Why didn’t Microsoft purchase the Novell patents itself?
Today, it was announced that the CPTN alliance had heavily modified its deal in order for their purchase of several hundred Novell patents to go through.
These modifications included a buy-and-handover of some patents from Microsoft, the non-purchase of virtualization patents by EMC, and most annoyingly, the gifting of the use of these patents gratis to the usual crew of Linux freeloaders.
Not shocking, since I thought the entire thing was fraught with issues from the onset. I believe Microsoft should have gone this purchase alone.
Could this have been done another way, you know a way whereby use of the patents with the payment some onerous tribute would have been required by Linux?
Of course.
The first error, IMO, is that a consortium was formed. By their very nature, coalitions like these draw scrutiny from antitrust authorities.
A détente agreement was already in force. That should have been expanded to include all assets of the company.
Secondly, Microsoft should have worked out a packaged bankruptcy arrangement with Novell that would have it pick up the company from reorg, owning the patents outright.
At that point in time, it would be okay, I assume, to do a cross-licensing deal with the other alliance members.
While such moves might be distasteful, they certainly wouldn’t be unlawful.
Other views
UPDATE: I have been informed that whatever the agreement may be, when in bankruptcy court, anyone could bid and snatch Novell from Microsoft.
I stand corrected on that, but my point is wouldn’t the paid-for patent licenses still stand, and wouldn’t that make sure that the ‘assets’ don’t fall freely to open source types? Then again, maybe that wasn’t Microsoft’s objective; said objective being not to be sued.
