Obviously it would be a lot easier for MS to pursue patent litigation on technology invented entirely in-house at MS (like .NET) than it would be for them to try to argue that Linux itself infringes on their patents. Surely you can see the difference.
TBH no, I don't. For any patent lawsuit you'd have to prove that the technology was invented entirely in-house or in some other way that gives them the right to sue. It doesn't matter whether it's been published before, or not. Didn't stop them from suing TomTom because of FAT, right? It's not Linux that's patented - it's just a number of technologies which are included in Linux. Userland (like .NET libraries) or kernel (like FAT) doesn't make a big difference here.
Not having any reason to sue doesn't stop people either - see SCO fiasco. I do believe that MS can sue the majority of companies without a reason - and win.
As the article states, and Miguel grudgingly admits, the threat of litigation has had a chilling effect on the growth of .NET. So perhaps it doesn't worry you, but obviously plenty of other smart people have weighed their chances and chosen to invest their money and energy instead in technologies like LAMP and Java, just as a lot of us predicted at the outset.
It doesn't worry these people either: http://mono-project.com/Companies_Using_Mono We didn't get the chance to compare the current world with the imaginary "patent free .net" world. So far it's just talk - who knows how many companies are really worried and how many just prefer other VMs for other reasons. All we hear right now is FUD from MS and FOSS trolls. Some people using Mono just stay quiet and enjoy the possibilities.
Sure - I obviously prefer one side of this argument and I may be completely wrong here :) As long as we're aware of all the potential problems and take time to consider options - let's use whatever meets the requirements. My view is that there are bigger threats from MS than lawsuits over Mono and all equally unlikely to affect me in any way. I guess I'll EOT here...
