[mdlug] Turner on O'Reilly.net: Looks like Microsoft is ramping up for Son of SCO

[Aaron Kulkis]

Ingles, Raymond wrote:
>> From: Michael Corral
> 
>>> If they go after big names, they get that *plus* a potentially crippling
>>> patent  war. No, they'll keep their weapons holstered, and instead growl
>>> and threaten to try to keep the sheep in line.
>> Well, I wouldn't be so sure about the patent war. Everyone seems to be
>> counting on IBM to step in, with their massive patent portfolio, and
>> to take on Microsoft.
> 
>  I never said that - indeed, I specifically talked about the possibility
> of them going after "small potatoes". I think that the patent regime is
> now changed to make challenging patents dramatically easier, and SCO served
> as a good dry run to get things like Groklaw developed, which would be of
> enormous help to any smaller company sued by MS on these grounds. I don't
> think they'd have to go it alone. I know *I'd* contribute to their defense
> fund.

Well, since IBM has jumped onto the Linux bandwagon (AIX is no
longer under development)...and are betting the company on it,
you can bet that IBM will willingly JOIN the defense of any
company sued by M$, out of their own self-interest (an M$
win against ANYONE for using Linux is a loss for IBM -- therefore,
at the very least, they will file amicus briefs, and probably
much better written than whoever M$'s target(s) can afford to
hire.


> 
>> Because of that, I think it's dangerous to be
>> somewhat cavalier and say "Oh, Microsoft is just bluffing, they
>> wouldn't actually do anything". That's typical of famous last words.
> 
>  If MS 'goes nuclear', I'd be worried in some senses, yes. But I'd also
> regard it as a *good* sign in other ways - it would mean they perceived
> an existential threat that was more important than the (substantial)
> downsides of such an offensive. A wounded animal on its last legs can
> do damage, yes... but I'd be heartened to see MS that scared.
>

>> The dominant
>> position they've had, which seemed so unshakeable just a few years
>> ago, suddenly doesn't seem so certain anymore. They may be getting
>> worried and feel like legal action is necessary.
> 
>  I really feel that's years away. They have billions of dollars to
> burn through before they get to that level. Look at SCO, which was on
> life support before they decided to bet the company on suing Linux.
> MS doesn't perceive an existential threat yet - look how much money
> they are willing to sink into their XBox entertainment division, which
> has posted one (1) profitable quarter in five years. When they cancel
> the XBox stuff, *then* worry about them suing Linux users.


Remember when the same sorts of things were (truthfully) said about IBM?

Things are, in fact, improving -- substantially.

Once business finally realized/admitted that the emperor's blue suits were,
in fact, non-existant the company's dominance of the industry (and the
arrogance along with it) faded fairly quickly.


I think the only real difference is that the leadership of IBM
at least knew they were doing wrong (according to Thomas Watson Jr's
autobiography), where as IBM's leadership duo are a couple of
psychopaths who think that the legality of an action is determined
not by the action, but by whether the action is performed by M$
or a competitor (when M$ steal IP, they say it's legal, but
when other people actually DO innovate, it's supposedly criminal.)