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

[Nathan C. Smith]

A normal tactic for this sort of thing would be to attack a few "undefended
companies" - particularly those that are only *using* linux.  Once they have
won those cases (by simply overwhelming the companies) they have the legal
momentum to go after ever larger targets.  Of course some smaller companies
will cave and pay a license or fold under the suit or threat of a suit.
 
It's really lousy, but fairly common.  
 
-Nate

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel.Juliano at wellsfargo.com [mailto:Daniel.Juliano at wellsfargo.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 10:25 AM
To: cialug at cialug.org; amesfug at amesfug.org; dlc at mailman.depaul.edu;
QCLUG at qclug.org
Subject: RE: [Cialug] So who didn't see this one coming?


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

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/20061117/142fdff6/attachment.html