Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th Feb 2007 21:00 UTC, submitted by anonymous
Microsoft The same week that Microsoft issued a press release providing further details about some of the technological advances that will result from the November 2006 technology agreement between Novell and Microsoft, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer told Wall Street what he really thinks the deal means to Microsoft. During a forecast update meeting for financial analysts and shareholders on February 15, Ballmer reiterated that, to him, the deal is more about Microsoft exerting intellectual property pressure on Novell than anything else.
Thread beginning with comment 214226
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The worst is the threats are vague
by phoehne on Sun 18th Feb 2007 22:02 UTC
phoehne
Member since:
2006-08-26

Does any one know if they're concerned about one sub-system, like Samba or FAT? If that's the case we could put NFS or Coda on Windows. (FAT would be a more pressing problem).

However, the problem that I have with Microsoft are the vague nature of the alleged IP infringements. If they were able to identify a particular sub-system or technology, then it could be fixed or changed.

However, the Catbert in me thinks they won't do that. With an arsenal of patents that probably includes "breathing through your nose," I'm sure they have plenty of ammunition to initiate law-suits.

Reply Score: 4

Windows Sucks Member since:
2005-11-10

They can put the rest any Samba claims because they do not own license to SMB, IBM does.

Microsoft is not gonna use patents directly against anyone unless they can show that someone blatently used them. They know that if they sued Novell, or Apple (Which uses Samba and other open source tools) or anyone else they would draw too much attention from governments.

So they scare everyone! And like SCO tried to do, they make people PAY.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple would use their patents agains Microsofts if they sued Apple

Reply Parent Score: 2

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Why would they sue big vendors? They'll sue customers, customers of other vendors...

They're not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darl_McBride stupid. Suing big players means going to court, which means setting precedence, which means law.

Reply Parent Score: 3

thjayo Member since:
2005-11-11

>However, the Catbert in me thinks they won't do that.
>With an arsenal of patents that probably includes
>"breathing through your nose," I'm sure they have plenty
>of ammunition to initiate law-suits.

Law-suits against who?
Where?

Should they go for that specific developer that coded function X or should they go for the entire project?

Either way, the max. they can do is to ban project X from the US, 'cause, as you may remember, not the whole world has laws concerning IP.

Reply Parent Score: 1

phoehne Member since:
2006-08-26

To be honest, I'm not sure. But they could raise patent claims against a company like Linspire. I believe they could also sue someone like Ernie Ball (the guitare strings people). That would be enough to put a lot of panties in very tight bunches, especially if they didn't put up much of a fight.

As far as Apple and IBM are concerned, I bet a lot of the IP is covered under cross licensing agreements between the companies.

What surprised me about the SCO lawsuit is they hit IBM. A smaller company with shallow pockets would have probably rolled over. AutoZone made more sense than IBM. But then again, I'm just a lowly code jockey. What do I know?

Reply Parent Score: 1

dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

They will probably raise claims against middle sized companies that use RHEL. They are least risky to blackmail.

Reply Parent Score: 1