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

[Noah J Norris]

hmmm just thought of something because this deal with microvell , suse side 
cant sue microsoft if all the open source companies started a hugh law suit 
about there current anticompetitive practises (fud spreading based on IP 
which is something they have to press soon or now they lose the ability to 
protect said ip , like waiting to long sence they made public cry that linux 
has said IP ) . 

	Anyway i call BS , but it could be a good chance to hurt microsoft and make 
them shut-up forever. burn there last attempt at hurting linux.

	n
On Saturday 18 November 2006 22:16, Noah J Norris wrote:
> 	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 sta=
rt
> 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 t=
he
> 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=view=
Arti
> >cl 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 more 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 actually changed hands.  It was all probably just documented in
> > paper, and Microsoft 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
> > this 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