Hi,
Some of you may find the msg threads to this article a bit "interesting". ;)
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Berlind/?p=833&tag=nl.e589
ENJOY! :D
Julie @};--
--------------------------------- Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:25 -0700, Julie wrote:
Hi,
Some of you may find the msg threads to this article a bit "interesting". ;)
The conspiracy theory that Microsoft is behind this suit falls somewhere between alarmist nonsense and obviousness. This could actually have nothing to do with Microsoft, and just be a case that the patent trolls thought they'd exploit. Of course, if this was brought about by Microsoft, it adds a different twist. Would MS file a patent suit by proxy against a company they have a patent deal with? Is that even legal?
Adding my own little conspiracy theory, is Microsoft trying to demonstrate the advantage of signing a patent deal with them? The idea being that Novell will avoid lengthy litigation while RedHat will be forced into a SCO style FUD case.
No matter what's really going on, it's more fuel for Microsoft's FUD machine.
--Jestin
On 10/12/07, Jestin Stoffel [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:25 -0700, Julie wrote:
Hi,
Some of you may find the msg threads to this article a bit "interesting". ;)
The conspiracy theory that Microsoft is behind this suit falls somewhere between alarmist nonsense and obviousness.
It could just be a coincidence that this happened right on the heals of Balmer's latest threats. And it could just be a coincidence that the patent holder if isn't also suing Microsoft.
On Friday 12 October 2007, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On 10/12/07, Jestin Stoffel [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:25 -0700, Julie wrote:
Some of you may find the msg threads to this article a bit "interesting". ;)
The conspiracy theory that Microsoft is behind this suit falls somewhere between alarmist nonsense and obviousness.
It could just be a coincidence that this happened right on the heals of Balmer's latest threats. And it could just be a coincidence that the patent holder if isn't also suing Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't violate it, unless that's something new in Vista.
On 10/12/07, Luke -Jr [email protected] wrote:
On Friday 12 October 2007, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On 10/12/07, Jestin Stoffel [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 11:25 -0700, Julie wrote:
Some of you may find the msg threads to this article a bit "interesting". ;)
The conspiracy theory that Microsoft is behind this suit falls somewhere between alarmist nonsense and obviousness.
It could just be a coincidence that this happened right on the heals of Balmer's latest threats. And it could just be a coincidence that the patent holder if isn't also suing Microsoft.
Microsoft doesn't violate it, unless that's something new in Vista.
Aren't we talking about virtual desktops? Or did I misunderstand the scope of the patent?
-
Arthur Pemberton -
Jestin Stoffel -
Julie -
Luke -Jr