Microsoft: The more that they say, the less rosy the patent deal looks

David Kaefer, the director of business development for intellectual property and licensing at Microsoft, is on the record as saying a rather curious thing:

We've been very clear from the outset, and the financial realities of the deal underscore this, that Novell's patents have value. One need only go back to the late 90s with Novell's leadership in the directory space to recognize the benefits of much of the research and development that they conducted at that time.

I'm sure this is true; at least, I'm sure it's true (in fact, I know so) that Novell's patent portfolio is significant. Not nearly as extensive as Microsoft's, but significant in its own right.

But let's assume David is telling the truth. If so, then Microsoft, not Novell, has the patent quandary, not open source. Or, at least, not Novell. Novell claims to be using its patent portfolio to protect open source ("We have stated our commitment to use our own software patents to protect open source technologies"), but really its policy is more self-serving. Understandable, but let's call a spade a spade.

Otherwise, if Novell cared about the community more than narrow self-interst, wouldn't it put those important patents under cover of the Open Invention Network so that they truly could protect open source?

Again, if Microsoft's patents are only worth $40M or so, and Novell's are worth $300M, then does anyone have anything to fear about Microsoft's patent rattling? If their value is comparatively worthless, why is anyone bothering to take them seriously (this assumes, of course, that someone is)?

And why, if Novell's patent portfolio is so significant, isn't Novell using those patents to defend open source as it has promised to do, rather than just its quarterly revenue target? Surely the company's potential market would be even bigger if it made the open source pie bigger, and not merely its current slice of it?

I'm with Mark Webbink on this one: it all just doesn't add up.