As Paul Harvey would say "and now, the Rest of the Story".
This clearly illuminates, as Tibb the Cat notes above, the reason why "M$ have also been cosying [sic] up to Novell". It would be interesting to find out if Microsoft "discovered" something about the time of it's overture to Novell and decided it was time for some "insurance" in case SCO lost.
And now, the Rest of the Story.
A quick examination of the genealogy of Unix - which Novell now "officially" owns a passel of rights to - gives a direct lineal decent back to AT&T Bell Labs. Unix was "officially" announced to the world in the July-August 1978 edition of "The Bell Systems Technical Journal" (the so-called "Blue Book"), where most of the original man(1) pages were published and the key concepts were detailed by Thompson, Ritchie, Kernigan and the like, as well as contributed articles from some folks at this place called UC Berkely. This document (which I have a copy of somewhere in storage out in the Mojave desert (es verdad!)) clearly establishes the core premises of Unix and all the key systems and features as well as establishing the parentage of System 7, System III and BSD.
And it does so, unambiguously, four years before Microsoft was formed.
So, it would seem, the *REAL* reason that Microsoft has struck the deal with Novell is *NOT* to reinforce its "threat" to kill Open Source, but, rather, to hedge the possibility of Novell "turning the worm" against Microsoft for possible incursions against what would be patent violations incorporated in Microsoft products from M$ inception.
"And now you know The Rest of the Story.
Paul Harvey, saying good DAY?"
Now, to be fair, back in the 1970's *EVERYONE* was playing fast and loose with IP from many, many sources. That was - and IS - the nature of innovation. No one that was developing system software at that time was worrying about patents (remember, there WERE no software patents then!) or even copyrights, per se. We were all just trying to solve problems to get our products - mostly embedded systems and development platforms - out the door. Even AT&T was very lax in enforcing its licenses on Unix - Unix was free to academic users (as long as they returned their research results to the "Unix community" (read: AT&T) (was this the first GPL?) ) but cost a uniform US$50,000 for "commercial" users. The mantra was "develop something useful, and the license would be waived for the contribution". Which, in most cases, it was.
I could go on for hours, but this covers the points for Ashlee's article. I hope it helps some.