[QCLUG] So who didn't see this one coming?

[Noah J Norris]

	I wonder if they can be even threaten linux i mean this in a legal sence . i 
thought after the antitrust case certain actions where not looked upon as 
being good practise and just the spreading of said fud could directly start 
another antitrust case . also this threatens all linux so all companies could 
sue microsoft on grounds that they are hurting there companies by spreading 
said FUD and not doing anything about  this .i feel a company should 
challenge microsoft and it should happen soon . i believe ibm did this 
against sco in an counter claim . but i think someone fsf , ibm , redhat 
needs to make balmer shut up. microsoft is a convicted monopoly so that means 
they have to play by strickter rules .

 So can microsoft trash talk about there ip in linux , without pressing the 
issue asap ?  ( there a monopoly so there shoudnt be alouded to scare 
compitition )

	spreading such fear hurts companies can they sue to make them shut up , like 
in the sco case. ( sue them and make them publicly admit to linux being free 
of all microsoft ip )

	I would love to see all linux related companies sueing microsoft and trying 
to push antitrust suit . by the whole comunity pressing the issue it might 
make there pretty plan backfire plus get attention of antitrust suit , im 
sure this will be added to the list of issues in other countries .

	in the end microsoft as 3+ companies would be nice ( os , office , 
xbox/directx , security/windows media  the split of directx would alow 
competeing market like ports to macosx and linux ... well just a thought but 
hack the worlds not fare ... ) 



On Friday 17 November 2006 10:06, Brandon Griffis wrote:
> Balmer:  Linux users owe
> Microsoft<http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewAr=
ticl
>eBasic&articleId=9005171&source=NLT_AM&nlid=1>
>
> I'm not really sure how SuSE could be so stupid when everyone else knew
> this was coming.  The big question is if they'll actually follow up on it=
. 
> My guess is no.  Microsoft is more concerned about spreading doubt as a
> marketing tactic.  By tossing this out there but not actually acting on it
> they hope to worry company management enough to avoid converting to Linux.
> That's why the response of most big names in the Linux community is for
> Microsoft to put their money where their mouth is.  They know it hurts mo=
re
> to have the doubt out there with no action than to actually go through the
> process of proving it as a false statement.  If Microsoft were to actually
> try and make patent claims against Linux they'd have to contend with all
> the patient portfolios of IBM, Red Hat, JBoss, possibly even Oracle, and
> many others.  Plus the additional legal teams of the EFF, FSF, GNU, and
> probably every state in the union.  IBM alone could wipe Microsoft out of
> existence in a patient dispute.
>
> Not to mention how underhanded the deal looks.  Microsoft pays SuSE 440
> million for "something", and SuSE in turn pays 40 million to Microsoft to
> "please not sue us for our patient infringements" (which is what Microsoft
> said it was for.  SuSE said it was for "something else").  Ignoring the "=
he
> said/she said" any 1st grader with basic understanding of arithmetic can
> tell you that 440 – 40 = 400.  I doubt that 40 million ever act=
ually
> changed hands.  It was all probably just documented in paper, and Microso=
ft
> basically just paid SuSE 400 million to be able to use their name in FUD
> attacks on Linux.
>
> What burns me up is while this might be good in short term for SuSE.  It
> will obviously end up hurting them within a year or two.  By accepting th=
is
> deal they've basically said "yes we're guilty" what happens in a year or
> two when Microsoft comes back and wants more money from them?  Why would
> they make such a moronic mistake?
>
> -G

-- 
life is linux
linux is life