Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Payback time for Novell
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | However, Novell had to cause significant harm to the GPL in order to
> | be paid. And that is what Microsoft was after.
There is no doubt that Novell has a talent for snaching defeat from the
Jaws of Victory.
In 1994, when Microsot's NT bombed, they signed away their right to
produce workstations.
When Novell won numerous points and had Microsoft up against the ropes
in the DRI lawsuit, and then settled for practically nothing, and
agreed to seal the records not to archive them efficiently.
In 2006, when they have a major product server in SUSE, and have
numerous OEMs looking for some means of signing OEM contracts for
desktops in which they agree to distribute SUSE, and Microsoft's
illegal exclusion is about to trigger international scorn, and the
Democrats take congress (not a good thing for Microsoft, given Bush's
blind eye in the Antitrust enforcement), and they sign a deal which
guarantees nothing except about the same number of servers they had
sold before, and prevents them from charging OEMs with collusion in the
desktop market.
> | Microsoft wants to invalidate the GPL by making further contributions
> | via the GPL distasteful for developers.
Microsoft wants to make sure that Novell stops making OEMs offers for
desktop distribution which they legally cannot refuse. Micrososft
wants to try and create fear, uncertainty, and doubt, by having Novell
sign a contract which gives Novell very limited use of specific
Microsoft technology (having nothing to do with actual GPL code), and
keeping all of this under strict nondisclosure to make it look like
more has been acknowledged, and more has been given that is actually
the case.
Unless, and until Microsoft can actually state EXACTLY what it claims
is infringements of Microsoft's patents and other registered
intellectual property, and is willng and prepared to be so specific
that appropriate judgements, remedies, and if necessary, negotiated
royalties can be paid, Microsofts claims that GPL code infringes on
Microsoft's intellectual property rights, as stated by Bill Gates in
person, are simply SLANDER, FRAUD, EXTORTION, and BLACKMAIL.
The attempt to seal the contract, to prevent knowledge, by the
principles, the contributors to Linux, the customers who use Linux, and
the Linux distributors, of critical details, is also OBSTRUCTION OF
JUSTICE. It prevents them from taking appropriate actions.
Microsoft should be stripped of ALL intellectual property rights,
especially those involving the protocol ordered by the courts, and
forced to place all such specifications, along with their source code
to these drivers and protocols, into public domain.
> http://www.lamlaw.com/tiki-read_article.php?articleId=135
|
|