... perhaps there was a little, pressure applied here ...

Drop the comma.

There's not a shred of evidence that Linux infringes any Microsoft patented material, and to prove such an infringement they'd have to expose their own proprietary code which they have been very reluctant to do (some say so people won't laugh at it).

Absolutely wrong. The patent covers the concept, the copyright covers the expression. All Microsoft needs to show infringement is the patent and the Linux code that implements the concept embodied in that patent.

And, not to go all [link|http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html|Stallman][1] on you, but with Microsoft intentionally muddying the waters and conflating patents, licenses, copyrights, covenants-to-not-sue, etc etc etc ad nauseum, it would be best to avoid the phrase "intellectual property". If Microsoft specifically claims patent issues, address patent isues. If they talk about copyright, address copyright. If they use the phrase "intellectual property", assume they're trying to FUD things up and see if there's any "there" there.


[1] For some reason I can't connect to gnu.org just now.