Microsoft should be able to extricate itself from the implications of the new GPLv3, according to a leading Australian Intellectual Property lawyer.

Ina Fried has an interview with "Microsoft's top intellectual property lawyer", Horacio Gutierrez, and Gutierrez directly threatens to sue any company, like Red Hat, that refuses to sell out and do a patent deal like the one Novell signed up for

Microsoft's claims that open-source software infringes its patents do not apply in the UK, according to a top lawyer.

I write this to clarify my ideas and illustrate more precisely what happens if we actually reject the idea of intellectual property.

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?

"...Eben mentioned that there was a moral duty for the “last lawyer in town” to take someone on as a client so that person will be able to receive some legal help. This seems to normally apply in cases of unpopular clients or with people who can’t afford to hire a lawyer.

One of the enduring soap operas this year has involved the ongoing patent infringement threats by Microsoft against “Linux, OpenOffice, email, and other open source software.” According to Microsoft, 235 of its (unnamed) patents are being infringed, and it should be entitled to be paid for this use of its intellectual property.

Some days, like it or not, you need a lawyer. For most business purposes, picking the right law firm isn't usually that big of a deal.

So much is happening at once in the SCO bankruptcy. Novell has filed a Response [PDF] to SCO's Notice of Cure Amounts. Oracle has filed a limited objection [PDF] to SCO's Notice of Cure Amounts and is sending in a lawyer [PDF]. IBM is adding yet another lawyer, Noah J. Phillips [PDF].