David Berlind of ZDNet argues that, while Novell denies responsibility for or admission of patent infringements, a door remains open on the trademarks front. This is a long write-up which concludes that Steve Ballmer could go for legal pickles rather than major baseless allegations over IP.

That could be in the case. Especially since Novell, in its watershed deal with Microsoft, has taken great care to reiterate that it still believes that it has not infringed on any Microsoft patents. Why then would Novell pay such a huge sum of money (with a promise of longer-term royalities) if it really believed this? Answer? Microsoft may have presented Novell with compelling evidence that Linux (or something that Novell was distributing) infringes on its copyright. Or maybe a trademark (or a servicemark).