Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Oct 2008 10:37 UTC, submitted by John Mills

Permalink for comment 332736
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2007-02-17
There is plenty of prior art for all of Microsoft's stuff. Java, for example, can be considered prior art (in terms of the basic idea anyway) for the .NET framework.
What is important is the perception. Microsoft can generate plausible-sounding patent threats via .NET technologies, whereas it doesn't have a hope in the area of, say, Office suites (given that its MS Office product displaced existing incumbents from an existing market).
I'd say myself that Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand on anywhere with respect to patents.
But what I think isn't important. It is what the general, average, non-expert customer for software thinks that is important here.
Microsoft won't actually sue ... it is too dangerous for Microsoft. But they will continue to make threatening noises about patents and the alleged need for Linux users to license some of Microsoft's technology ... as long as there is any perception at all of a remotely feasible chance that something in FOSS software actually does infringe.
Mono provides a perfect opportunity for Microsoft to generate just such a perception.