Judge slams SCO's lack of evidence against IBM

TalkBack 9 of 80:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

RE: Yes they did

>>Contrary to what the TrollCatcher states, MS did license all the "technology" used to connect to SCO systems and provide NFS (not very good I might add) support.<<<

Why? Why would MS pay newSCO for something that is a standard?

See: http://www.uwsg.iu.edu/usail/network/nfs/overview.html
and http://nfs.sourceforge.net/

If NFS had to be licensed it definitely would not be in Linux.

So, why would MS pay for something they did not have to?

I am not disagreeing that MS stated that is what they need the license for. I'm questioning why MS would need a license to implement NFS. It was originally developed by Sun. The developmental versions is being developed by the IETF. No license needed. The fact NFS is in the Linux kernel proves there is no licensing needed.

Paying for a license for something they don't need to legitimize the licensing fees? Or looking for a way to fund the newSCO monster that people would not take a close look at?

Maybe its just me but it seems silly to pay for a license for a standard. Especially when the company you buy the license from didn't develope the standard.

And, yes, the opinions stated here are my own. They come from looking critically at things. It comes with the territory of legal research. I want to see what's inside. That's why I dig deeper than the surface.

Trust me. After reading years of MS case files I have no reason to take MS at their word. Want to know what's funny about my mistrust of MS? I started researching MS to defend MS. I set out to prove the viscious 'lies' I kept hearing about MS were nothing more than libelous ranting from publications that had some unnatural, almost morbid hatred of MS. The problem I ran into is that I discovered that everything I heard and read about MS was not only true, it was toned down from reality. Publications were being very generous to MS by sugar-coating their stories. My guess is that most folks wouldn't believe the truth and definitely would never go to a law library to research MS to discover for themselves. Problem with that is, I'm not most folks. My dislike of MS and its business tactics comes from researching MS's legal history. It has nothing to do with any other OS. Fact is, you will rarely see me give praise to any OS. What you will see is I do not like unethical companies that use money to stamp out better systems and ideas. MS is not alone and I do not concentrate on MS alone. Its just that when it comes to the unethical pie, MS has the pie. Everyone else has but a few crumbs.

Posted by: AmusedAtItAll   Posted on: 02/10/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Email Security and Archiving - Clearer in the Cloud Google The time is NOW for businesses and organizations of all sizes to implement ... Download Now
• The True Costs of Virtual Server Solutions VMware In an economic environment that is repeatedly heralding the message "do ... Download Now