<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2995" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922151616-17112006><FONT face=Verdana
size=2>What I don't get is everyone's assumption that such a lawsuit would
naturally involve IBM, Sun, Red Hat, etc.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922151616-17112006><FONT face=Verdana
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922151616-17112006><FONT face=Verdana
size=2>SCO sued IBM directly, and IIRC it started as a contract
dispute.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922151616-17112006><FONT face=Verdana
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922151616-17112006><FONT face=Verdana
size=2>If Microsoft doled a cease and desist out to the Samba project and sued
the Samba team for infringement, this matter of "IBM could easily long term
lawyer them out of a courtroom" might not hold water. We cannot be
entirely certain that IBM (or Sun or Red Hat, etc) would / can step up to the
plate in a suit that is not directed against them.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922151616-17112006><FONT face=Verdana
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922151616-17112006><FONT face=Verdana
size=2>My concern is Microsoft might never attack property in The Kernel (tm),
as wayyy too many companies are involved in it's development, but it would be
relatively easy to attack some of the key applications that make running linux
worthwhile.</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922151616-17112006><FONT face=Verdana
size=2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=922151616-17112006></SPAN><FONT
face=Verdana><FONT size=2>=<SPAN
class=922151616-17112006>Dan</SPAN></FONT></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> cialug-bounces@cialug.org
[mailto:cialug-bounces@cialug.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Brandon
Griffis<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, November 17, 2006 10:06 AM<BR><B>To:</B>
amesfug@amesfug.org; Central Iowa Linux Users Group; DePaul Linux Community;
QCLUG@qclug.org<BR><B>Subject:</B> [Cialug] So who didn't see this one
coming?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"></DIV>
<DIV style="TEXT-ALIGN: left"><A
href="http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9005171&source=NLT_AM&nlid=1">Balmer:
Linux users owe Microsoft</A><BR><BR>I'm not really sure how SuSE could be so
stupid when everyone else knew this was coming. The big question is if
they'll actually follow up on it. My guess is no. Microsoft is more
concerned about spreading doubt as a marketing tactic. By tossing this out
there but not actually acting on it they hope to worry company management enough
to avoid converting to Linux. That's why the response of most big names in
the Linux community is for Microsoft to put their money where their mouth
is. They know it hurts more to have the doubt out there with no action
than to actually go through the process of proving it as a false
statement. If Microsoft were to actually try and make patent claims
against Linux they'd have to contend with all the patient portfolios of IBM, Red
Hat, JBoss, possibly even Oracle, and many others. Plus the additional
legal teams of the EFF, FSF, GNU, and probably every state in the union.
IBM alone could wipe Microsoft out of existence in a patient dispute.<BR><BR>Not
to mention how underhanded the deal looks. Microsoft pays SuSE 440 million
for "something", and SuSE in turn pays 40 million to Microsoft to "please not
sue us for our patient infringements" (which is what Microsoft said it was for.
SuSE said it was for "something else"). Ignoring the "he said/she
said" any 1st grader with basic understanding of arithmetic can tell you that
440 – 40 = 400. I doubt that 40 million ever actually changed hands.
It was all probably just documented in paper, and Microsoft basically just paid
SuSE 400 million to be able to use their name in FUD attacks on
Linux.<BR><BR>What burns me up is while this might be good in short term for
SuSE. It will obviously end up hurting them within a year or two. By
accepting this deal they've basically said "yes we're guilty" what happens in a
year or two when Microsoft comes back and wants more money from them? Why
would they make such a moronic mistake? <BR><BR>-G<BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>