Ubuntu reaches out to embarrassed SuSE devs

[Gene Heskett]

On Saturday 25 November 2006 16:26, Ian Malone wrote:
>Craig White wrote:
>> On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 13:53 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>>
>> ----
>> directly quoted from the article...
>>
>> "My reaction is that so far, what he [Ballmer] said is just more FUD
>> [fear, uncertainty and doubt]," said Pamela Jones, editor of the
>> Groklaw.net blog, which tracks legal issues in the open-source
>> community. "Let him sue if he thinks he has a valid claim, and we'll
>> see how well his customers like it."
>>
>> Officials at Red Hat Inc., the leading Linux distributor, also
>> dismissed Ballmer's comments. "We do not believe there is a need for
>> or basis for the type of relationship defined in the Microsoft/Novell
>> announcement," said Mark Webbink, deputy general counsel.
>>
>> This is simply Microsoft FUD - If you wish to buy into it, that's your
>> issue.
>>
>> It seems pretty obvious to me that the moment that Microsoft files
>> suit against some large corporate user for infringement (they aren't
>> likely to sue a Linux distribution), that they will alienate the
>> entire corporate world. A bully doesn't beat up on people to project
>> strength...a bully merely threatens. Let them threaten all that they
>> wish - who's afraid of the big bad wolf?
>
>Honestly, I'm beginning to believe that blatantly submarining like
>this should somehow be illegal (as in, invalidate their claim).  If
>they have a valid patent claim that they believe Linux violates they
>should announce it so people know where they stand, as it affects the
>end user as well as the distributor.  Surely the whole point of the
>patent system[1] is that people know what the holder has a claim on
>and can avoid using it if they don't want to.
>
>Vague threats like this are automatically FUD, if there's really
>something there the patent should have been published and they should
>be able to point to it.  Unless they go to court they don't have to
>tell you /how/ you're violating it, but if they think millions of
>people and companies are somehow violating a patent they should have
>the grace to say which one so we can make a choice.
>
>[1] In general; the silliness of software patents specifically aside.

I don't believe for a microsecond that M$ will ever bring a patent suit 
against the linux world.  The rest of the world knows that, and you would 
see retaliatory suits against M$ for every little thing some coder in 
Podunk Center, IA, wrote back in 1987, has printed copies of the assembly 
and what it does, and will be baiting M$ to prove that they never saw his 
code when they wrote an equivalent function.  Prior art lawsuits would 
quickly eat away at the Bill Billions, and he knows it.  Its all a 
balancing act and he adds more FUD when his end of the teeter gets too 
high.

The average corporate CEO/CFO/CTO knows full well linux in the server room 
is saving them thousands a year, and if a particularly expensive piece of 
business software isn't available to run on a linux system, they are not 
the least allergic to demanding it be made that way, or changing vendors 
to one thats more co-operative.  If linux gets sued over something like 
that, the ducks & penguins will line up and peck them to death.  Thats 
not something that looks appetizing to M$ unless they've completely lost 
their corporate mind.  Conscience, or morals haven't a thing to do with 
it as M$ has proved many times.  To them its simply good business sense.

>--
>imalone

-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.