2 ms·

I wrote the article. The legal threats I cited were not and are not a fabrication. I did not write these other articles covering it: https://money.cnn.com/mag

I wrote the article. The legal threats I cited were not and are not a fabrication. I did not write these other articles covering it: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/ https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007... https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/05/15/microsoft-says-linux-open-office-free-e-mail-step-on-patents/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2007/05/15/microsoft-says-linux-... https://www.computerworld.com/article/2566211/study--linux-may-infringe-on-283-patents.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2566211/study--linux-m...

ndhlms 4y ago
The problem is you're still failing to demonstrate a causal link between threats of legal action and GNOME3 or Unity. I was around during this time and early adopter of GNOME Shell (i.e. 2.31.x); there was and is zero evidence indicating that legal issues were even a consideration. There is, on the other hand, mountain ranges of evidence indicating this was driven by everything but legal issues[1][2][3]. [1]: https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShell/FAQ#What_problems_does_GNOME_Shell_attempt_to_address.3F https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/GnomeShell/FAQ#What_problems... [2]: http://wingolog.org/archives/2008/06/07/gnome-in-the-age-of-decadence http://wingolog.org/archives/2008/06/07/gnome-in-the-age-of-... [3]: https://wiki.gnome.org/Events/Summit/2008/GUIHackfest https://wiki.gnome.org/Events/Summit/2008/GUIHackfest