Tom Shelton <tom_shelton@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On May 17, 3:19 am, Mart van de Wege <mvdwege_pub...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>> Tom Shelton <tom_shel...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > On May 16, 3:20 pm, Mart van de Wege <mvdwege_pub...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> >> > In article <gun0tm$hp...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>> >> > Hadron <hadronqu...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> > Wrong as usual. ECMA and ISO only require RAND, but Microsoft, Intel,
>> >> >> > and HP (the submitters) went farther than the minimal requirement and
>> >> >> > choose to go both RAND *and* royalty-free.
>>
>> >> >> Is this Mart trying to promote himself to a higher position than WronG,
>> >> >> Willy and High Plains Hypocrite in the "dumbest advocate" table? It sure
>> >> >> seems that way.
>>
>> >> > It seems so--he has their habit of trying to argue on topics for which
>> >> > he has not done even a basic bit of research first.
>>
>> >> Strange.
>>
>> >> I refer to a definite source, the patent list that's part of ECMA-334,
>> >> and you have yet to provide even a shred of evidence for your
>> >> assertions.
>>
>> >> And *I* am the one not doing research?
>>
>> >> You really are a piece of work, aren't you, Timmy?
>>
>> >> Mart
>>
>> >http://web.archive.org/web/20030424174805/http://mailserver.di.unipi....
>>
>> > Jim Miller is one of the inventors listed on the patents in question.
>>
>> I'm very sorry Tom, but that link proves jack shit.
>>
>> Tom says that in order to compy with ECMA, they provided a royalty-free
>> RAND license. Yet the official patent statement submitted by Microsoft
>> has dropped the royalty-free.
>>
>> Jim can say what he wants, but it is what the Microsoft lawyers submit
>> as an official license that counts.
>>
>> mart
>>
>> --
>> "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
>> --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
>
> some appropriate snipage:
> http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2887217,00.html
> "According to Microsoft's director of intellectual property Michele
> Herman"
>
> "According to Herman, third parties will have to enter into a
> reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) license agreement with
> Microsoft. "But," says Herman, "while RAND sometimes means there could
> be a financial obligation, [Microsoft] …will be offering a
> conventional non-royalty non-fee RAND license. We've always made that
> clear to anyone who has asked." In other words, there will be no
> financial obligation. "
>
Keywords: "Will be offering". So *where* is that offer? The only legally
binding document I have found so far is the patent statement attached to
ECMA-334. And so far, none of you MS fanbois have managed to come up
with a substantial proof that a royalty-free license exists.
After all, we all know how much it means when Microsoft says it will do
something, like implementing WinFS in Vista.
Mart
--
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.
|
|
