All of this is just more BS from Microsoft. I am a proud Ubuntu user and I gotta say, the fact that MS has even resorted to this is a mockery, their afraid of the consumer having "real choice". MS has finally realized that its not acceptable to continue to produce second rate products (see Virtual PC, frontpage, Vista w/DRM, list goes on) and expect people to buy it just because they have monopoly. The truth is that the ONLY product Microsoft has ever been able to push out and sell in a competitive market is the Xbox.

What galls me though is its not just MS, this whole patent system is ridiculous. A man in the US was able to clear a patent through the official channels and patented "the technique whereby a person exercises or amuses a cat with a laser". If you don't believe it, google it. Not to mention the fact that those legislators who are supposed to represent the interests of the people are paid off by these same companies.

What makes me even more upset, is that we/linux users don't even care about Microsoft's code, in fact we'd gladly expunge it. And if they pointed to their code in the kernel/any other part of linux, our devs and community would slash it out and rewrite, or make workarounds.

Btw, I'm not just a Linux fan boy, I was a windows user for 15 whole years, started in the middle life of DOS. I won't be looking back any time soon. Maybe this acknowledgement that Open Source is a threat is the beginning of the end for Microsoft?

Thats about it, just figured I'd reply. Oh and thanks for keeping this site going, I like to stay informed of what trouble MS is causing. :)

One thing to think about here, legal action is a double edge sword, it swings both ways and cuts deep.

What company or Operating System do you know that is a legally defined by the courts, as a convicted monopoly?

Would that not cause them perhaps a little bit of a problem in a court of law pushing all these patents when push comes to shove?

Linux only wants to make better software for people, out of the goodness of theirs hearts. Most work for free making Linux. They want people to use it, and to stop reinventing the wheel like M$ does with a new warmed over code released every couple of years.

Linux is making one very big mistake though. It does not realize the nature of M$ and how evil it is at the core. Sue or be sued. And you know what? Its M$ that is the target with all the money. Seems to get money you have to sue those with the money. Most Linux distros (almost all) are non profit.

Just seems to me, if you want to make money, sue M$, its where the money at.

I could go on forever laughing over this, but Linux does /NOT/ have a GUI (sorry, Microsoft, you know nothing about what you're talking about) and IBM/OIN/Oracle will bring Microsoft to its knees. Microsoft should have learned from SCO's failure. It did, after all, pay SCO to do its own dirty work (and fail).

I can see this as only having a negative effect on developers - pushing them away from MS. Developers (ones with any ability, that is) respect innovation, not strong-arming lawyers. OSS has been a proving ground for new developers, and this would try to remove that - remove a way fresh blood has of getting into serious work, getting visibility, getting a reputation.

This is like the Browser wars all over again, times 10 - and the browser wars are the reason why technical people use Firefox, even if it is a little slower and a little more memory-intensive than the latest IE (I suspect, but I don't care, because I use Firefox anyway, as do all my colleagues - which is where my point comes from).

This will get nasty, and there will be counter suits. It is most likely the courts of some lands will see this as the monopoly, that was allowed to get away the first time, trying to kill any small competition out there. It could really backfire on MS.

You should really read this article:

bangkokpost.com/090507_Database/09May2007_data05.php

"The Free Software movement is dead. Linux doesn't exist in 2007. Even Linus has got a job today."

"They are full-time employees, with 401K stock options. Some work for IBM or Oracle. What does that mean? It means that Linux doesn't exist any more in 2007. There is no free software movement. If someone says Linux is about Love, Peace and Harmony, I would tell them to do their research. There is no free software movement any more. There is big commercial [firms] like IBM and there is small commercial [firms] like Ubuntu,"

Bill Hilf used to head IBM's Linux strategy, but now works for Microsoft.

Waethorn,

That article is just more FUD and lies from a senior M$ employee.

Waethorn pointed us to an article that said, in part:

"The Free Software movement is dead."

Well, *someone* is alive and well putting together all of the free and open source software I use every day:

Firefox
Flip4Mac
Opera
TextWrangler
Fugu
Oh, and let's not forget:

http://www.apple.com/opensource/

etc. etc. etc.

What utter nonsense. The open source and free software movements are alive and growing.

Stop conflating open source, free software and Linux. They are all distinct ideas.

If Microsoft wants to attack Linux. go for it. I hope that works out for 'em.

Oh no, Microsoft would never SUE a customer, just ask Ernie Ball Guitar ....

"Well, *someone* is alive and well putting together all of the free and open source software I use every day:"

Lets take a look at those examples then:

Firefox - made by a splinter group of Netscape, and also includes Mozilla Corporation which are both profit-based entities

Flip4Mac - made by Telestream, not OSS, freeware version of commercial software

Opera - made by Opera Software ASA, with investors and stock options, and the entire lot of usual corporate stuff

TextWranger - not OSS, freeware version of BBEdit

Apple - hardly a company that does anything for nothing (just look at their inflated computer prices)

So far, all of the organizations are commercial, for-profit groups. So how is your software "free" in those examples? This is like saying that Google is "free" even though their advertising and data-collection policies are onerous at best. Sell your soul for some software?

That only leaves Fugu as a real OSS development since it's made by a group at the University of Michigan.

I should note that Fugu is licensed under BSD, so that doesn't mean that the company is required to NOT charge for it. BSD licensing actually allows for monetary compensation of development (ie. selling software) even on previously free software upon which new code is based, unlike GPL licensing.

Brent R Brian;
nice comment about Ernie Ball Guitar, I just had to add the link to the story here;
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html

"Oh no, Microsoft would never SUE a customer, just ask Ernie Ball Guitar ...."

There are two things wrong with your [sarcastic] comment:

1) Microsoft didn't sue them - the BSA did.

2) They were found having a few dozen copies of unlicensed software. So "thief" = "customer" in your opinion?

Some "customer"....

In actually, if they were a paying customer, Microsoft wouldn't sue them. In fact, even in this case, they didn't!

"Oh no, Microsoft would never SUE a customer, just ask Ernie Ball Guitar ...."

There are two things wrong with your [sarcastic] comment:

1) Microsoft didn't sue them - the BSA did.

2) They were found having a few dozen copies of unlicensed software. So "thief" = "customer" in your opinion?

Some "customer"....

In actuality, if they were a paying customer, Microsoft wouldn't sue them. In fact, even in this case, they didn't!

Waethorn;
Maybe you could help me and tell me who makes my open source software as well;

PCLinuxOS
Abiword
Gimp
Kongueror
Kmail
K3B
Dillo
Koffice
SimplyMepis

Just to name a few. Oh, BTW, did I mention they were free. And what vested interest do you have in promoting MS? Or you just a fan?

Waethorn;
Just like Time-Warner uses the RIAA (its a member) to sue people, MS can use the BSA as well, as MS is also a member of the BSA.

Remember the case of the Russian School teacher, its true MS did not sue them. But MS sure lobbied for the laws to get passed and pressure to be put on Russia by the US government to pass these laws. Also, Bill Gates would not intercede on behalf of the school teacher as well, even after an appeal by Russian Statesmen. Even a simple letter from B. Gates would have probably been enough.

Sounds like it's time for the DoJ to get out the leather strap again. Apparently the memory of their last spanking has faded, and the bad boyz in Redmond need a refresher course to curb their predatory urges. But is their a congressman or federal judge they haven't bought yet?

Sounds like it's time for the DoJ to get out the leather strap again. Apparently the memory of their last spanking has faded, and the bad boyz in Redmond need a refresher course to curb their predatory urges. But is there a congressman or federal judge they haven't bought yet?

Jenny.
Don't think it will ever happen, but I don't think the DoJ needs to get out the leatherstrap again. Its the Hammer they need to get out, and break MS to about 1000 little pieces, as they should have done before. And also not let the pieces make anymore Operating Systems.

"Maybe you could help me and tell me who makes my open source software as well"

I already did that in my previous comment. Perhaps you'd like first and last names for every developer that coded something for your OS? Do you own homework!

"MS can use the BSA as well, as MS is also a member of the BSA."

They can, but they often don't if the information is brought directly to the BSA. Information that is brought to the BSA is held within the BSA and members and third-parties are not contacted until a case can be proven with enough evidence to bring it to court. There are MANY members within the BSA, including Apple, IBM, Oracle, and HP, all of which have a vested (or invested) business interest in OSS.

"Remember the case of the Russian School teacher?"

I do. Russian authorities have always been interested in bringing down copyright infringers. Remember Gorbushka?

"Even a simple letter from B. Gates would have probably been enough."

That's proof enough that Microsoft would rather license than litigate. As far as foreign countries go, Microsoft will often inform local authorities of the copyright infringement, but it's up to the local authorities as to how to proceed. Microsoft doesn't often get involved in the overall legal proceedings.

Waethorn,
quote; "Microsoft doesn't often get involved in the overall legal proceedings." Because they have a heart of gold. And a soul of gold and greed as well.

Waethorn,
Actually it wasn't my list you responded to on the "open source is dead" list, but another poster. I don't blame you for not responding, as I already know you were not going to be able to. As I do know my open source. If anything is started to die here, its the stink of having to overpay M$ every couple of years for another bug ridden hacked over, warmed over code release called Windows. Not open source.

Your grammer is fine, and your spelling is perfect. You should get a job blogger for M$, if you have not already. The way you answer question is just as slippery as a M$ public relations spokeman.

"I don't blame you for not responding, as I already know you were not going to be able to."

That sounds like a challenge to me. Usually I'm above such flamewars but if you must:

K - made by the KDE team and/or groups or individuals from that team that have divided and made their own development groups.

GIMP - originally made by Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis - both of whom have given up on the project since it doesn't pay anything.

AbiWord - originally made by SourceGear for AbiSuite, but that company no longer makes AbiSuite and have moved on to better things - see GIMP.

Dillo - development currently looking for corporate sponsers to survive. Nuff said!

PCLinuxOS and SimplyMEPIS are just Linux distributions with nothing new. Anybody can take Linux software and build a distribution and publish it online. Both of those are examples of the mess of Linux flavours available and the reason why corporations stay away from them. Support is also a huge issue. For a corporation to choose Linux, they'd rather go with a distribution that has real support, hence, RHEL or SUSE (not openSUSE).

"bug ridden"

You should check Secunia.com for some real facts.

RHEL WS4 has more bugs than Windows XP has in it's entire lifetime (and that's supposed to be a "stable release"!!).

"The way you answer question is just as slippery as a M$ public relations spokeman."

....and the way you counterpoint is just like one of those uneducated BadVista.org posters. This *was* the "Year of Linux" [once again] afterall....

Waethorn,
You make it sound like all those open source projects are dead, when in reality they are releasing new versions every few months. So get your facts correct, M$ Shill.

I am just a user, not a BadVista.org poster. Have never posted there. But looking at their site, it makes a whole lot more sense than you do. One thing I do know, you are in this for the money.

Now why would I believe 1. M$ employees that Waethorn gives in his first post? 2. a site like Secunia.com which does all their business relating and depending on MS systems, therefore their money comes from MS. 3. Any Just the Facts website. 4. Professional Paid M$ bloggers like Waethorn who has not denied yet that he is not.

Everything Waethorn has said is twisted or just wrong. He can't get anything right. Didn't your Mother tell you it was wrong to Lie when you were a child?

Waethorn may actually be correct on how some of the open source projects got there start, but the twisted way her presented it, made it sound like they were dieing. When in truth, these projects have been turned over to open source/GPL groups, and are constantly being updated.

There are exactly four things wrong with your statement:

1) "M$ employees"

As I noted, Bill Hilf used to work for IBM and led their Linux strategy.

2) "a site like Secunia.com which does all their business relating and depending on MS systems, therefore their money comes from MS"

Funny, but Secunia runs on Apache. How is that "M$"? They use Java. How is that "M$"?

3) "Any Just the Facts website"

Which is stated where in my comment?

4) "Professional Paid M$ bloggers like Waethorn who has not denied yet that he is not."

I deny it. There I said it. Prove me wrong.

Didn't your mother teach you not to cry wolf?

"When in truth, these projects have been turned over to open source/GPL groups, and are constantly being updated."

The truth is, there is only a small minority of open-source programs that get community support. Most programs are cancelled because of lack of $$$. People can't live on good intentions. Welcome to the real world.

Lets rehash this;
"1) "M$ employees"

As I noted, Bill Hilf used to work for IBM and led their Linux strategy."
-------------------------------------------------
So what, he works for Microsoft now when he wrote that article. I could care less if he worked for the church or MacDonalds before that.
-------------------------------------------------
"2) "a site like Secunia.com which does all their business relating and depending on MS systems, therefore their money comes from MS"

Funny, but Secunia runs on Apache. How is that "M$"? They use Java. How is that "M$"?"
--------------------------------------------------
Could it be that Secunia really knows deep done that Apache is better and more secure than MS products, and that is why they run it? Every ad on their site is related to MS.
-------------------------------------------------
"3) "Any Just the Facts website"

Which is stated where in my comment?"
-------------------------------------------------

Its not, but Secunia is close to it. And I knew where you would be going next.
-------------------------------------------------
"4) "Professional Paid M$ bloggers like Waethorn who has not denied yet that he is not."

I deny it. There I said it. Prove me wrong.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't have to, you already have by your own actions.

"I could care less if he worked for....MacDonalds before that."

a fellow employee?

"Every ad on their site is related to MS."

....and the ads are run by advertising companies. You know nothing about Internet advertising.

"Its not, but Secunia is close to it."

....and you fail to accept the fact that Linux has more bugs than Windows, even though Secunia is a trusted source for IT security experts worldwide.

"I don't have to, you already have by your own actions."

....and you've already proven that you're a 14-year-old looking for something to hate.

The titled of Joe Wilcox's blog here is "Open Source: Microsoft's Patent FUD Campaign." It seems with are seeing some more FUD right here in the comment sections from "Paid M$ bloggers."

Lets see;
"even though Secunia is a trusted source for IT security experts worldwide."
----------------------------------------
Ya just like trusted computing from M$. Secunia is nowhere. They are a pawn of M$, as are you. "security experts" please, give us a break. I don't know anybody but you and Secunia that would call them that. Even Norton has said Windows is the most secure OS. For the simple reason, nobody in the Linux community will ever buy a product like Norton, Secunia, or Onecare, should it ever become available to Linux users. Because they are bad products that don't work very well.
"security experts" LOL, depends on your meaning of the words, I guess.
Remember, without M$ windows, companies like Secunia and Norton will be gone.

Lets see;
"even though Secunia is a trusted source for IT security experts worldwide.
----------------------------------------------
Secunia depends on Windows, without people using Windows and moving to Linux, they have nothing to sell. Follow the money.

The keyword is "Trust." I submit that Microsoft has lost the trust of many of its custermers, because of its actions, expense,lies, (FUD) and spying. MS is not trusted as they once were, rightly so.

Well, I saw this coming. I was in Redmond and met the Linux "hit team." Their contention was that MS would try to torpedo open source this way at some time in the future if their work didn't do it.

So I decided to turn in my Microsoft software licenses for cash in those situations where I couldn't buy the machine without MS products. I have also told friends about the fact that you can turn in your licenses for cash and sent them a form letter to do it as well.

I am also trying to prod local suppliers to provide Linux as an alternative and I have bought some equipment overseas where Linux is provided as an alternative.

Why pay for the promotion of this monopoly. Money talks "bull..." walks.

The English are very accomodating.

"It seems with are seeing some more FUD right here in the comment sections from "Paid M$ bloggers.""

....and it seems that we have overflow from Vaughn-Nichols' postings. Obviously since you're a Linux shill and advocating free software, you AREN'T getting paid! HAHA!

"Ya just like trusted computing from M$."

Your term "M$" is a bit dry and shows your lack of intelligence. Grow up.

""security experts" LOL, depends on your meaning of the words, I guess."

Obviously you didn't read the article a couple months ago saying that Windows IS the most secure OS. Security experts? Linux IT people need not apply. Many Linux flavours were dead last in the list of operating systems with fewest security holes. Some "community" of developers you got there. I see your operating system of choice has more holes in it than that block of swiss cheese you're trying to counterpoint with.

"I submit that Microsoft has lost the trust of many of its custermers, because of its actions, expense,lies, (FUD) and spying. MS is not trusted as they once were"

Now WHO'S spreading FUD? Microsoft was rated as the top company on customer satisfaction just this year on a survey that had results posted on eWeek. Sorry.

Mike,
I would like to learn more about turning in MS licenses for cash. I have about 200 computers in my organization that I would like to migrate to Linux.

Waethorn :
Quote; "since you're a Linux shill and advocating free software, you AREN'T getting paid! HAHA!"
-----------------------------------------------
Guess you don't know what a shill is. A shill is what a casino uses in a poker game. Its an employee that plays poker with house money on the clock, to get or start a game going." So the question would be, how can I be a Linux shill and not get paid? Your sentence did not make sense, as well as little you have written today.
--------------------------------------------------
Again, why not learn something, instead of quoting all the "just the facts" type of M$ Fund sites to us, and bogus surveys? You don't have to be Billy Gates Puppet and speu out his words verbatium.

Free software is not a bad thing. I use both windows and linux, they both have their uses. Using Linux now for several years, and never the problems of viruses, malware, trojans and all the other stuff that infects Windows with it. Mac is probably the same thing from what I see people post, althought I don't use it.

"RHEL WS4 has more bugs than Windows XP has in it's entire lifetime (and that's supposed to be a "stable release"!!)."

"Red Hat GNU/Linux" includes 20 000 packages of office apps, internet servers, browsers etc. obviously bugs are multiplied by 20 000 and updated automatically b/c it is based on trusted software repositories. BTW, Microsoft Windows includes...umm...Paint?

http://www.redhatmagazine.com/2007/04/18/risk-report-two-years-of-red-hat-enterprise-linux-4/

"A default installation of Enterprise Linux 4 AS was vulnerable to only 3 critical security issues in the whole two years"

"Obviously you didn't read the article a couple months ago saying that Windows IS the most secure OS. "

...an article by a Microsoft employee (yes, he didn't reveal that in the article..hmmm) based on number of bugs fixed (always a good thing, no?) instead of looking criticallity of bugs and how they affected systems. Also dismissing the fact that GNU/Linux distributions include thousands of packages with security updates they get from upstream. Otherwise, Oracle, Apple, etc. patches should be counted in Microsoft security reports. Hint, they're not.

People like Bill Hilf and Waethorn need to get a clue...

It doesn't matter whether Open Source developers are paid or working for altruism. The point is, Open Source code is freely available to a global community, free of proprietary restrictions and licensing fees. This is what scares Microsoft witless, and why they're doing everything conceivable to kill it.

The quality of Open Source software is remarkable and generally more than good enough for most people to use in production. No one can deny that year after year, the Open Source user base continues to grow. This includes Linux.

"The Free Software movement is dead."

I don't know why, but Hilf's Bangkok Post article and a lot of the comments here are confusing "Free Software Movement" (which is not dead, nor is it a cohesive movement) and Open Source software.

For proof of the former, a lot of programmers are not paid for their rather large efforts during long hours of overtime. And their employers lay claim to all rights to that software. So right there, their employers are benefiting from "free software". By comparison, someone who contributes their code through the GPL may not get paid either, but that person retains their rights to continue to use and develop that code. Now, who is paid less, the unpaid overtime worker who doesn't keep any rights to their own code, or the unpaid GPL-protected worker who at least doesn't lose their rights to continue to use their code?

Open Source is still often licensed. It's not "Freeware"; you can't take it and do with it whatever you wish. There are many different licenses, with GPL2, GPL3, the Apache License and its variants, the Zlib license and its variants, and many more. Claims that it's viral boil down to a lament that the claimant cannot simply steal the software and do with it what they please without restrictions.
Bill Gates' Letter to Hobbyists put forth the lament that people were stealing his software. Does that mean Microsoft software is viral because if I use it, I am forced to pay for it? Then why would GPL'd software be considered viral: the cost is not direct monetary payment, but rather what rights and obligations you have if you choose to use it. You don't want to pay Microsoft? Then don't steal or use their software. You don't want to pay Sun or IBM? Then don't steal or use their software. You don't like the GPL? Then don't steal or use GPL'd software. Sounds rather simple to me. Maybe I am just the most excellent genius of all time??? :-)

Don't confuse Free Software (which may be closed source, as many introductory and free anti-virus programs are), Open Source Software, software that is licensed under the GPL, and software that is licensed under a EULA. They are all different, they all exist, they all will likely continue to exist, and none of them is dead, dying, or even sick.

P.S. I don't have say that Hilf is not being truthful when he claims that "Linux doesn't exist in 2007". Steve Balmer already did that for me. Balmer claims that Linux violates hundreds of Microsoft's patents. Seems to me as it must exist to be able to violate any patents.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070513234519615

There is no way Microsoft would ever really sue enterprises because they're its customers, too. Microsoft can't sue its own customers and ever realistically hope to keep them

Sorry, but MS have already pressured enterprise users into giving them royalites based on use of GNU/Linux, based on suing them of course:
Some customers actually entered into direct patent licenses with Microsoft at that point, Smith says, including some "major brand-name companies" in financial services, health care, insurance and information technology. (He says they don't want to be identified, presumably because they fear angering the FOSS community.)CNN

LinuxWorld: One of the persistent rumors that’s going around is that certain large IT customers have already been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects. And the Novell deal -- isn’t it just taking that and doing the same kind of thing wholesale?

Allison: Yes, that’s true, actually. I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute. I think that would be the restriction. I would have to look quite carefully. So, essentially that’s not allowed. But they’re not telling anyone about it. They’re completely doing it off the record. Jeremy Allison of Samba after leaving Novell

There is no way Microsoft would ever really sue enterprises because they're its customers, too. Microsoft can't sue its own customers and ever realistically hope to keep them

Sorry, but MS have already pressured enterprise users into giving them royalites based on use of GNU/Linux, based on suing them of course:
Some customers actually entered into direct patent licenses with Microsoft at that point, Smith says, including some "major brand-name companies" in financial services, health care, insurance and information technology. (He says they don't want to be identified, presumably because they fear angering the FOSS community.)CNN

LinuxWorld: One of the persistent rumors that’s going around is that certain large IT customers have already been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects. And the Novell deal -- isn’t it just taking that and doing the same kind of thing wholesale?

Allison: Yes, that’s true, actually. I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute. I think that would be the restriction. I would have to look quite carefully. So, essentially that’s not allowed. But they’re not telling anyone about it. They’re completely doing it off the record. Jeremy Allison of Samba after leaving Novell

There is no way Microsoft would ever really sue enterprises because they're its customers, too. Microsoft can't sue its own customers and ever realistically hope to keep them

Sorry, but MS have already pressured enterprise users into giving them royalites based on use of GNU/Linux, based on suing them of course:
CNN Fortune article Some customers actually entered into direct patent licenses with Microsoft at that point, Smith says, including some "major brand-name companies" in financial services, health care, insurance and information technology. (He says they don't want to be identified, presumably because they fear angering the FOSS community.)

LinuxWorld: One of the persistent rumors that's going around is that certain large IT customers have already been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects. And the Novell deal -- isn't it just taking that and doing the same kind of thing wholesale?

Allison: Yes, that's true, actually. I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute. I think that would be the restriction. I would have to look quite carefully. So, essentially that's not allowed. But they're not telling anyone about it. They're completely doing it off the record. Jeremy Allison of Samba after leaving Novell

There is no way Microsoft would ever really sue enterprises because they're its customers, too. Microsoft can't sue its own customers and ever realistically hope to keep them

Sorry, but MS have already pressured enterprise users into giving them royalites based on use of GNU/Linux, based on suing them of course:
CNN Fortune article Some customers actually entered into direct patent licenses with Microsoft at that point, Smith says, including some "major brand-name companies" in financial services, health care, insurance and information technology. (He says they don't want to be identified, presumably because they fear angering the FOSS community.)

LinuxWorld: One of the persistent rumors that's going around is that certain large IT customers have already been paying Microsoft for patent licensing to cover their use of Linux, Samba and other free software projects. And the Novell deal -- isn't it just taking that and doing the same kind of thing wholesale?

Allison: Yes, that's true, actually. I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute. I think that would be the restriction. I would have to look quite carefully. So, essentially that's not allowed. But they're not telling anyone about it. They're completely doing it off the record. Jeremy Allison of Samba after leaving Novell

sorry for posting so many times...that submit button doesn't work very well in my browser (Opera). Please just delete the dupes of my post but keep the original.

Well, thanks to the God, there are same areas of the world, where software patents are still invalid.
So U.S. will shoot into their foot if they force the U.S. users to pay royalties.
The free world will remain happy...

I tell you, Microsoft's got a pair, that's for sure. Microsoft would love to prove this BS in court, can anyone say "arbitrage opportunity"

frankly, i hope that the courts grant MS..t all kinds of power to stop free/open software. then i think we will see a real fight, one which will seriously maim not only MS..t, but the owning class in general, because it will expose the fundamental, unavoidable aspiration of the owning class, i.e., to own human beings.

Fundamentally we are looking at yet another example of the owning classes' unavoidable aspiration to own human beings. Would that their courts grant MS..t 'power' over open source people; I suspect that participation in the ensuing battle would be even more fun than creating software.