Microsoft Agrees to License Unix (Wired) [LWN.net]

Wired takes another look at SCO, IBM and Microsoft. "Since the lawsuit, people have "suggested that SCO doesn't own any Unix patents," [SCO VP] Hunsaker said. The Microsoft deal "is part of an ongoing effort to validate our intellectual property rights... (and) shows very clearly we own Unix patents because Microsoft just licensed them," Hunsaker said."

Microsoft Agrees to License Unix (Wired)

Posted May 20, 2003 20:50 UTC (Tue) by miller_01 (guest, #11346) [Link]

Strange deal since my coworker said she has Unix patents. And our deal "is part of a ongoing effort to validate her intellectual property rights and it is very clear she owns Unix patents because I just licensed them from her," I said.
geez Like MS is the standard.

Microsoft Agrees to License Unix (Wired)

Posted May 20, 2003 21:02 UTC (Tue) by leightonbrown (guest, #6264) [Link]

Hunsaker's comments are indeed curious. Microsoft licencing patents/code or whatever from SCO does not 'show very clearly' that SCO actually owns them.

Microsoft Agrees to License Unix (Wired)

Posted May 21, 2003 0:00 UTC (Wed) by coyote (guest, #11329) [Link]

Microsoft will patent/obtain rights to own the code and will then use this as a mechanism to try and stamp out the threat of linux. Have been waiting for something like this to come along for quite a while and am surprised it has taken Microsoft so long to act. Interesting times ahead.

Microsoft Agrees to License Unix (Wired)

Posted May 21, 2003 3:59 UTC (Wed) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] (1 responses)

My dad taught me once to watch closely when anyone uses the word "clearly" as this really means just the opposite. I have followed his advise over the years and found it to be very accurate.

Microsoft Agrees to License Unix (Wired)

Posted May 21, 2003 14:01 UTC (Wed) by jdthood (guest, #4157) [Link]

I used to tell my philosophy students something similar.
Never trust a philosopher when he says "It is obvious that X".
The X is often a fundamental premise of the philosopher's
system, one for which he can think of no proof.

Microsoft Agrees to License Unix (Wired)

Posted May 21, 2003 8:25 UTC (Wed) by hawk (subscriber, #3195) [Link] (3 responses)

Yeah, those guys are funny...
It's quite obvious that it doesn't show anything.

(Well.. there are pretty much the same possibilities as before. Either they fooled Microsoft, Microsoft wants to support SCO or SCO does indeed own some patents.)

Microsoft Agrees to License Unix (Wired)

Posted May 21, 2003 9:19 UTC (Wed) by the_JinX (guest, #3953) [Link] (2 responses)

yeah..

but if SCO ownes those aleged pattents, then why don't they tell us wich pattents..

and I'm still not getting wheter those pattents are Linux or GNU related..

do they own pattents to stuff in the kernel or in some GNU product ??

well whatever,

the_JinX

Microsoft Agrees to License Unix (Wired)

Posted May 21, 2003 13:52 UTC (Wed) by 87C751 (guest, #11362) [Link] (1 responses)

"You have a contract with the audience. You don't put Jaws in the first reel."

If SCO shows the goods now, they'll never get to court so they can lose big time. And let's face it, the Microsoft licensing deal is a thinly disguised bribe to SCO to keep fueling the FUD wars.

Microsoft Agrees to License Unix (Wired)

Posted May 21, 2003 20:17 UTC (Wed) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

This is an excellent -- and commonly overlooked point.

In fact, I want SCO to *win* in court.

Why?

Cause if they lose in *district* court, it doesn't set precedent.

If it goes to appeals court, it does -- though admittedly only for that
district. But precedent from other districts, while not carrying as much
weight, is certainly not weightless.

Watching the wording

Posted May 21, 2003 9:23 UTC (Wed) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link]

From the Wired article: "Linux, a free offshoot of Unix that was refined by programmers [...]".

Whose side are they on? This is SCO's claim, restated in Wired's words. Linux isn't an "offshoot" that was "refined", it was written from scratch, with some parts of BSD mixed in.

Probably came out of their advertising funds

Posted May 21, 2003 13:23 UTC (Wed) by dneto (guest, #4954) [Link]

Microsoft is not a stupid company.
This is an advertising expense.
(Some might call it a FUD expense.)

Microsoft could not have asked for a better
vehicle. I don't believe SCO has a leg
to stand on, but it might be hard to explain
to my cousin, say. Microsoft is just taking
advantage of the situation.

This seems a lot like the Corel investment.