Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> did eloquently scribble:
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 10:58:22 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| What I would like to say to Steve is echoing Pamela Jones's sentiments.
>>| Tell us where it is, Steve--this infringement you speak of. I'm sure
>>| lots of people will be willing to pick up a metaphorical scalpel and
>>| dig out the offending bit of code. I wouldn?t want to OWE you, Steve.
>> `----
> Wow, this is so wrong on so many levels. First, the "oops, we're sorry, we
> won't do it again" defense won't hold up. Microsoft had to pay Eolas
> millions of dollars for a very tiny patent they were then enjoined from
> using afterwards. A company like Red Hat could be liable for thousands of
> dollars in royalties (and penalties) for each distributed copy of Linux.
They've got to prove there's something they're liable FOR first.
Only microsoft can do that, and ooo look, they're pulling a SCO.
They've not, have they. They just leave the implication that there is to
scare people off linux without giving away any specifics.
> Second, this assumes there is an offending "bit" of code. A patent could
> cover a broad invention that could cover thousands or even millions of
> lines of code.
And would most likely be struck down due to prior art.
Microsoft innovation? hah, they use other people's work.
Unless you can think of one single thing they INVENTED.
(that is, something that hadn't been done before, something the didn't just
re-implement)
SMB? It's only a file server capability. NFS has been doing that for over a
decade.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
| spike1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell BSc(hons)| |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
