RE: [DotGNU]Re: microsoft patents

[Thong \(Tum\) Nguyen]

I don't see how the patent could possibly be upheld.  There's too much
prior art.

They didn't invent the algorithms.  They didn't really invent the design
(much of it was copied from Java and other sources).  So what are they
going to patent?  Class and method names?

^Tum

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bradley M. Kuhn [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Thursday, 13 February 2003 6:37 a.m.
> To: David Sugar
> Cc: Rhys Weatherley; address@hidden
> Subject: [DotGNU]Re: microsoft patents
> 
> David's points on RAND are quite correct.  For the patent to be
> implementable in GPL'ed Free Software, it has to be licensed under a
RF
> license without any field of use restrictions.
> 
> This is what we expected, folks -- they chose ECMA precisely because
EMCA
> has a clear policy to allow RAND patents to be in held on the
> specification.  I am not sure there is much we can do but wait and see
> what the patent office does with it.  We may have a patent fight on
our
> hands by the by.
> 
> Rhys, do you have any information if they are also pursuing the patent
> application in Australia?
> 
>    -- bkuhn
> --
> Learn more about my work for FSF and how you can help:
>      http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=bkuhn&p=FSF