We do not see any infringements, and we are not going to agree to any. Their desire to do some things around IP [intellectual property] came up as one of the things they wanted to talk about. We said, 'Sure, we'd be happy to talk about some of those IP things.' Because we have our own portfolio of IP, and we saw that when you look at the math, the balance of trade was $108 million to us and $40 million to them.

We never changed our position. All I cared about was, I lost a deal with a large retailer to Microsoft for the first time about 12 or 18 months ago. It was going to be an all-Linux deal, and I lost it because they were unduly influenced, in my opinion, to be fearful of these [IP and indemnity issues]. From my point of view that was really too bad, because Linux lost. Then I watched it happen three more times.

Do you think Microsoft is spreading a lot of fear, uncertainty and doubt about the risk of IP violations if companies adopt Linux? They were sharing their position in the marketplace as they saw it through their lens.

Aside from the open letter in response to Ballmer's comments that you posted on your Web site, did you get on the phone with Ballmer and ask him what was going on? Yes, we did have that communication. I would tell you that Microsoft -- Steve and [General Counsel] Brad [Smith] and Bob [Muglia] -- have been very supportive and understanding of our situation. At the executive level, they've been operating very genuinely -- I have to give them full credit for that.

Do you think the patent cooperation part of the agreement with Microsoft is in the best interest of Novell's customers? Absolutely. It's good for the customers because they don't have to worry about those things. I'm disappointed that we haven't communicated our intent as clearly [as we should have] to the [Linux] community. The messaging got bogged down.