An additional note

Yes, good point. The Groklaw article was a bit too focused on a Microsoft conspiracy connection for my taste. When this might be just another case of patent trolling - Microsoft gets sued all the time; no reason why Novell and Red Hat shouldn't either.

Yet, the very recent comment by Ballmer that 'Linux might get sued by patent holders' does seem an odd coincidence. The theory that he might have had foreknowledge of these lawsuits doesn't seem as far-fetched as the theory that Microsoft is actually behind them.

They never bought any protection. They made a standard patent protection claim that any two tech companies making a large software cross-selling agreement would make. But hey, why ask people who know business when you can ask bigoted tech-nerds about how business deals work?

With all respect due our editor, I'm not sure. What's the motivation here for IP Innovation?

Remember that patent infringement suits are actually very, very rare in comparison to patent settlements. If your business model consists solely of paying lawyers to draft contracts and filings, it makes sense to take a comparatively small cut of a target business's revenue. Actually going to court is a huge risk to these firms. If they lose, they lose not only the revenue from the target, but all revenue from the patent.

So now they've gone and sued Red Hat and Novell: two companies who are required (by virtue of the license under which they received their software -- patent license fees constitute "extra conditions" under the GPL) to fight this to the death. Either they win and IP Innovation loses their patent, or they lose and have to pull the feature (virtual desktops, apparently?) out of the US versions of the distributions. In neither case does IP Innovation get paid. They can't get paid, unless Red Hat and Novell find some way around their distribution licenses.

So why file the suit? It's all risk and no upside. And the linux desktop market is tiny, anyway. I smell something at work, honestly. And I'm not one normally given to conspiracy theories.

Incidentally, a good analysis of this patent can still be done independent of the money trail anyhow. It's fine to follow both leads. Just the patent sounds like it might need a bit more time.

This one stinks. It may not even be that M$ cares about the FULL potential impact of this. It's enough that they'll aid ina scheme to expose their competition to the same nasty schemes that they've been exposed to for a while now. It makes perfect business sense.

The fact that there is that little antitrust issue agains M$ may come back to bite them here, though. I hope. The involvement of a lot of ex-M$ guy that joined the patent troll very recently should be damaging to M$, whether intended or not.

So far as I know that's not unusual. Most Microsoft products attract a large number of patent lawsuits. Microsoft has such a range of products in a wide variety of fields that even if they were not so prominent and so obviously wealthy they would undoubtedly attract many such lawsuits.

In theory Microsoft is pro-reform as far as software patents are concerned rather than pro-patent per se. But their lawyers (who would lose their jobs if Microsoft didn't have this endless series of lawsuits to fight) seem to get to write policy here, which is a serious mistake regardless of what you personally think about patent policy. The fox is running the hen house, and it may cost Microsoft more than it ever costs Red Hat or Novell.

I think you think too kindly of Microsoft to expect that Microsoft would be sticking to a 'partner' they have a deal with. :)

It would be a superb strategy (playing the devil's advocate) if they on one hand show they are kind to Linux and Open Source like they pretended with the Novell deal. And on the other hand add extra FUD and threats to Linux by having other parties (patent trolls) attack Linux and Open Source using patents.

Microsoft has the money to pay them off, Apple may have the money. But kill Open Source by unleashing the lions.

Nobody can publically point to Microsoft (as long as there is no paper/electronic trail). I wonder what Novell is thinking now. They paid one party for patent-peace (although got money in return) and it hasn't helped them.

Red Hat on the other hand is dealing with this correctly. They do not make deals with people that use maffia-tactics. But that doesn't make them any stronger.

Maybe Microsoft paid Novell 384 million dollars to sit through this attack, while Red Hat goes under ? Wouldn't that be an interesing point of view ? Maybe Novell settles for such an amount...

(At least this comment may have them think twice ? :P)

Your subscriber respectfully disagrees with you, Jon. This is nothing less than a proxy war declared by Microsoft, the only possible conclusion that a reasonable observer can draw from the miraculous synchronicity of Steve Ballmer's public warning to Red Hat and the filing of the suit a few days later.

Elephant. Rug. Don't kid yourself.

Regards,

Daniel