Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Skepticism Over Microsoft's Patent Assertion (was: [News] Skepticism Over Microsoft's Patent Assertion)

  • Subject: Re: Skepticism Over Microsoft's Patent Assertion (was: [News] Skepticism Over Microsoft's Patent Assertion)
  • From: "Larry Qualig" <lqualig@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: 18 Sep 2006 09:10:58 -0700
  • Complaints-to: groups-abuse@google.com
  • In-reply-to: <xp0mrf79ygpv$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>
  • Injection-info: e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=12.170.48.219; posting-account=I0FyeA0AAABAUAjJ9vi7laKRssUBoQA3
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: http://groups.google.com
  • References: <2795453.gbc4hhKkHJ@schestowitz.com> <xp0mrf79ygpv$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>
  • User-agent: G2/1.0
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1156357
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Once again, Roy, you lie with your subject title.  There's no skepticism
> over Microsoft's patent assertion, it's being welcomed by the open source
> community, as the real subject of the title says.
>
> Here's the part you didn't quote:
>
> "Long-time Microsoft enemies are taking a positive stance on the vendor's
> latest pledge not to assert its patent portfolio against a group of 38 web
> services specifications and their implementations."
>
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:06:23 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
> > Open source community welcomes Microsoft patent pledge
> >
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> >| The vendor has used strong language in the past to denounce open source,
> >| arguing that it "destroys" intellectual property and comparing Linux to
> >| a " cancer".
>
> No, it called the GPL a cancer, not open source in general.
>
> >| Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source at IBM, called
> >| the initiative a "nice start", but warned that Microsoft still has to
> >| deal with a legacy of opposing open standards.
>
> Whatever that's supposed to mean.
>
> >| But Phipps warned that the Microsoft document contains some loopholes
> >| that could allow its lawyers to file legal patent claims.
>
> There are no loopholes.  The wording is very clear.  If you're writing code
> to interoperate, you won't be sued.  That is, if you create an
> implementaiton that conforms to the specification, they will not sue you.
> If you start altering the formats for your own purposes, all bets are off.
> These are not "open" specifications in the "open source" sense.  They're
> "open" in that you're free to implement them without fear of retaliation.
>
> > http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2164406/open-source-community-welcomes
> >
> > Dana also explained why they may have reliquished those software patents,
> > which were never supposed to exist _in the first place_.
>
> Lying again.  First, nowhere in his article does he say that patents are
> supposed to exist in the first place.  Second, he admits he's not a lawyer,
> and there are lawyers in the comments that disagree with him.  Patents are
> an intellectual _PROPERTY_.  That makes them a property right.


---- "Bob Sutor, vice president of standards and open source at IBM,
called the initiative a "nice start..."

Trivia question for you.... What US company has applied for and
received more patents than any other US company for the past nine (9)
consecutive years?

Hint: The initials are "I"  "B"  and "M"




> > Patents are not property
>
> They are, in fact, property according to US law.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
>
> "In law, intellectual property (IP) is an umbrella term for various legal
> entitlements which attach to certain types of information, ideas, or other
> intangibles in their expressed form."
>
> Further, the World Trade Organization (which Britain is a member of, btw)
> calls it property as well.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index