Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 28th Apr 2010 14:31 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 421367
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 06/18/13 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
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-11-11
What I really can't understand, though, is why if nobody believes there are patents in Linux that MS owns, the Linux foundation (don't they own the Trademark on Linux) don't sue MS for libel and slander and defamation of character or whatever the business version of this is.
Because most people are probably pretty sure that Linux is in fact has parts that are covered by patents. Considering how broad patents are granted and how obvious things are being patented, I'd say that not infringing on any Microsoft patent would be really hard.
Even when those patents are not good, you probably don't want to take on one of the largest lawyer armies in the world to try to prove that.
It doesn't matter if you're right if you have to forfeit because you run out of money. I'm sure Microsoft would like nothing better than to bankrupt the Linux foundation while still not showing a list of all the patents Ballmer talked about.