It is absolutely amazing that they agreed to that third one, let alone the rest. Who knows what was redacted...

Nothing new was revealed in this article and some important information was left out.

First, Microsoft agrees not to sue those customers that purchase Novell's SELS because, as the original agreement states, Novell is paying Microsoft a ROYALTY for EACH SELS that it sells. Ballmer calls it "the IP bridge" in the agreement. So, Novell is paying Microsoft for the privilege of selling its OWN product to its OWN customers, all the while denying that there is any MS IP in Linux. But, while Novell agrees not to sue Microsoft customers for any Novell IP that may be in MS products, Microsoft DOES NOT pay any royalties to Novell for its own products.

This is certainly a one-sided agreement, and I have no doubt the Hovsepian KNEW exactly what he was agreeing to, regardless of his subsequent disclaimers. This not to say that there IS any MS IP in Linux or FOSS. The USTPO & Congress has messed up the US patent scene so badly that it is more than likely ALL software violates someone's IP patent. What is for sure is that Linux and FOSS have always developed their code IN PUBLIC and its source has always been available for inspection by anyone. No one can claim they "didn't know" their IP was in Linux, while NO ONE can KNOW FOR SURE that their IP is NOT in Microsoft code, because it is secret. Microsoft was claiming IP violations by Linux two years ago, but has failed to bring court action. Patent law requires the holder to quickly inform the infringer exactly what is being infringed in order to mitigate damages, not run them up. It is now doubtful that Microsoft could sue for any of those claims they've been making for over two years.

Secondly, Microsoft is now A DISTRIBUTOR of Linux (SELS) and as such it must abide by the GPL or reqlinquish its rights to distribute. Part of that "abiding" is that since it claims that Linux contains it's IP but it is now distributing Linux, those part of Linux that may have violated their IP are now under the GPL. Ballmer and Microsoft has KNOWN of this requirement since they began calling the GPL a "cancer" or a "virus" SEVEN YEARS AGO. The GPL states, in part:

"6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. "

Microsoft owns their own IP. IF some of their IP is in Linux and they are distributing it under the GPL (the coupon trick is just a dodge), then they are placing their IP under the GPL.

"Microsoft owns their own IP. IF some of their IP is in Linux and they are distributing it under the GPL (the coupon trick is just a dodge), then they are placing their IP under the GPL."

This is only if the GPLv3 goes through with the current patent protection clauses intact. Even then, it only applies to software that adopts the GPLv3, either by re-licencing or through the 'any later version' option in the GPLv2.