dapunka wrote:
> Frankly I find this whole business bizarre.
>
> If Microsoft want to make an issue about some Linux developer
> breaching patents of theirs, Microsoft have to specify which patent/s
> have been breached, right? In fact, don't they have to send the
> developer a "cease and desist" notice first? (IANAL, so please
> correct me if I've got anything wrong here)
>
> But Microsoft haven't specified any patents that they think have been
> breached... they've just made made vague noises about how Linux
> violates 235 or 238 unidentified patents.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39162357,00.htm
> Any sane Linux developer would, you'd think, laugh at the whole
> thing. They certainly wouldn't enter into pacts with Microsoft to
> avoid these spurious legal actions. You'd think.
>
> But Novell - a company that is large, successful, and in possession of
> well-qualified business and legal minds, /has/ entered into such a
> deal (along with Xandros, Linspire... band-wagon-jumping developers
> who I've never had much time for anyway). What the hell is Novell
> playing Microsoft's bizarre game for?
Money.
> If anyone can give me a good answer to this, I'd be very
> appreciative. Please, there's no need for pro/anti-Microsoft politics
> to enter into this. I honestly just want to know what is going on.
Apparently there are many instances where Linux/OSS infringes on patents
held by MS and others. They may be bogus patents that if challenged in
court would be reversed based on prior art, but for the time being they're
valid.
MS isn't going to sue individual Linux/OSS developers and users because of
the negative publicity that would result, and because of the potential fight
from powerful OSS interests that have their own patents, including IBM, HP
and Sun Microsystems.
|
|
