Has anyone thought to speculate why microsoft is so keen to tie up linux vendors in their reciprocal cant sue policy? I was just thinking and heres something at the back of my head.

I am not gonna do any MS bashing, I current am using WinXP, but honestly think about this.

Microsoft is notorious in taking ideas and porting it to work to their advantage, Vista is a very good example of taking mac to windows. Previously too, alot of unix stuff or something has been taken into MS. Perhaps now they are trying to take linux based development into their mainstream code as that has more development. Since it is all closed source, there is officially no policing being done on the patents *possibly* violated here.

Other companies like microsoft and the whole old SCO claimed of patent infringement, the only way they can do that is because linux's code is out in the open. Since their code is closed, who is to say who copied whose code? Also how do you know that there isnt any derivative work carried out in the past or future on such a platform?

I do have to stick to MS for my needs, I am not gonna deny that. But at the same time I am not looking at any MS bashing on this subject. But the fact of the matter is history has shown MS to be less likely to have new ideas than copying them. GPL v3 seems to be designed to help "protect" the code from being part of the deals vendors make with MS, but honestly I prefer less restrictions, like v2. As it doesnt make sense with v3 as there is no way to know if anyone in closed source has really violated them without giving up too much rights.

Perhaps the governing patents body should take a look at both codes and see whats really going on. Ofcourse these are just my 2c.

Regards, Satish