07.18.08

Press Coverage of SCO: Latest Summary

Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, SCO, Novell, UNIX, Courtroom, SUN at 3:00 am by Roy Schestowitz

For those in need of a simple synopsis

The SCO/Novell case sure has gotten a little crazy and yesterday we wrote about the very latest. It was shallow and preliminary, but now that the press has had time to digest, there is some more conclusive overage.

SCO’s cheerleaders and wannabes appear to have disappeared into the darkness. The SCO boosters are either spinning the court’s decision (so does SCO) or hide under a rock. Here is how Groklaw puts it:

Remember when SCO began its media blitz? Stories everywhere. The world thought it was exciting to imagine Linux on the ropes. Now, when SCO is told it behaved improperly and must pay millions, only a few even note it. No one cares about SCO in failure, except for some who feel disgust, like Matt Asay.

What a strange ride it’s been. You’d think the folks that wrote all those stories about SCO eating Linux’s lunch would at least place a notice on their Corrections Page: “Um. About that lunch stuff, we were totally duped by SCO. They haven’t won anything. The best they can do is not lose as big as they could have.”

[…]

But someone sent me Maureen O’Gara’s latest, a very hilarious snip. She of course is warning that Linux end users are at risk, because SCO can now sue them for infringing UnixWare. Heh heh. Folks, they could have sued for post-APA UnixWare five years ago. In fact, that is part of what SCOsource was allegedly about. Remember? That’s the story. So it’s nothing new that SCO can sue over UnixWare. And yet, they never did. If you look at the IBM case, not one line of infringed code from UnixWare was listed by SCO. Would that be for a reason? Like there isn’t any? You think?

Other SCO allies like Rob Enderle and Paul Murphy show no signs of life, either.

And after all has been (almost) said and done I’m left wondering: Where are the Rob Enderles and Paul Murphies of this world that were willing to bet their souls on SCO winning the case? Was it Rob that said that he had seen “very compelling evidence” of copyright infringement under an NDA?
I wonder SCO losing won’t show up on their “missed predictions” section of their resume… oh, and Steve Ballmer… you better sell that bottle of champaigne you were saving for the time SCO won the case… it must be worth a little more money after all the time that passed by.

Coverage from the local press has arrived by now:

1. SCO ordered to pay $2.55M to Novell

The SCO Group, which had angered many in the open-source community when it launched a campaign in 2003 to obtain license fees from Linux users of Unix software code, is ordered today to pay to Novell $2.55 million in royalty payments on Unix licenses collected from Sun Microsystems.

2. SCO to pay Novell $2.5M owed for Unix royalties

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that The SCO Group must pay more than $2.5 million in royalties to Novell Inc. for licensing the Unix computer operating system software to Sun Microsystems.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Dale Kimball in Salt Lake City came in the long-running dispute between Novell of Provo and SCO.

Outside of Utah, plenty of coverage soon appeared too. Here is just some of it:

Ars Technica: Ruling: SCO owes Novell $2.54 million from SCO-Sun SVRX deal

Today’s ruling comes after a three-day bench trial in late April and early May to determine how much money SCO was supposed to pay Novell. In theory, that would be 95 percent of the royalties for SVRX, the original UNIX intellectual property. The challenge for the court was to distinguish how much of the SCOSource licensing revenue was for SVRX and how much was for SCO’s own UnixWare intellectual property.

Judge Kimball evaluated Microsoft’s agreement with SCO and found that it primarily covered UnixWare. The only SVRX rights granted to Microsoft under the terms of the agreement were for intellectual property that was part of UnixWare. This means that SCO doesn’t have to give Novell any of the money it collected from Microsof

CNET Blogs: Justice is served: SCO ordered to pay Novell millions

It’s true that we haven’t been forced to put up with SCO for a year or two, but I will admit to still feeling annoyed by the festering cesspool of greed that leaked from SCO’s boardroom into the software industry for several years. These guys deserve to pay.

The Register: SCO ordered to pay Novell $2.5m Unix royalties

“The court concludes that SCO was entitled to enter into the 2003 Microsoft Agreement and the other SCO source Licenses, but was not authorized to enter into the 2003 Sun Agreement based on its amendment of the provisions concerning Sun’s SVRX confidentiality requirements under the 1994 Agreement,” said Kimball.

Groklaw reader and Inquirer reporter Egan has published this short article.

SCO, of course, is trying to spin Judge Kimball’s ruling as a win. As though being ordered to pay Novell over $2.5 million, plus interest and attorneys’ fees, really counts as a win.

But then SCO, being SCO, plans to appeal. Yet the appeals court could decide to reverse Judge Kimball’s ruling that SCO doesn’t owe Novell for the licencing fees it received from Microsoft and its SCOsource licencees.

Todd Weiss has another Computer World report, which reached IDG’s LinuxWorld (association with the Microsoft-backed IDC comes to mind). It seems as though there’s some media collaboration which could lead to change in biases. Anyway, Weiss writes:

At the beginning of its massive legal fight against Linux in 2003, The SCO Group imagined a day when companies like IBM, Novell and others would pay it large amounts of cash for alleged infringements on SCO-owned Unix code.

Instead, even as those legal fights meander through US courts, the tables were turned and SCO Wednesday was ordered to pay US$2.55 million to Novell for collecting Unix licensing revenue from Sun Microsystems that it wasn’t entitled to collect.

Henry Kingman posted a good summary of old stories at the bottom of this page.

Meanwhile, readers insatiable for backstory are encouraged to plunder to their gullets’ content on the Related Stories below. Enjoy . . . !

These are mainly old articles from SJVN, who yesterday had this to say:

The SCO legal horror show probably isn’t completely over yet. Some idiot always wants to do a sequel, but this is the end of the main saga. Novell owns Unix. SCO doesn’t. SCO is in bankruptcy. This is the end of the story. Oh, and for the spinoff, we have the possibility of Novell vs. Sun since, according to the judge; SCO never owned the IP rights to the Unix that it sold to Sun, which Sun then turned into part of OpenSolaris.

His zombie analogy got the attention of his old employers at Ziff Davis (eWeek).

Both parties may be able to appeal the decision, suggesting that the long, overdrawn case could continue to hobble along even longer than it already has. To quote Steven Vaughan-Nichols, “Like the 11th chapter of a bad horror movie, the SCO zombie keeps stumbling forward moaning “Linux,” instead of “brains.”

It seems like good riddance to SCO. Groklaw opines that Microsoft is next. Expect MSFT to fall sharply in Friday’s trading. Microsoft has just disappointed the market. Will aggression ensue? █

“We believe every Linux customer basically has an undisclosed balance-sheet liability.”

–Steve Ballmer

Permalink 2 Comments      Send this to a friend      View as PDF

07.17.08

Microsoft-backed SCO Owes Money to Microsoft Partner, Novell

Posted in Law, Microsoft, Finance, GNU/Linux, SCO, UNIX, Courtroom at 4:31 am by Roy Schestowitz

SCO has already received its decent share of money from Microsoft and from BayStar (at the very least), through which Microsoft ensured SCO is funded to continue its legal battles against Linux. The decision on Novell/SCO is now in and a preliminary look suggests that Novell, which may be acquired by Microsoft one day, is set to inherit some of SCO’s assets and money.

OK. I’ve read it now once through, and the big picture is this: Judge Kimball did not change anything in his August 10th order, which I was afraid might happen. He could have, had he heard anything that he didn’t know when he made that order. So, SCO breached its fiduciary duty to Novell, converted funds, and so it has to pay. That is ironic, in that this case started with SCO accusing Novell of slander of title, and asking for millions in damages. Instead it has to *pay* Novell millions.

From all of these UNIX/Linux wars, one party among several that benefit is Microsoft. Groklaw opines that Microsoft is the next SCO. █

Permalink 2 Comments      Send this to a friend      View as PDF

06.25.08

Simon Phipps Has No Idea How Badly Sun ”Screwed Up“

Posted in GNU/Linux, SCO, UNIX, IBM, FOSS at 3:44 pm by Roy Schestowitz

Sun and SCO: truth revealed years later

A couple of days ago, Simon Phipps from Sun Microsystems said that the company ”screwed up“ when it comes to open source. Dana Blankenhorn opines that Sun is still screwing up. Here is the core of his argument.

But he isolates the “screw-up” to 2001-2002, when Sun was still a proprietary company. This is like a candidate for re-election blaming the problems he faces on a predecessor from the other party.

The fact is Sun is still screwing up. Offering open source licenses for key products is not all there is to an open source strategy. Transparency, community, and some ceding of authority are also required.

Sun not only screwed up in 2001-2002. Sun is still no friend of Linux. Moreover, based on this latest bomb from Groklaw, it was willing to let SCO continue its attacks on Linux, just like Microsoft, which even helped fund the suit. If true, shame on Sun.

We learn two primary things from Jones’ testimony: first, what a cynical role Sun played in the SCO saga, and second, that all the time SCO was calling on the world, the courts, the Congress — nay heaven itself, if I may say so — to sympathize with it over the ruination of its Most Holy Intellectual Property by it being improperly open sourced into Linux, not that it turned out to be true, it had already secretly given Sun the right to open source it in OpenSolaris. Remember all that falderol about SCO being contractually unable to show us the code, much as it so desired to do so, because of being bound to confidentiality requirements? What a farce. SCO had already secretly given Sun the right to open source Solaris, with all the UNIX System V you can eat right in there.

The simple fact is, I gather from Jones’ testimony, Sun could have prevented the harm SCO sought to cause by simply telling us what rights it had negotiated and received from SCO prior to SCO launching its assault on Linux. Yet it remained silent. When I consider all folks were put through, all the unnecessary litigation, and all the fear and the threats and the harmful smears, including of me at the hands of SCO and all the dark little helper dwarves in SCO’s workshop, I feel an intense indignation like a tsunami toward Sun for remaining silent.

Speaking of Sun, which may be too easy a target, what’s up with IBM? Glyn Moody wonders…

So, for the sake of your shareholders and of the stakeholders in the open source ecosystem, I say: come on, IBM, pull your socks up and get stuck in again. Please go back to leading in this field, as you did a decade ago, rather than lagging as you seem to be today.

IBM is focused on Linux as a powerful tool and enabler, but it’s quite indifferent when it comes to Free software. It’s truly a step backwards. █

Permalink A Single Comment      Send this to a friend      View as PDF

05.13.08

Memo to Sun: Make ‘Open’Solaris an OpenSolaris and Even FreeSolaris

Posted in GNU/Linux, UNIX, GPL, SUN, Java, FOSS, Kernel at 9:55 am by Roy Schestowitz

What does “open” mean anyway, especially these days?

[More Open Than Open]: “I am constantly amazed at the flexibility of this single word.”

–Jason Matusow, Microsoft (for background see [1, 2])

There’s a lot to a name and if Sun Microsystems believes it can fool people with the name “OpenSolaris”, then it ought to remember the effect of keeping Java closed. Until Sun departs from the CDDL (or duality) it’s better to stick with GNU/Linux and not even poke OpenSolaris with a bargepole.

You can’t beat GNU/Linux with a half-hearted Linux, licence-wise. Sun ought to consider taking OpenSolaris — and probably ZFS too — into the realms of the GPL domain, just like Java. The sooner, the better. If Rich Green was correct, then merging will become a possibility too. Here is the latest decent review of OpenSolaris, but like many others it’s focused on technical characteristics alone. It concludes with:

Although the OpenSolaris development community still has a lot of work to do before the operating system is ready to take on Linux on the desktop, the progress so far indicates that the project deserves further attention. We will keep an eye on future releases to see how the platform evolves.

Licence-wise, it’s worth considering what Groklaw has just had to say.

The CDDL can’t hold a candle to the GPL as far as benefits to programmers or end users. Period. CEOs might love it, but programmers? Why would they? What’s in it for them? Sun needs to make up its mind. Is it open source? ? I don’t care if it chooses to be open, proprietary or mixed, but I can’t see any reason why anyone would contribute code under the CDDL for free, unless you just get a thrill out of helping Sun make money from your unpaid labor, as I explained back in 2005. I continue to view the CDDL as a problem, in part due to the Sun-Microsoft agreement, which includes patent elements, and I remind you of what Dan Ravicher of PubPat.org said about CDDL back in 2005: “My advice is that developers should ask themselves if they really want to work on software distributed by a company that has expressly retained the right to sue them for patent infringement if they don’t give their improvements back to the company.”

On the other hand, a recent interview with Rich Green of Sun indicates that at some point Sun will switch the license to GPL.

At the end, the licences play a tremendous role. Just recall the recent lesson that was taught by Zimbra.

Additionally, as pointed out the other day, Sun appears to be offering OpenSolaris as just a ‘free sample’ that gets young people addicted to the proprietary Solaris. This is something to watch out for and be careful of. What about Sun’s view on patents? █

“Business-method patents are an unwarranted and dangerous extension of the patentability standards. As the article suggests, the method in question may have been used for many years in slightly different contexts and is now being transferred to a computerized system; will that now mean that the pencil and paper method becomes an infringing use? And if you as a lawyer advise a client on a tax strategy or a method of doing business, could that advice be a patent infringement? It is too ephemeral for a patent, and ought be knocked down altogether.”

–I Scream, You Scream, We All Scream for Bilski!

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend      View as PDF

05.10.08

Novell and SCO: A Final Shakedown

Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, SCO, Novell, FUD, UNIX, Courtroom at 1:35 am by Roy Schestowitz

SCO is definitely beyond this Web site’s scope, but recently there has been a great deal of Novell in that saga. There are things there which have future implications on Novell, SUE Linux [sic], and other GNU/Linux distributions. We covered some of the latest in last week’s cumulative report, so let’s look at more recent articles and consider portions of them.

From the local press comes nothing but the promise that a decision will come soon. No word since then.

The trial between The SCO Group and Novell over disputed fees involving a computer operating system ended today with the judge promising a decision soon.

Also from the local press:

Novell-SCO trial now is in hands of judge

Arguments this week focused on how much value to attribute to the licensed technology. Novell claimed that technology it controlled — several versions of Unix System V — was a valuable part of the SCO licensing initiative.

InternetNews has an interesting take.

SCO Novell Trial - The Verdict is…

[…]

Frankly I’m still amazed that SCO has hung in this long.Though it is easy to paint SCO as the villain in this drama, it’s also possible to see this as a Tragedy (Greek or Shakespearean) in many ways. McBride (the tragic hero?)really does believe in his view and he is sticking with it to the (bitter?) end.

From another source comes a more detailed (but not so accurate) analysis.

There are times when the jokes just seem to tell themselves. Yesterday, during testimony for Novell’s lawsuit against SCO to determine how much Novell was owed for its ownership of the Unix copyrights, none other than Darl McBride took the stand and said two things that will no doubt become fodder for .SIG files from here to eternity.

[…]

Fortunately, the right people were not that naive. And now we’re at a point where scaring people away from open source on wholly spurious grounds is so passe that even Microsoft is leaving it behind.

That last bit is far from true. Microsoft just knows how it hide it better. It often uses other parties to do its dirty deeds against Free software and other competitive threats. We gave many examples of this before, e.g. here.

The local press from Utah goes further and claims that what’s at stake now is SCO’s fate, short of a Sugar Daddy.

McBride also said Kimball’s decision could affect the new reorganization plan SCO is preparing to file in Delaware, where the company filed for bankruptcy last year.

Groklaw caught up with the bankruptcy filings just a couple of days ago.

SCO’s accountants, Tanner, have applied to the bankruptcy court for compensation for the seventh month. Amazing, isn’t it, this story without an end? This monthly bill is for April, and Tanner would like only $8,574 plus $71 in expenses. That’s the lowest monthly bill ever. December 5-November 5 was $28,499; November 6 - December 5 was $19,001; December 6 - January 4 was $65,955; January 5-February 1 was $98,095; February 2 - March 3 was $32,868; and March 4 - March 31 was $28,441.

Going back to the trial, Lamlaw does its bit of analysis also.

Is a license to Microsoft more valuable than what MS paid SCO? Perhaps so. Certainly Novell might think so.

If the money paid to Novell comes up short, Novell has a few options. And, my bet is that some very interesting discussions take place in that back room between Novell and SUN and between Novell and Microsoft. Fly on that wall kind of thing.

Darl McBride gets cyberslapped here.

SCO CEO, Darl McBride, still believes that SCO owns UNIX in some form. Novell never transferred the copyrights to SCO in the sale of UnixWare but yet the dream lives on. This week the trial began that determines how much money may be owed to Novell from SCO (Up to $20 million). A strange turn of events indeed.

Here is another cyberslap from The Inquirer’s avid Groklaw follower.

McBride’s statement contradicted the just prior testimony of SCO SVP Chris Sontag, as well as the company’s internal memos from 2002, which concluded that SCO’s own software examinations had not found any UNIX code in Linux.

Perhaps McBride was confused about which lawsuit he was in court testifying about.

This week’s comic strip from the Bizarre Cathedral is of Darl McBride, whose mis-comprehension (probably deliberate) has him ridiculed.

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols has this good piece published in Linux.com where he is now a regular contributor.

Reality, as good writers know, is sometimes stranger than fiction. SCO’s recent performance in the U.S. District Court in Utah is a perfect example. With years to prepare, SCO executives made some remarkable statements in their attempt to show that SCO, not Novell, owns Unix’s copyright.

As a more introductory article, consider this one from ZDNet Australia.

Troubled software maker SCO’s chief executive has claimed the Linux operating system includes Unix source code, during a court case in which Novell is suing SCO for royalties on Unix.

There will probably be a torrent of news when the verdict is out. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend      View as PDF

05.08.08

Thoughts About the “Novell Will Kill OpenSolaris” Kerkuffle

Posted in SCO, Novell, Mono, UNIX, SUN, Java, OpenOffice at 9:52 am by Roy Schestowitz

No-one’s killing anyone, yet

Recently, a few sources of tension between Novell and Sun were identified [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Examples revolve around Novell’s ridicule of OpenSolaris, exploitation (arguably so) of OpenOffice.org, and neglect of Java in favour of support for its biggest rival.

A couple of days ago, as we only briefly mentioned in one of the links digests, SJVN raised an interesting speculation about whether or not Novell can attack OpenSolaris using its ownership of UNIX. We recently discussed the possibility of Novell ‘pulling an SCO’, based on something that Novell said last week. SJVN may have taken it a little too far, but people carry on talking about his piece. In ZDNet UK, for example, you find this: Could Novell kill OpenSolaris?

Sun’s just opened its developer conference with the long-delayed launch of OpenSolaris, the open source version of its Solaris operating system. But after all this time, will it live?

It’s taken Sun since 2005 to turn OpenSolaris into a proper release, which Sun intends will stand alongside Solaris as a community operating system - like Fedora is to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Bill Beebe jumps to Sun’s rescue and gives a reasonable explanation in defense of OpenSolaris, which he has been happily reviewing. He also comments about Novell.

Considering how Novell professed at the time that that they had no plans to sue anyone over Unix, you have to wonder how they’ll square that position with the current comments coming out of the SCO vs. Novell trial that just finished. They can’t have it both ways. Especially when it looks like the only reason they might consider revoking Sun’s agreement is as a blunt anti-competitive business weapon against a formidable competitor. You know, behaving like Microsoft.

These discussions and speculations might be worth returning to in the future. Below are some more articles that readers may find handy. █

Related new articles:

Enterprise Unix Roundup: OpenSolaris, Farm Team or Big League?

To make it big in the enterprise, a platform must be on par with the Unix operating systems, the current meme says. And — interestingly — in this world view, OpenSolaris is not in the majors.

Does OpenSolaris Matter?

I’m not sure.

Sun first announced OpenSolaris in 2005 but they keep finding ways to announce ‘first releases’. Yesterday was one such release.

OpenSolaris Wants To Compete With Linux - Oh Yeah?

Yesterday Sun Microsystems officially released OpenSolaris and suggested that it’s going to go head-to-head with Linux as a Desktop Operating System. Solarisx86 is nothing new and has been around about as long as Linux but it is historically proprietary and closed source. It was also very hardware-finicky and performance was slothlike.

OpenSolaris Just Wants to be Free

“Glassfish is dual licensed — CDDL and GPL. And as you’re aware, MySQL is GPL(2), as is the Java (runtime) platform itself. So three very big components of what’d be a complete OpenSolaris platform are available to the broader GPL community.

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend      View as PDF

05.07.08

Quick Mention: Novell Potty Calls the Kettle Black

Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, Novell, Mono, UNIX, Ubuntu, SUN at 7:54 am by Roy Schestowitz

“I’ve heard from Novell sales representatives that Microsoft sales executives have started calling the Suse Linux Enterprise Server coupons “royalty payments”"

–Matt Asay, April 21^st, 2008

The headline is just a game of words and nothing personal, but mind the following take on OpenSolaris, courtesy of OpenSUSE’s community manager:

Ultimately, I can’t help but think that the problem that Sun is trying to solve with OpenSolaris is not a technical one, but one of control. Specifically, the company is not ready to cede control over its operating system to the community at large, and so it is instead trying to build a community around OpenSolaris rather than joining the larger Linux effort.

Look who’s talking.

Novell too tries to control GNU/Linux using Mono and copyrights, as well as an exclusionary software patent deal that covers Mono, among other things.

Unless you’re from Novell (or one of Novell’s paying customers), avoid Mono at all costs. We’ve been through many other reasons for this before.

Herein we find yet another reason (among more recent ones [1, 2, 3, 4]) for Sun to keep its distance from Novell/SUSE and hopefully maintain a good relationship with companies like Canonical. Novell is with Microsoft now, working on its digital island to gain greater control over components of GNU/Linux distributions and offer exclusive coupons (Microsoft openly calls these “patent royalties” now) for these crucial components. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend      View as PDF

05.06.08

Is SCO and Its Anti-Linux Agenda Relocated to Microsoft Headquarters?

Posted in Microsoft, GNU/Linux, SCO, Novell, Deception, UNIX, Kernel at 1:40 am by Roy Schestowitz

“MICROSOFT IS LIKE AN ELEPHANT ROLLING AROUND, SQUASHING ANTS”

(From justice.gov)

We previously showed the connections between SCO and Microsoft and later discussed Stephen Norris [1, 2, 3] (briefly summarised in this post). I published an article about it too. For those who are not familiar with this saga, the incomplete gist of it all is as follows:

1. Microsoft paid SCO for ‘rights’ which SCO does not own, thereby assisting SCO’s lawsuits against Linux and companies that use it
2. Microsoft sort of passed money to SCO, via BayStar (recommendation of investment)
3. A hugely surprising investment plan in the already-bankrupt SCO came out of nowhere. The source of the money had connections revealed that lead to Bill Gates’ investments in the middle east.
4. Information that is conflicting, bizarre or contradictory was found and then quickly removed by the investing party that was accused, without as much as an acceptable explanation

The latest news or — shall we assume — the latest development in this alleged proxy fight against GNU/Linux (one among many if true, some of which are not even secret), is the appointment of a senior SCO man who found himself in Microsoft. His role there is particularly interesting (highlights in red).

…SCO once said of Gupta that “he is able to laser-focus on product deliverables.” If half-truths in the interest of competitive strategy are what Microsoft wants in terms of deliverables, Microsoft couldn’t do better than to pull in the SCO team.

Disappointing. Shame on you, Microsoft.

Groklaw has plenty more details.

Guess where Sandeep Gupta landed after he left SCO? If I put a blindfold on you and told you to point on the map, you’d still guess Microsoft, wouldn’t you? And you’d be right. From January, that is where he found a soft landing, as Director, Technical Competitive Strategy of the Server & Tools Division.

[…]

This was back in 2004. They may think we all forgot, but Groklaw never forgets. And if I need to remind you, the SCO v. IBM case is yet to be tried. So Microsoft has hired Gupta midstream.

Here’s what another famous computer expert, Brian W. Kernighan, said after reviewing Gupta’s work:

Furthermore, in places, Mr. Gupta’s conclusions of similarity depend on his selecting isolated lines of code from disparate places and putting them together as if contiguous blocks of code were involved (which they are not) and important differences did not exist (which they do).

So. You may draw your own conclusions as to why he is being rewarded with a plum position at Microsoft after a performance so stunningly rebutted. Mine is that he knows too much and that he fits in perfectly.

Mind Novell’s possible role as ‘the next SCO’. This is something that we last mentioned just 3 days ago. With SCO’s masterminds inside Microsoft and with UNIX ownership (via the increasingly-dependent Novell), Microsoft could try to pull similar tricks. Instead of a proxy or shell company like Acacia [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], ‘mother ship’ Microsoft could get its work done with the cushion that is a better bank balance.

After last year’s “patent terrorism” it would probably be naive to let this one slide silently. Never say never? Well, at least preparation by exposition of a lie or a plot can help. █

Permalink Leave Your Comment      Send this to a friend      View as PDF