>> There's also the possibility that *they're* infringing on *our* code (as
in including GPL code in their products. Agreements like Novell/MS also
cover *Microsoft*. Wouldn't it be interesting if using our code in their
products was the whole point of this exercise?
I believe that BSD code exists in the network stack of NT/W2K/XP. They
rewrote it for Vista, and reintroduced stack bugs not seen since W98.
Seeing their chief competitor (Apple) use the BSD code base to beat on them,
and now move to Intel, has got to concern them. Apple could offer a VM for
running Windows, along with Wine, and offer the biggest threat they've seen.
It could be that they want to side with Linux as an anti-Apple (as well as
anti-Sun/anti-IBM/anti-Oracle) move. Since none of us have seen the
agreement, this is all just wild speculation by all of us. Still, it will
be interesting to see how it all plays out.
This is actually a sign that Linux is a big-time player, guys...
I'd also like to second the idea that this is a pro-Linux list, not an
anti-MS list. You don't have to hate MS to love Linux.
Ken Elliott
=====================
-----Original Message-----
From: slug@nks.net [mailto:slug@nks.net] On Behalf Of Paul M Foster
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:30 PM
To: slug@nks.net
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Protest the Microsoft-Novell Patent Agreement
Rich Morgan wrote:
> On Mon, November 27, 2006 1:04 pm, Robert Snyder wrote:
>> They disagree because they cant see past the stupid IP issues.
>
> Robert, these "stupid IP issues" could seriously hurt Linux by forcing
> a removal or crippling of features to comply with Microsoft's IP. At
> the very best, if the claims are true, it could developmentally set
> the Linux kernel back while parts are re-written.
>
This is true. In a lot of cases, code could simply be rewritten. But if
turned out to be something like the TCP stack, that could take quite a bit
of time and effort to recode.
If Microsoft thought they could get away with suing us out of existence,
they would. But it's hard to sue thousands of people across the globe.
Plus, you *really* don't want to piss off thousands of people who could
cause you no end of trouble by virtue of their technical expertise (hacking
MS websites, etc.). Even so, if they did sue, it wouldn't matter about
rewriting the code. We could do it, but those sued would still be sued.
>
>> And the SCO cases when no where! So if MS is pulling the same old SCO
>> crap
>> then there no reason to concern with MS lawsuits. At the same time I
>> dont
>> think MS would give Kernel developers time to fix before a lawsuit
>> but if MS had real creadible proof, then it will be like any other IP
>> infringment case. Fix the problems or pay the patent holder.
>
> The SCO case went nowhere because SCO didn't have the money to drag it
> out with IBM.
The SCO case went nowhere because they had no real case to begin with.
Regardless of how much money they had, they would ultimately lose the case
because they didn't have one.
> Robert, what most people fear is not if Microsoft is right but how
> Microsoft could financially destroy small commercial Linux companies
> by dragging out a costly legal battle. In court, it doesn't really
> matter who is right - it matters who has the most money and the best
lawyers.
>
That's true and it's not true. There are certainly cases where lots of
expensive lawyers win the day. But there are also cases where they lose, and
where the poorer party wins. Microsoft mostly settles out of court anyway.
I don't think MS wants to take on Redhat/Novell/Mandriva, etc. No one in the
press likes MS all that well, and they don't have a great reputation among
governments. Should they start a campaign to go after (fill in the blank),
they'd be tarred and feathered in the press, among other things.
There could also be possible backlash by governments.
MS certainly has enough eyes and enough Open Source code available to it to
figure out if we're infringing on their IP right quick. So their either
isn't any infringement, or there is and they don't want to sue.
There's also the possibility that *they're* infringing on *our* code (as in
including GPL code in their products. Agreements like Novell/MS also cover
*Microsoft*. Wouldn't it be interesting if using our code in their products
was the whole point of this exercise?
Paul
-- Paul M. Foster ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:55:10 EDT