Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 14th Oct 2007 15:12 UTC
Legal This week's 'big' news on OSNews was about software patents. You know, those things that say you cannot stack four pixels on top of one another unless you pay money to the guy who invented four-pixel-stacks (or the guy who bought the guy who invented four-pixel-stacks). A company called IP Innovation, LLC, has sued Novell and Red Hat for infringement of the company's IP portfolio. Software patents are of course generally completely ridiculous, so I will not focus on that here. I want to focus on something else.
Thread beginning with comment 278338
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I get Thom's reasoning
by kosmonaut on Mon 15th Oct 2007 12:29 UTC
kosmonaut
Member since:
2005-09-27

Thom: I commend you for your reasoning and I agree with you that Microsoft cannot be considered automatically "guilty" on the sole basis of the links that appeared at Groklaw.
But we certainly should condider Microsoft as "suspect" just by asking ourselves "Quo bono?", also considering its past record as a competition "serial-killer" corporation, without even taking into account the issue of the former Microsoft employees now working for Acacia.
Moreover, given the circumstances, the more you look at it, the more the pieces are fitting: You have the infamous Microsoft-Novell protection racket, the big OEMs are starting to timidly break the desktop stranglehold Microsoft has over them thanks to Gnu/Linux, and Dell is not choosing to pay the Dane Geld by going Ubuntu, Vista is being a failure (and it is the OEMs sales the only thing that is contributing to improve Vista's market share),then there is the failure of the SCO case, and the EU legal blow against Microsoft, also take into account that Ballmer has been willing to see such a lawsuit like this since many years ago...
Microsoft is scared to death of Gnu/Linux repeating Firefox's success and we all can expected to play their cards (and play them hard), now with the latest saber-rattling words by Ballmer specifically threatening Red Hat, while we cannot automatically consider Microsoft as "guilty" I think it is more than reasonable to consider it the main "suspect" and is worth to insist in looking further in this line of investigation (without neglecting other possibilities, of course):
I think that is not by any means being a "conspirecy theorist", it is just plain common sense.
Anyway your words are welcome in order to avoid loosing perspective and not to neglect other possible suspects.

Edited 2007-10-15 12:38

Reply Score: 2