Tim Bray (Sun employee... err yeah), in his Blog.

[link|http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199600443|Article]

Microsoft should name the patents that it claims have been violated so the claims can be tested in court or so open-source developers can rewrite code to avoid the violation, Torvalds wrote.

"Naming them would make it either clear that Linux isn't infringing at all (which is quite possible, especially if the patents are bad), or would make it possible to avoid infringing by coding around whatever silly thing they claim," he said.

Put up or shut up.

Unfortunately, Mr. CIO evalutes this as potential risk when reviewing projects. Were I not somewhat informed as to the history here, I would think twice about going a route where the potential vendor could be sued into oblivion by one of the most powerful companies in the world. And that's what uSoft's game plan is, I wot. Cast enough FUD to cause decision-makers to think twice and go with their products cuz it's 'safer'. I'd wager that they don't have any real intentions to sue.

Post #284,743 by folkert 5/15/07 10:54:30 PM Reply	Tim Bray (Sun employee... err yeah), in his Blog. [link\|http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2007/05/13/Four-Words\|Four words for Microsoft] Quote: Litigate or shut up. Oh yeah, baby. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* `PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0`
Post #284,750 by Steve Lowe 5/16/07 12:11:17 AM Reply	Linus agrees [link\|http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=199600443\|Article] Microsoft should name the patents that it claims have been violated so the claims can be tested in court or so open-source developers can rewrite code to avoid the violation, Torvalds wrote. "Naming them would make it either clear that Linux isn't infringing at all (which is quite possible, especially if the patents are bad), or would make it possible to avoid infringing by coding around whatever silly thing they claim," he said. Put up or shut up. Unfortunately, Mr. CIO evalutes this as potential risk when reviewing projects. Were I not somewhat informed as to the history here, I would think twice about going a route where the potential vendor could be sued into oblivion by one of the most powerful companies in the world. And that's what uSoft's game plan is, I wot. Cast enough FUD to cause decision-makers to think twice and go with their products cuz it's 'safer'. I'd wager that they don't have any real intentions to sue. -- Steve [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu]
Post #284,754 by folkert 5/16/07 1:54:27 AM Reply	Microsoft blinked. [link\|http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/05/15/microsoft-will-not-sue-linux-for-patent-violations/\|Uhh, yeah sorry about that.] IOW, FUD is what they want. Vapor-ware^H^H^H^Hlawsuit. I believe they mucked up. They should have been the first to sue, rather than the bungling SCOg. Then they MIGHT have had a chance to get something done. Now, its toast. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* `PGP key: 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C Alternate Fingerprint: 09F9 1102 9D74 E35B D841 56C5 6356 88C0`

Welcome to IWETHEY!