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
|
|