begin oe_protect.scr
Da'Punk-A <dapunka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> __/ [ Da'Punk-A ] on Friday 30 June 2006 16:40 \__
>
>> > It was an interesting idea - Microsoft can't defeat Linux in the
>> > marketplace, so they tried to destroy it in the courtroom instead. But
>> > sueing IBM? I find that bizarre.
>>
>>
>> Microsoft recently invested 0.5 billion dollars in an attempt to compete with
>> IBM directly, i.e. the aim is to weaken or extinguish IBM. Gates adamantly
>> insisted that his biggest fear is IBM. That was roughly 4 months ago.
>
> I completely understand Microsoft's motives for wanting to take on IBM.
> I just find it incredible that anyone would want to /sue/ them. IBM's
> legal department is as large and well-trained as some armies. When
> they arrive in court, it's the legal equivalent of a formation of
> helicopter gunships flying into the chamber. IBM thrive on lawsuits.
> And Gates decides to sue them.
>
> It's stuff like this that shows just how rattled Gates is by the
> corporate adoption of open source. Some of his decisions don't seem
> entirely rational.
>
There was another reason, although perhaps less obvious. It was about
the creation of an aura of a possibility of a legal trap in using linux.
In every open-source event and project I've been involved in, the SCO
case has been brought up either to question the viability of open-source
at all, or to indicate that it could be too risky to get involved in.
It's had the effect of slowing some projects, but it's also had the
counter-effect of our own legal people getting involved in great detail
to study open source licences, patent issues, and so on, which has, in
the end, been really positive for open-source, as loads of our legal and
patent folks now know about it, who probably wouldn't have done. It was
a very double-edged sword.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
This fortune is false.
|
|
