so it begins

[bugzpodder]

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;839593139;fp;16;fpid;1

[rdrake]

Ballmer trying to turn this into another SCO incident? Moron.

[wtd]

I predict the death of SuSE as a result. No one in their right minds who isn't a Microsoft shill is going to touch this distro with a ten foot pole now.

[Tony]

That's fine, plenty of other distros. Better question is what is going to happen to Novell's C# mono compiler? VisualMono++ 2007 Express Edition anyone?

[wtd]

Mono's open source. It will either survive as such, or Novell will make it such a pain in the ass to use that no one will.

[Dan]

Wow, so M$ is going to start sueing linux distors and/or linux users? I whould realy like to know what part of the kernal could posibley be copying M$ work.

If anything M$ has been copying linux in xp and vista.


As for suse i am rather dispointed but i do not see how it effects there software. Still i probly am not going to use suse any time soon.

[wtd]

I doubt they'll actually file lawsuits. It didn't work for them via SCO, so I think their new approach will be to use propoganda like the deal with Novell to get the world to quietly accept the idea that Linux needs indemnification.

"Novell signed a deal with Microsoft. They must know something. They wouldn't do that for nothing."

The long game with this I think is to scare businesses away from using Linux on their servers. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt: MS' specialty.

[Dan]

I was just thinking, whould it not be evil if M$ it's self contrubibed there own code to the linux kernal aymnosley and then as soon as it got cominited they jumped in to law suit mode.

However i do not think M$ is smart enought to come up with such a plan and that you are most likey right about them whonting to use fear to get buissness. Unless of corses they pantented "the OS", software patenes being as vage as they are in some conotrys i do not see it imposbale to do.

Really i don't see this making companys change over all there servers to windows just yet, affter all i would think they could only sue the distros and not users.

[wtd]

It's the other way around, really. SCO didn't bring lawsuits against the distributors, but rather against the users of Linux. The distributors of most of the distros make no money at it. That poses two problems. For one, you can't get blood from a stone. Secondly, if I'm distributing software that violates a patent, but not gaining from it in anyway, a court is not going to see the plaintiff's case as being very strong.

If you bring it against a company that's using Linux, and therefore presumably not using the software that allegedly contains the original IP, you do have someone gaining from the "crime," and the case against them is somewhat stronger.

[Tony]

Hacker Dan wrote:

I was just thinking, whould it not be evil if Microsoft it's self contrubibed there own code to the linux kernal aymnosley and then as soon as it got cominited they jumped in to law suit mode.

And that's why noone but a restricted set of developers get the commit rights.

Besides, the kernel will simply be updates to work around whatever patent claim there might be (unless Microsoft has something really stupid like 'organizing data in files'). Patent lawsuits could drag out for years, plenty of time to patch everything.

Could easily counter-sue Microsoft, but their code source is closed and they'll scream 'Trade Secret!' if any wistleblower would try to present that in court. Sneaky.

Edit: Dan - http://openubuntu.blogspot.com/2006/11/vba-in-openoffice-do-you-celebrate-or.html

[Amailer]

Wow thats just weird, what does m$ gain if they sue linux distros?

[wtd]

They can scare big companies away from investing in Linux servers, and steer them towards Windows servers.

[md]

Microsoft will not sue linux developers or end users unless tehy are big companies; suing someone who has little to no money (MS sized money...) is next to pointless.

However the threat of possible law suits is enough for many companies to pay for indemnification from theoretical lawsuits. It boils down to extortion, but without all the outright illegal-ness. Unfortunately there isn't really a way of forcing Microsoft to reveal what is infringing their IP (if anything even is) without Microsoft first launching a lawsuit of some sort.

'Course someone might theoretically be able to launch a slander suit, and perhaps bring on some kind of monopolistic suit too... though I don't think any more anti-trust stuff is gonna happen until Bush is gone.