Slashdot Mirror
Should We Follow Novell v. MS in Detail?
e6003 writes "Groklaw has a fascinating article written by a retired attorney. In short, he believes FOSS advocates should be following the recently announced Novell anti-trust case against Microsoft with as much vigour as we do the SCO-IBM case. Whilst the latter is to all intents and purposes settled in favour of the Good Guys, the article points out how Novell v. MS is far harder to call. Evidence produced during this new case, he argues, may be valuable for proving anti-competitive intent on Microsoft's behalf should MS (or a proxy) go on a patent rampage against FOSS. Finally, the article points out that Microsoft either destroys evidence itself (see the Burst.com case) or requires evidence to be destroyed as part of settlements (as in the Caldera DR-DOS case)."
How about "guys who are trying to protect their intellectual property from competitors who [*cough cough*] stole code off them and are now completely ruining their business"?
Everything has two sides, even with people trying to kill linux.
What do you mean "plausable"? Is that the ability to plause? How do you plause something?
I guess we got here the new generation of astroturfing: criticize what you want to defend, using terribly wrong grammar and spelling. In that way you convey the message that anybody criticizing Microsoft is an ignorant moron, whose opinion is unworhty of credit.
Hey, Billy boy, clever, but rather transparent tactics, don't you think? Next time try to be more subtle...