positions. For example, the patents necessary to implement the
standards ECMA-334 (C#) and ECMA-335 (CLI) are available from Microsoft
"RAND + Royalty Free". Which shouldn't be surprising since all standard
organizations require RAND licenses to be available for patents
covering their standards. I mean, it wouldn't make much sense to create
a vendor neutral standard that was effectively controlled by a single
vendor due to patents.
-Matt
On Jun 10, 2004, at 5:04 AM, Geoff Bowers wrote:
> Dave Watts wrote:
> >>*yawn*��here we go again -- dancing in semantics land with
> >>Matt. Note my use of quotes (I guess not) -- in any event...
> >
> > The problem with your dancing lesson is that Matt is absolutely
> correct in
> > his insistence on semantic accuracy in this case, because it
> matters. You're
> > stepping on his toes!
>
> A guy can't make a facetious comment on this list anymore without the
> semantic police getting their toes crushed :)
>
> Well if the semantics matter.... who owns the patent and/or trademark
> for Java, C#??��Cos you see, if someone owns a patent/trademark on
> something then that patent/trademark is the very definition of
> proprietary in the dictionary.��It has little if anything to do with
> standards; real, imagined or de-facto.
>
> -- geoff
> http://www.daemon.com.au/
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
