also read –
The Psystar Appeal – Hearing (audio)
Wednesday, December 01 2010 @ 10:48 AM EST
“As I mentioned on Monday, the Psystar appeal was scheduled for oral argument at the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ( http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ ) in San Francisco, CA on Tuesday, and we have the audio ( http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/media/2010/11/30/10-15113.wma ) for you, if you can play wma format. I don’t know why courts think we all use Windows, but we don’t. But at least they make it available, which is more than the 10th Circuit has even dreamed of. But if you would like other formats, you might wish to respectfully write to the court and let them know.
If you’d like to follow the threads closely, here’s our Apple v. Psystar collection of documents in the case so far, ( http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=Psystar ) and the ones that were relevant specific to this hearing would be:
Psystar’s Opening Brief (sealed)
Apple’s Answering Brief
Psystar’s Reply
The main theme on Psystar’s part is that they are not pirates, not a bad actor, because it’s a case of copyright misuse on Apple’s part. But what it’s really all about is money, how large should the damages be.
You can pretty much figure out what is in the opening brief by reading the others. The three judges on the panel were Justices Mary M. Schroeder, Sidney R. Thomas, and Ronald M. Gould. Kiwi Camara argues for Psystar; George Riley for Apple. I can’t tell you more than that, because I decided years ago that I couldn’t agree to Microsoft’s EULA on Windows Media Player. There are patent restrictions, and I got the impression it would spy on me if I let it near my computer, and the day I change my mind on all that, you’ll know pigs are flying.”
I threw the Psystar one in out of interest. The – Psystar’s Opening Brief (sealed)
Apple’s Answering Brief
Psystar’s Reply
all have links to them on the Groklaw pages.
See –
Groklaw’s Mission Statement and What We Offer You
http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=20040923045054130
or
Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groklaw