Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Perhaps Microsoft will sue Red Hat for trademark infringement (vs.
> copyright or patent)
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | That could be in the case. Especially since Novell, in its watershed
> | deal with Microsoft, has taken great care to reiterate that it still
> | believes that it has not infringed on any Microsoft patents. Why then
> | would Novell pay such a huge sum of money (with a promise of longer-term
> | royalities) if it really believed this? Answer? Microsoft may have
> | presented Novell with compelling evidence that Linux (or something that
> | Novell was distributing) infringes on its copyright. Or maybe a
> | trademark (or a servicemark).
> `----
>
Wrong way round there matey, MS is paying Novell the $348mil with a further
$40mil later. In return for accepting this money Novell are immune from
from the upcoming MS patent wars.
MS fully intend to get control of Linux via patent bashing. Redhat have
already turned them down, so there is likely to be a battle pending there.
So, with control (it's coming) of Novell and Redhat, MS are then free to
either own Linux or destroy it. When the Vista users realise what a pile of
shite Vista is so go looking for alternatives, MS can choose that either
they wont be an alternative (RIP-Linux) or they can choose to have a Linux
there ready for it's customers to fall on, thus selling twice, one being
the failing Vista then followed by a Linux os.
Novell should have held out, there is no guarentee that the MS patent wars
would do any better in court than the SCO patent wars. There is even less
certainty of these patent wars ever being valid in the EU and far east. (I
believe I'm right in saying that Japan and China have rejected those in the
same way as the EU is, but I think it was quite a while ago I last heard
them mentioned in this).
Without this deal Novel had the strength of the Linux community behind it, I
am not sure where they would stand now, in the middle of the battle field
perhaps, not a good place to stand.
|
|
