Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Jun 2009 18:25 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 368554
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 06/20/13 6:17 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
Novell and Microsoft made a deal worth many millions on the basis that "we won't sue your customers as long as you won't sue ours".
Novell Netware was "the original" LAN networking product. Novell must have many very valuable-to-Microsoft patents in that arena alone.
So what was it on Microsoft's side of this deal, that Novell are visibly working on now, that Novell felt that Microsoft could possibly have sued Novell's customers over (before the deal)?
As for the other libraries and possible patent infringements ... name some. Linux design is based heavily on POSIX standards and being a work-alike for Unix. The ideas within Linux internals are quite a bit older than the duration of patents ... and most of the technology was owned by the likes of IBM and Novell anyway.
PS: Besides, my claims on parts of the .NET technologies (namely Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET) was that these parts of .NET are:
(a) implemented within current versions of Mono,
(b) are not ECMA standards, and
(c) are not covered by Microsoft's Open Specification Promise (unlike, say, C#).
What part of those claims are incorrect in any way?
Edited 2009-06-15 00:29 UTC