> Linux companies dodged this bullet for the most part, from both Microsoft and SCU
It's worth noting that many of the patents asserted in the B&N case had nothing to do with mobile and were equally applicable to any form of Linux. The only reason MS did not assert them to quell Linux adoption is a) they did not need to and b) it would have been seen as anti-competitive. As such we've been kind of lulled into a false sense of security about the huge stockpile of stupid patents these early operating systems companies have built up. It's more or less like nuclear waste - lying around waiting for someone to build dirty bombs with it. And of course, since there is a clock ticking on the expiry of the patents, MS and others will start becoming increasingly keen to deploy them if only to extract value before the expiry.
It's worth noting that many of the patents asserted in the B&N case had nothing to do with mobile and were equally applicable to any form of Linux. The only reason MS did not assert them to quell Linux adoption is a) they did not need to and b) it would have been seen as anti-competitive. As such we've been kind of lulled into a false sense of security about the huge stockpile of stupid patents these early operating systems companies have built up. It's more or less like nuclear waste - lying around waiting for someone to build dirty bombs with it. And of course, since there is a clock ticking on the expiry of the patents, MS and others will start becoming increasingly keen to deploy them if only to extract value before the expiry.