So Google will drop all the lawsuits the moment the acquisition is complete?

They probably won't drop them for a variety of reason:

1/ Legal liability

2/ Necessary counter suit against someone suing them.

3/ The other party is guilty of something significant

4/ More profitable not to drop it.

Remember these are mostly mobile makers we are talking about, who have no need of Windows licenses.

Perhaps it went something like this.

Nice business you have here. It would just be too bad if there were repeated BSA audits shutting you down.

In the case of SCO though, the claims were obviously absurd.

In this case, careful review by a number of hardware makers has led them to pay Microsoft to license the patents. We may not know exactly what they are using but you can bet the companies paying Microsoft had to have pretty good proof before they simply handed over per-device fees to another company.

Perhaps they have checked them perhaps not. It could just as easily be that they believe Microsoft with its billions will take the case to the Supreme court (consider the i4i case where they did that while losing every step of the way) and this is cheaper than years of litigation.

SCO did get companies to sign up on the "SCOsource licences too. You would have thought that they would have reviewed the facts and found that SCOG were "trolling" but they didn't.

Why is no one mentioning the possibility that M$'s patents might be legit, novel patents that don't cover something frivolous?

Probably due to the words of a Microsoft executive. When Ballmer first started the whole "Linux violates our patents and some one has to pay" campaign people asked which patents precisely. The executive indicated that he wouldn't say as they might be challenged and invalidated. If Microsft is so sure why not tell so it can be fixed?

It is like the whole SCO fiasco claiming that Linux violated their Unix copyrights (which they have now been ruled twice in courts not to own) but they would never say what code it was out of fear that the "code would be replaced".

Both sets lawsuits seem to me to be based on the idea of never letting the alleged infringement be known and fixed so that they can collect eternal tolls based on their unsupported allegations.

Because they remember what happened to Netscape. They probably also assume that Microsoft HTML 5 will be incompatible with real HTML 5 or that this is just about as likely to see release on time as WinFS.

Short sighted? Or did they think ahead and realize that finding life bearing worlds hurts their religious voters?

There is a problem with the evolution theory. It is that so far not a single living cell was ever created artificially. Not a simplest cell.

It seems that life cannot be created scientifically or technologically. Maybe it cannot be created artificially at all. In principle.

May be it can be in future, maybe not. Until then the jury is out

.

You are aware that evolution is about how species change over time are you not?

Origin of life is NOT evolution. Evolution comes AFTER life exists.

Understand now? Your bringing up evolution not explaining something it does not purport to explain does not support your argument. Why do creationists always do this? Next we will be getting the "Why are there still monkeys" argument.

To wit: a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are both still dogs.

Please prove this by successfully breeding (without technological aid) a male Great Dane and a female Chihuahua and showing the adult hybrid offspring.