Linked by David Adams on Fri 12th Jun 2009 14:55 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Permalink for comment 368495
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/16/13 9:29 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-11
Nuclear weapons are not a threat because we have them too? this is not a good way to defend Mono, There is a risk, What if OIN just disappear 10 years from today and we based important parts of our OSS on Mono? "
The other issue is that MS doesn't have to be the one to attack on the patent front. Based on past history of the use of third parties for lots of things, does anybody not think that a third party might hold a currently unknown patent on mono/.net ip? This third party could then sue MS as well as some other big Linux/mono end users/distributors. MS avoids the nuclear issue and plays victim and settles, as they have plenty of cash.
Mono users on the other hand . . . well they are out of luck. MS now can points to this incident saying see, we told Linux can't protect you but we can. The PHB won't take a chance again on this linux stuff. . .
MS grins and the chairs in Ballmer's office breath a little easier.
BTW I don't own a tin foil cap . . . 8^)