On Saturday 25 November 2006 14:26, Ian Malone wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 13:53 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > > > > ---- > > directly quoted from the article... > > > > "My reaction is that so far, what he [Ballmer] said is just more FUD > > [fear, uncertainty and doubt]," said Pamela Jones, editor of the > > Groklaw.net blog, which tracks legal issues in the open-source > > community. "Let him sue if he thinks he has a valid claim, and we'll see > > how well his customers like it." > > > > Officials at Red Hat Inc., the leading Linux distributor, also dismissed > > Ballmer's comments. "We do not believe there is a need for or basis for > > the type of relationship defined in the Microsoft/Novell announcement," > > said Mark Webbink, deputy general counsel. > > > > This is simply Microsoft FUD - If you wish to buy into it, that's your > > issue. > > > > It seems pretty obvious to me that the moment that Microsoft files suit > > against some large corporate user for infringement (they aren't likely > > to sue a Linux distribution), that they will alienate the entire > > corporate world. A bully doesn't beat up on people to project > > strength...a bully merely threatens. Let them threaten all that they > > wish - who's afraid of the big bad wolf? > > Honestly, I'm beginning to believe that blatantly submarining like > this should somehow be illegal (as in, invalidate their claim). If > they have a valid patent claim that they believe Linux violates they > should announce it so people know where they stand, as it affects the > end user as well as the distributor. Surely the whole point of the > patent system[1] is that people know what the holder has a claim on > and can avoid using it if they don't want to. > > Vague threats like this are automatically FUD, if there's really > something there the patent should have been published and they should > be able to point to it. Unless they go to court they don't have to > tell you /how/ you're violating it, but if they think millions of > people and companies are somehow violating a patent they should have > the grace to say which one so we can make a choice. > > [1] In general; the silliness of software patents specifically aside. > -- > imalone It won't go anywhere because micro$ux would have to release their source code to prove infringement
