But even Microsoft's childlike "that's mine" attitude about intellectual property and patent violation claims against open source doesn't explain the company's resistance to Red Hat. The question to ask: Whose intellectual property rights is Microsoft seeking to protect?

"Microsoft is back to its old tactics," claims Forbes Magazine as Microsoft not only sues Linux-using companies but also pays other companies that do so

MICROSOFT says it is under attack by open source. The company complained in its annual report that it was facing increasing pressure from open source companies. It claims they are stealing its ideas and benefiting from its intellectual property.

Pretending that ownership of software is possible and thus trying to enforce this ownership (as copyright and patent laws do) actually leads us to violations of actual physical property.

In course of the last decade, every once in a while Microsoft has been known to have accused Linux of infringing one of its patents or another. Despite the said multiple claims for years that elements of the open-source operating system violate its patents, Microsoft had restricted itself till 2009 to supporting legal action against Linux.

For months, I've been trying to get Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) to answer a few questions about the Unix technologies in its intellectual property portfolio. Microsoft agreed to an interview, then backed out. So the question remains: How much Unix code does Microsoft have its hands on?

SFLC/BusyBox happen to punish some companies worthy of punishment not just for GPL violations

Intellectual property may be off the table, for now, but it sure seems like Red Hat and Microsoft are still dancing around coming to some kind of partnership relationship.

Microsoft once made the mistake of broad-brushing Linux as an intellectual property quagmire. It made Microsoft headlines, but few friends: lawyers didn't believe it, customers didn't want to hear it, and competitors dared it to sue.