On Saturday 25 November 2006 16:26, 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. I don't believe for a microsecond that M$ will ever bring a patent suit against the linux world. The rest of the world knows that, and you would see retaliatory suits against M$ for every little thing some coder in Podunk Center, IA, wrote back in 1987, has printed copies of the assembly and what it does, and will be baiting M$ to prove that they never saw his code when they wrote an equivalent function. Prior art lawsuits would quickly eat away at the Bill Billions, and he knows it. Its all a balancing act and he adds more FUD when his end of the teeter gets too high. The average corporate CEO/CFO/CTO knows full well linux in the server room is saving them thousands a year, and if a particularly expensive piece of business software isn't available to run on a linux system, they are not the least allergic to demanding it be made that way, or changing vendors to one thats more co-operative. If linux gets sued over something like that, the ducks & penguins will line up and peck them to death. Thats not something that looks appetizing to M$ unless they've completely lost their corporate mind. Conscience, or morals haven't a thing to do with it as M$ has proved many times. To them its simply good business sense. >-- >imalone -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
