"From 2003 until July 2006, Microsoft published specific licensing terms for its FAT patents on its website (that information was scrubbed, but a cached copy is available on achive.org.) Those terms capped per unit revenue costs at US$250,000, and open-source legal experts (Allison, Moglen) have told me that a set maximum royalty price would be compatible with the GPL. Unlimited per unit royalties would violate GPL v2, and any revenue sharing with its licensees would violate GPL v3.
"Why Microsoft does not issue a statement to the effect that GPL terms were not violated by agreements leaves me scratching my head. If those were the terms, and the GPL was not violated, the speculation and bad publicity would be put to rest. Given its response, I'm led to think that if GPL terms were not violated by the FAT licensing, Microsoft would issue a statement to that effect. Its silence on this issue says a lot."
