Practical Technology

for practical people.

November 28, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

The Rise of Web Censorship

Back in 1964, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart of famously wrote on what was, and wasn’t “hard-core pornography” that, “I know it when I see it.” Today, free speech on the Web is impeded by far more restrictions than just what is, or isn’t, pornographic. On the Web in 2010, even the appearance of enabling file-sharing of copyright materials seems to be enough for the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to shut down Web-sites without notice .

ICE has shut down dozens of file-sharing and what are alleged to be counterfeit good sites such as Torrent-Finder.com, 2009jerseys.com, and Dvdcollects.com. Their domain names have been taken over by ICE leaving behind only a single page stating that “This domain name has been seized by ICE–Homeland Security Investigations, pursuant to a seizure warrant issued by a United States District Court.”

In a statement to the New York Times, Cori W. Bassett, a spokesperson for ICE said that the “ICE office of Homeland Security Investigations [had] executed court-ordered seizure warrants against a number of domain names.”

Fine and dandy. I have no use for sites that traffic in counterfeit goods such as fake autographed sports jerseys or designer purses. I do, on the other hand, worry when a site like Torrent-Finder is shut down.

More >

November 26, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

Putting a Band-Aid on Firesheep with the new HTTPS Everywhere

Firesheep, the all too easy-to-use Web snooping tool, continues to expose the disaster that is modern Web site security. Sooner or later, a lot of people are going to lose a lot of valuable information to hackers using Firesheep and scream to high heaven about it. Then, and only then, will Web server administrators start offering HTTPS all the time.

You, however, don’t have to be one of those victims. There are already tools that will help protect your Web wandering from Firesheep. One of the best of these, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s (EFF) HTTPS-Everywhere, has recently had a major upgrade.

As far as I’m concerned, this latest version is a must for anyone who uses public Wi-Fi spots and doesn’t have the luxury of using a virtual private network (VPN). HTTPS-Everywhere forces many popular Web sites to let you connect to them with Transport Layer Security (TLS); Secure Sockets Layer (SSL); or TLS/SSL over HTTP (HTTPS).

More >

November 24, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

Who owns what in the Novell deal

We’re beginning to see who owns Unix and other intellectual property in the Novell deal. Hint: Microsoft did just fine for itself. The bare facts of the matter are that the almost forgotten software company Attachmate has bought Novell and Microsoft played a large, perhaps critical, role in the Novell acquisition. We don’t know a lot more than that, but we are beginning to get a fuller picture of what’s what in the Novell deal.

First, Unix’s intellectual property (IP) remains with Novell. That’s the good news. The bad news is that Microsoft still has ended up with, via the mysterious CPTN Holdings LLC company, owning 882 of Novell’s patents, and perhaps, as you’ll see shortly, much more besides.

So while, yes, it’s good that Unix’s copyrights don’t end up in Microsoft’s hands, there are still many other issues ahead to concern Linux fans.

While I’m no lawyer, I have friends who are, such as Andrew ‘Andy’ Updegrove, a founding partner of Gesmer Updegrove, a top technology law firm. In his latest blog, Updegrove describes how the Attachmate/Novell merger will work in layman’s language.

The deal itself is a "reverse triangular merger." That means that Novell, the "acquired company continues its corporate existence, since in a merger the parties are free to designate which company will be the ‘surviving corporation.’ Attachmate will therefore form an empty shell company before the closing, all of whose shares will be owned by Attachmate. On the closing date, that company will merge into Novell, rather than the other way around."

Why would they do it that way? Well, there are usually two reasons. The one that seems important here is, "It will lessen a major headache under other structures, which is getting the permission of many hundreds of third parties to assign their contracts from Novell to the acquirer. While every company seeks to limit the number of contracts that it signs that require such permissions, granting this term is sometimes unavoidable (and especially if you want the same right in return). Since Novell will be the surviving legal entity."

Therefore, Updegrove continued, "As a result of this structure, all of Novell’s existing contracts, licenses, debts and other legal rights and obligations will continue as they were before the transaction occurred."

That’s good news for Novell’s customers. At the same time though, the financial side is not as sweet for Novell stockholders as I, and many others, first thought. Updegrove explained:

Elliott’s original offer was $5.75 a share, and that was for all of Novell. But as noted later in the 8-K, 822 patents will be broken out of Novell at the time of the sale, and sold independently for $450 million. Absent these included proceeds, the price paid at closing would be less than Elliott’s original bid. Whether or not Elliott had assumed it could sell the patents for as much is impossible to tell, but apparently Attachmate valued the remainder of Novell’s business and assets at substantially less than Novell’s cash and short term securities, which currently stand at $1.09 billion. The math is as follows:

$2.2 billion (the total proceeds to be received by Novell shareholders), minus $450 million (the amount contributed by CPTN, the Microsoft consortium), less $1.09 billion (cash and short term securities) leaves a paltry $660 million for all of once-proud Novell. And if, as I’ve read elsewhere, Elliott Associates is going to retain its stake in the surviving company (which I’ll call "New Novell"), that means that Attachmate needs to put up even less, since it won’t have to actually buy out Elliott’s substantial stake.

Microsoft’s role and what it gets from the Novell deal

The deal’s closing conditions also reveal, as I have suspected, that Microsoft must have played a major role in making this deal happen. Updegrove states that the closing conditions reveal that "Attachmate is basically using $450 million of someone else’s money (Microsoft and unnamed parties [in the CPTN patents purchase]) to buy Novell." Updegrove continued:

Whether Attachmate brought Microsoft in or vis-versa is unknown, but given Microsoft’s preexisting agreements with Novell, and especially the fact that the important patent cross licensing agreement it entered into with Novell four years ago is up for renewal in one year, it seems safe to assume that Microsoft would have been in discussions with Novell since the Company was first put into play.

The mysterious and intriguing part, on which more below, is why Microsoft is not acting alone. There are a number of possibilities, including possible concerns on Microsoft’s part that antitrust regulators might not have approved a purchase by it alone and that (as would appear to be the case) the patent acquisition is part of a larger, but still undisclosed, business plan.

Updegrove also points out, "Given that Novell’s current liquid assets equal the debt financing promised by Attachmate, the acquirer would not have had to visit many banks to get a commitment. In effect, Attachmate will be acquiring Novell for only $425 million (some of which will be coming from "certain equity investors")."

The more I learn about this deal, the more I think Microsoft really is pulling all the strings.

Even if the Attachmate purchase doesn’t come through, Microsoft may still end up with the patents. Indeed, if the deal doesn’t go through, Microsoft may end-up with more of Novell’s IP.

The relevant paragraph from the Novell’s merger 8-K reads

In the event that CPTN has elected to continue the Patent Purchase Agreement following a termination of the Merger Agreement as described above, Novell and CPTN will enter into a royalty-free, fully paid-up patent cross license for no additional consideration, effective as of the closing, with respect to all patents and patent applications owned or controlled by them on mutually acceptable terms that are no less favorable in the aggregate to either party than the terms of any other patent cross license offered by CPTN to any other person (other than any member of CPTN or an affiliate of any such member).

In other words, as Updegrove states, "not only the 882 patents covered by the patent sale are covered. Instead, the parties will negotiate a cross-license to all of the patents, and patent applications, owned by each party. The price for Novell being able to continue its business if the Attachmate deal doesn’t go through, but the CPTN deal does, would therefore be that it would have to license all of its patents to CPTN – for no additional consideration."

What a deal!

So what will Microsoft do with all this? Updegrove said, and I agree, that we’re not likely to see a return of open warfare against Linux ala SCO’s futile war against Linux. Instead, he and I both expect Microsoft to continue to claim that Linux violates its patents, without ever revealing details publicly, Instead, Microsoft reveals their claims under non-disclosure agreements and companies like Amazon pay a Microsoft ‘tax’ for using Linux.. Therefore, Updegrove expects that "this new development does not meaningfully change the landscape. At most it means that Microsoft could claim greater royalties in a given situation."

We’re still a long way from knowing all the details and exactly what role Microsoft has played in this merger. I’m more sure than ever though of one thing: the company that will benefit the most from the Novell merger is Microsoft.

A version of this story first appeared in ComputerWorld.

November 23, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

Meet MeeGo

Android might get all the headlines, but MeeGo, the little Linux that could, may yet become an important Linux for your phones, netbooks, tablets, and cars.

I always liked Moblin, Intel’s embedded Linux, and I thought that Nokia’s Maemo was interesting, but really did the world need yet another embedded Linux operating system? I thought not, and neither did they. The two technology giants, with the help of the Linux Foundation, merged the two together to create MeeGo.
At this point, you might be wondering, “What about Android?” You know, the number one with a bullet embedded Linux that is now selling faster than Apple’s iOS devices and eating RIM’s Blackberry for lunch? Well, yes, there is that, but there just might be enough room for two important Linux distributions for devices. At least, MeeGo’s supporters are certainly hoping that’s the case.

More >

November 23, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

Why would you want ultra-fast broadband at home?

After my recent piece on the cost of small office/home office bandwidth was published, I heard from many people. Some sample responses to Verizon’s new monthly deal of 150 Megabits per second (Mbps) down and 35Mbps up for $194.99 include: “I pay $40 a month now and it works fine, why do I want to pay 5x as much for capacity I don’t miss?” “Okay, understand that I do, like 120% of my work on the Internet, I don’t think I could justify ~$200/month.” And, “You buying? Then yes. Otherwise, ha ha ha ha ha.”

OK. I get it. Verizon is going to have a hard row to hoe to find customers willing to pay almost $200 a month for business-class broadband. The reasons Verizon gives for people to want to the deal that “consumers can download a two-hour, standard-definition movie (1.5 gigabytes) in less than 80 seconds, and a two-hour HD movie (5 GB) in less than four and a half minutes,” and, “Downloading 20 high-resolution photographs (100 megabytes) would take less than five and a half seconds using the 150/35 Mbps service. With the 35 Mbps upstream speed, consumers can upload those same 20 high-resolution photos in less than 23 seconds,” aren’t that compelling. Well, not at that price-point anyway.

I see compelling reasons coming though.

More >

November 23, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments

Who really bought Novell? Microsoft.

Who really bought Novell? Of course, I know that Attachmate is the company that’s on record as purchasing Novell for $2.2-billion, while Microsoft shelled out $450 million for some Novell intellectual property. But tell me, where did Attachmate get $2.2-billion? Could it have been Microsoft? I think so.

I’ve covered Attachmate over the years, so I knew who they were when the news broke that Attachmate had purchased Novell. What I couldn’t see was where the heck they had gotten the money for the deal. Attachmate’s main business over the years has been software terminal emulation. That’s a business line that’s been dying ever since the Web came along in the early 90s.

I mean who needs to emulate a mainframe 3270 terminal, a mini-computer VT-102 terminal, or even a Windows-based X-term today? There are only a handful of people who still need that kind of thing. In short, even with its NetIQ systems and security management subsidiary, Attachmate is a niche company in a declining industry segment. There’s no way they had a spare billion and change to buy Novell.

There’s also no real synergy between Attachmate’s offerings and Novell’s. From a business standpoint this is a deal that might have made sense in the late 80s or early 90s, when PC-based X-terminals were much more useful in working with Unix and Linux servers. Today, the deal, as its being presented to the public, makes no sense to me.

Unless, of course, Microsoft is the company that’s actually controlling the purse strings. Then, the deal makes perfect sense.

First, it’s a great tactical move because it keeps Novell SUSE Linux out of the hands of VMware. The last thing Microsoft wanted was for VMware, its major cloud and virtualization rival, to have a major operating system to offer to its customers. Microsoft is having a hard enough time getting its Hyper-V virtualization and Azure cloud marketing story straight without having to compete with the one-two punch of VMware and SUSE Linux.

There’s also a strategic move here as well. Had VMware, or some other strong, independent company, picked up SUSE Linux, the new owner might well have distanced itself from Novell’s partnership with Microsoft. Microsoft wants that bridge into Linux. In its ideal world, Microsoft would have everyone running Windows Server 2008 R2 on their servers, but Microsoft is practical enough to know that’s not going to happen. Thanks to its Novell partnership, it’s been able to offer customers Linux and Windows interoperability.

So, why didn’t Microsoft just buy out Novell itself? Because it couldn’t. Any such move would have triggered a long, nasty anti-trust suit and that’s not a lawsuit that Microsoft could have won.

Microsoft might have been able to get away with buying a Linux company, but don’t forget that Novell also owns Unix’s intellectual property. While the pure Unix operating systems, like Solaris and AIX, are declining in the marketplace, their descendants, which include everything from Linux to Mac OS X, are everywhere.

Instead Microsoft used Attachmate as a proxy to take Novell off the operating system chess board as an independent Linux company. At the same time, it retains enough direct and in-direct control of Novell and its intellectual property to put them into play if needed to put trouble into Red Hat, Android, or Ubuntu’s paths.

I don’t have a bit of proof for this mind you. Both Attachmate and Microsoft are being remarkably close-mouthed about what exactly they’ve bought and what they plan for their pieces of Novell. What I do have is decades of watching Microsoft bully its opposition. From that viewpoint, this seems like a logical Microsoft move.

Maybe I’m wrong. If I am, events will prove me to be off-base. I fear I’m not and this move will end up hurting all Linux companies. Time will tell.

A version of this story first appeared in ComputerWorld.>