Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 2nd Nov 2006 22:05 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Thread beginning with comment 178162
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-10
Yes they can pay good lawyers on both sides etc. BUT now that one linux company is paying it looks to me like they are saying "We know there is some MS patented code in there so we better cover ourselves"
The SCO situation doesn't apply to MS, SCO doesn't actually know if it even owns the rights to UNIX. I am sure MS knows the patents it owns.
This just gives the whispers of MS having patented code in software that is in Linux distros a leg up. Now they can go to companies and say "Hey you better get Novell Linux or we might sue you" And go to linux companies and say "Hey you better strike a deal with us or we might sue you!"