Microsoft, Linux, RH and patents....

[Les]

On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 11:25 +0000, Scott van Looy wrote:
> Today Andy Green did spake thusly:
> 
> > Kim Lux wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 19:09 -0700, Craig White wrote:
> >>>> What am I missing here ? 
> >>> ----
> >>> the label... FUD 
> >> 
> >> Is it really that simple, that Microsoft doesn't have a leg to stand
> >> on ?  I think its FUD too, but surely there must be more to it than
> >> that ?
> >
> > Well you can say it would be very poor FUD if it didn't leave you thinking 
> > "there must be more to it than that".
> >
> > RHAT have obviously been alive to the threat from a patent attack knowing 
> > they have several powerful enemies that are all patented up, hence their 
> > ripping out of chunks of stuff like MP3 support.  If anyone doubted their 
> > wisdom they ain't doubting any more.
> 
> Ahem.
> Microsoft own the patent to at least two parts of OpenGL
> Novell spent lots of money developing OpenGL accelerated desktop stuff
> Redhat followed suit
> 
> So...who is silly here?
> 
> -- 
> Scott van Looy - email:me at ethosuk.org.uk | web:www.ethosuk.org.uk
> site:www.freakcity.net - the in place for outcasts since 2003
> PGP Fingerprint: 7180 5543 C6C4 747B 7E74  802C 7CF9 E526 44D9 D4A7
>        -------------------------------------------
>        |/// /// /// /// WIDE LOAD /// /// /// ///|
>        -------------------------------------------
> 
> To communicate is the beginning of understanding.
>  		-- AT&T
> 
Hi, Andy,
  What two parts would that be?

Regards,
Les H