[Cialug] So who didn't see this one coming?

[Daniel.Juliano at wellsfargo.com]

What I don't get is everyone's assumption that such a lawsuit would
naturally involve IBM, Sun, Red Hat, etc.
 
SCO sued IBM directly, and IIRC it started as a contract dispute.
 
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.
 
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.
 
=Dan

  _____  

From: cialug-bounces at cialug.org [mailto:cialug-bounces at cialug.org] On
Behalf Of Brandon Griffis
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:06 AM
To: amesfug at amesfug.org; Central Iowa Linux Users Group; DePaul Linux
Community; QCLUG at qclug.org
Subject: [Cialug] So who didn't see this one coming?


Balmer:  Linux users owe Microsoft
<http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic
&articleId=9005171&source=NLT_AM&nlid=1> 

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.

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.

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? 

-G

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cialug.org/pipermail/cialug/attachments/20061117/77643e81/attachment-0001.htm