Mart van de Wege <mvdwege@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 22:06:34 +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
<snip>
>>> So, that makes a mailing list post an official patent grant? Sorry, but
>>> legal matters *don't* work that way, and you damn well know it.
>>
>> Well, it's certainly evidence.
>>
> So you admit it is not enough to constitute patent license, then?
>
<snip>
> Indeed it doesn't. The minimum standard ECMA requires is merely
> RAND. Microsoft complied with that.
>
> *HOWEVER*, you fanbois keep insisting that Microsoft is going above and
> beyond the minimum requirements and licensing C#/CLI patents RAND and
> royalty-free.
>
> So, for the umpteenth time: prove it.
>
>>>> So Microsoft should give a royalty free patent grant to patents they
>>>> don't have?
>>>>
>>> So if they don't have patents in C#/CLI, why would they need to file a
>>> patent grant with ECMA? Why not file a disclaimer that they *don't* hold
>>> any patents?
>>
>> Because ECMA requires it. Why did Sun publish such a document for ODF when
>> they claim not to have any patents either? Because it's common practice.
>
> Irrelevant. Stop trying to move the goalposts.
>
> But for the record: Sun's statement is an unequivocal non-assertion of
> patents. Where is the similar Microsoft statement? You still haven't
> provided it.
>
<crickets chirping>
Note that in the past few days, Erik has found plenty of time to snipe
at Roy and post in other threads, but somehow he forgot he had a few
questions open here.
Well, let's add that patent license question to the long list of
questions left unanswered by Erik.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
|
|
