
"Nothing to do with us"...
Published: 26 July 2007 09:33 BST
Microsoft should be able to extricate itself from the implications of the new GPL 3, according to a leading Australian intellectual property lawyer.
Kay Lam-Beattie, principal with intellectual property lawyers Idealaw, said that based on the limited information available to the public, the Free Software Foundation's (FSF) efforts to hinder Microsoft's bullying over patents are likely to be fruitless.
While not all the details of Microsoft's patent deal with Novell are publicly available for analysis (parts of the deal filed with the SEC have words deleted and large chunks of text cut out), Lam-Beattie is dubious about whether the FSF's strategy will work.
She said: "This [initiative] is squarely aimed at Microsoft. The question is, do Microsoft's actions regarding the [support certificates] fall within the definitions in the GPL 3 of what makes them a party to GPL 3?"
Microsoft recently issued a statement claiming it is "not a party to the GPL 3 licence" and that "none of its actions are to be misinterpreted as accepting status as a contracting party of GPL 3 or assuming any legal obligations under such licence".
Lam-Beattie said: "The GPL 3 is trying to bind Microsoft accidentally. Microsoft is saying: I have no intention of being bound by these rules."
She said: "Unless there is something more specific in the certificate or the collaboration agreement between Novell and Microsoft, I would be very surprised to see this upheld. It was a nice try on the part of (the FSF), but at this stage, I'd say it's not going to be an effective strategy. It will be tough to hold up in court."
The strategy, Lam-Beattie said, will ultimately fail because parties have to willingly enter contracts, and contracts can't be retrospective.
She said: "An easy analogy is a car park with a sign that says you are bound to a given contract if you enter into that car park. Anybody can enter, but you have to accept the terms, and the signal of you accepting those terms is when you enter. You have to do something positive to accept the terms - you have to act."
In this case, she said, Microsoft never acted - never 'entered' into the agreement, and the terms and conditions can only apply to new actions by Microsoft, not older ones. She said: "Their actions so far are not enough to say that they are bound."
Brett Winterford writes for ZDNet Australia
Of course Microsoft's actions make it a party to t...
Sean DALY
Is this a view based on Australian law? It may no...
Andy Tai
It is because of the Linspire/micro small agreemen...
R.Scaccia
Copyright works in a DMCA world can only be distri...
Michael Hughes
I don't see why this is even considered at this po...
Jonathon Coombes
It exists to design and develop software products and services that provide commercial benefit to RICS by monetising intellectual property assets or ...
As one of the major forces in insurance my client is well respected in private and commercial arena as a highly reputable commercial litigation ...
Service Quality & Contracts Analyst Location: St Davids Park, Chester, Liverpool Relocation: No, Local terms only Salary: up to 27 000 plus benefits ...
CIO50 2008
The silicon.com CIO50 2008 profiles the most influential and innovative tech chiefs in the UK across all industries and organisation size, from the biggest FTSE100 companies to high growth dot-com start ups and the public sector. The list was voted on by the UK CIO community and a panel of experts. Find out more in our latest special report.
Stories from the web...
Copyright ©1995-2008 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved. Top of page
Peter Cochrane Peter Cochrane's Blog: Is convergence a fiction? Or could it finally be happening…
Clive Longbottom Quocirca's Straight Talking: A game of two halves Microsoft Virtualisation scores while its SOA bores...