Add to 
Free and Open Source software is widely loved by everyone, but unfortunately for Microsoft, they have been yet another reason for lower profits. Now, Microsoft is fighting back by accusing free and open source software community for infringing over 235 patents.
Linux kernel, which directly interacts with the hardware is said to be violating 42 Microsoft patents. Menus and toolbars which build up the Linux’s graphical user interface are found to be violating another 65 Microsoft patents.
On the other side of the story, Novell has signed a deal with Microsoft under which, they’ll have to pay a percentage of revenues to Microsoft upto 2011 or pay a minimum of $40 million to prevent them from getting sued. Dell and Samsung have also signed similar deals with Microsoft.
It is very clear that Microsoft is expecting royalties from the FOSS community, but the FOSS community is made up of hundreds of individuals and companies. Who will pay the royalties?
Via CNN Money
Written by 
wrote, on May 17th, 2007
It seems that Microsoft wants to kill Open Source. Hope the OSS community doesn’t fall down. I know it wont
wrote, on May 18th, 2007
OSS won’t fall down easily, I think. Because OSS is the community for peoples who hate high price microsoft software!
Microsoft plays too much monopoly board game. They think they can rule the whole board! hahaha
wrote, on May 18th, 2007
Microsoft seems to be afraid of open source now…..
the open source movement will never be down it will just become better and harder on microsoft..:D
wrote, on May 19th, 2007
I’m realli scared dat Microsoft gonna takeover everythin…pity da ppl who dun have enough money to buy all dese licensing stuff… dey spendin 2 dollars on a cd just say dey sell it for 10 dollars dey wud already make profit for their research…Anyway OPEN SOURCE rulezzz
wrote, on May 19th, 2007
Aah … Microsoft. Still pretending this is a school playround and that there the ones with the most muscle. I think Linus Torvald’s response to these claims is probably the most succinct and correct. So here’s a link:
http://www.informationweek.com.....=199600443