Yet that is not a far-fetched conclusion - not after the deal that Dell cut with Microsoft recently. You see, as a result of striking this deal, Microsoft has effectively become a Linux distributor. It gets SUSE Linux licences from Novell and distributes them to Dell.

The GPLv2, the existing version of the GPL that is, stipulates that if a person or company distributes software that is under the GPL, then that person or company is also bound by the terms of the same licence.

In other words, with regard to the Linux it is distributing, Microsoft has to abide by the GPL. This wouldn't be a welcome thing to hear back in Redmond, but them's the facts.

Hence, in the unlikely event that there is any of Microsoft's IP in the Linux distribution which it is distributing, then that IP also comes under the GPL. In other words, it is available for nothing.

Another thought. How can a company know which patent or patents it is violating unless the accuser is specific? And if the accuser refuses to be specific, would it not be the case that patent infringement is actually being encouraged? And if infringement is being encouraged, then on what grounds does the accuser sue?

It's clear that Microsoft does not want to be specific because developers would immediately go back to their keyboards and write code that worked around the patents which are claimed as being violated.