Re: [DotGNU]Re: (Unmangled) Craig Mundie/Dave Stutz at O'Reilly conference (was:[DotGNU...

[Dan Kuykendall (Seek3r)]

Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
> 
> > Mundie said "I am just like you, there are
> > some things I dont like" and Tim O'Rielly said "well, there isnt much I
> > like about it at all"
> 
> Mundie looked about as comfortable as an investment banker at a Star
> Trek convention throughout the proceedings.
> 
> I'm still unclear on what MS can and cannot do with patents.  I realize
> dotGNU is not supposed to be a drop-in replacement for .NET, but are
> there things MS can do legally to make dotGNU irrelevant as an
> alternative to .NET?

I think the thing to keep in mind is that M$ has the marketing mussle to
get companies like Amazon and Ebay to work with passport/hailstorm. Also
the passport/hailstorm client is built into WindowsXP so it will be
almost completely transparent to the user in a way that we would not
possibly be able to duplicate. It also appears that the URL to
Microsofts hailstorm servers is hardcoded into WindowsXP, so even if we
were allowed to create a drop in replacement hailstorm services network,
the clients wouldnt be able to even see it.

Our solution will take a consious effort from our users... and as with
the browser wars, we are facing an uphill battle and one that we will be
pressed to win. Having the ability to create a drop in replacement would
have gotten us a little closer, because the courts might be able to
force MS to make the setting a registery entry... but Im not sure they
would put the hailstorm patents in public domain.

Basicly, our solution will need to be close to compatible whereever
possible, and in all other respects it must be far superior or we will
have no hope in gaining many Windows users.

Seek3r