[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered

From: Seth Johnson
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 23:29:04 -0400

I don't like making "apis that are absolutely not encumbered by a [software]
patent."  Not too sure that's possible in America in the first place.  I
like being able to make things regardless of software patents, and if I want
the code to survive, doing that in a way that's as safe legally as possible.


Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Hello,
> > > If you did such a careful study with your lawyer, would you mind
> > > publishing it so others can review it?
> >
> > And I suppose you would just turn over internal Ximian/Novell legal advice 
> > and
> > developer discussions should I ask for it?  Nice try to avoid the apology.
> Rhys, I am not the one making claims that `Windows.Forms has no patent
> violations', you are the one who claimed that you had done a careful
> study.
> What I said is reflected on our FAQ: we dont believe that *any* of it is
> patentable.  But if you are going to pick `Windows.Forms' as part of
> your initiative of "apis which are absolutely not encumbered by a
> patent", then I believe that Norbert is miss-leading the community and
> it can not be the basis of a completely pure effort to have a
> non-encumbered system.
> You claim that you did a careful study on Windows.Forms and its
> applicability to the patent, and that is why its excluded.  I do not
> believe either you or Norbert did any careful study.
> For us to cooperate in this delicate matter, I must trust you, and so
> far you are not giving me any sense of security.  If anything, you are
> avoiding the topic, just like Darl McBride is.
> > Anyway, from the USPTO's guidelines on patentability [1]:
> >
> >     The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different
> >     from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be
> >     nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology
> >     related to the invention.  For example, the substitution of one material
> >     for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.
> >
> > The last sentence is the important one: "the substitution of one material 
> > for
> > another".  Changing C++ in MFC into C# in Windows.Forms would seem to be
> > little more than a change in "material".
> An excellent quote, worth keeping it around.
> > Of course, we could be wrong - anything could happen once the C&D's start
> > flying.  Hence the hedge-betting on Qt# and Gtk#.
> >
> > I (still) await your apology.  Accusing us of being deceptive, and then 
> > asking
> > that we prove your own accusation, is quite offensive.  And needless to say,
> > uncooperative.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Rhys.
> >
> > [1]
> --
> Miguel de Icaza <address@hidden>
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden


DRM is Theft!  We are the Stakeholders!

New Yorkers for Fair Use

[CC] Counter-copyright:

I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of
this incidentally recorded communication.  Original authorship should be
attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for
usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of
exclusive rights.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]