IBM is still digging into SCO's near corpse to find the detials of SCO's accusations. Which were, are and for ever more shall be totally bogus.

The difference between the two cases is SCO claimed copyright infringement whereas Microsoft is claiming patent infringement (I believe).

Software patents are so much more vague than copyright, so there's a good chance some of the GNU/Linux operating system is infringing. Remember the study that found 283 possible software patent infringements [internetnews.com] in the Linux kernel alone? I would be suprised if some of those didn't belong to Microsoft (and that was 2004, there are probably more now).

This public sabre-rattling is not without basis. Seems to me that Microsoft are keeping the specifics under wraps, then threatening companies with them in private. Remember what ex-Novell employee said in this interview [itworldcanada.com]? Here's a reminder:

I mean I have had people come up to me and essentially off the record admit that they had been threatened by Microsoft and had got patent cross license and had essentially taken out a license for Microsoft patents on the free software that they were using, which they then cannot redistribute.

It's also funny you should mention this:

Otherwise Microsoft looks like a bigger SCO.

Some people (including this respected legal blogger [lamlaw.com]--at the bottom of that article) believe Microsoft funded and put SCO up to its anti-GNU/Linux FUD litigation. So, really they are a bigger SCO!

In recent years, certain "open source" software business models have evolved into a growing challenge to our license-based software model. Open source commonly refers to software whose source code is subject to a license allowing it to be modified, combined with other software and redistributed, subject to restrictions set forth in the license. A number of commercial firms compete with us using an open source business model by modifying and then distributing open source software to end users at nominal cost and earning revenue on complementary services and products. These firms do not have to bear the full costs of research and development for the software. A prominent example of open source software is the Linux operating system. Although we believe our products provide customers with significant advantages in security and productivity, and generally have a lower total cost of ownership than open source software, the popularization of the open source software model continues to pose a significant challenge to our business model, including continuing efforts by proponents of open source software to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of open source software in their purchase and deployment of software products. To the extent open source software gains increasing market acceptance, sales of our products may decline, we may have to reduce the prices we charge for our products, and revenue and operating margins may consequently decline.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights against piracy, infringement of our patents by third parties, or declining legal protection for intellectual property. We defend our intellectual property rights and combat unlicensed copying and use of software and intellectual property rights through a variety of techniques. Preventing unauthorized use or infringement of our rights is difficult. Piracy of our products represents a loss of revenue to us. While this adversely affects U.S. revenue, the impact on revenue from outside the United States is more significant, particularly in countries where laws are less protective of intellectual property rights. Similarly, the absence of harmonized patent laws makes it more difficult to ensure consistent respect for patent rights. Future legal changes could make this even more challenging. Throughout the world, we actively educate consumers about the benefits of licensing genuine products and obtaining indemnification benefits for intellectual property risks, and we educate lawmakers about the advantages of a business climate where intellectual property rights are protected. However, continued educational and enforcement efforts may fail to enhance revenue. Reductions in the legal protection for software intellectual property rights or compliance with additional intellectual property obligations impacting the rights of software developers could both adversely affect revenue.

Let;'s hear some patent numbers from Microsoft. Nobody will pay attention until Microsoft comes up with some specific claims. The SCO case has made that clear.