>A "private" discussion with a FOSS company on this issue is meaningless - there is nothing stopping the FOSS company from disclosing any such discussion to anyone.

Not necessarily. There is sometimes an NDA signed between the respective parties before discussions really get going.

>
>- Patents are public information
>
>- Microsoft would not have to disclose any of their source code to make an allegation, but even if they did, a FOSS company would not have to disclose that source. For example, they could say
>
>"Microsoft alleges that {specified FOSS source code}{specified FOSS software function} violates their patent {MS patent #, w/link}".
>
>The community would immediately launch a massive effort to invalidate the patents and/or develop work- or invent-arounds. The truly rabid part of the community would look into ways to counterattack.
>
>http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/05/microsoft_rehas.html
>
>>
>>>Do you have even one shred of evidence to back this assertion? My own suspicion is that they reached a blanket agreement not to prosecute each other, without any specifics. IOW to prevent the "patent Armageddon" as discussed in the article.
>>
>>None. I'm just guessing, but it could have been done how you said.