On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:52:47AM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 11:48 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:05:21PM +0100, Reinhard Mueller wrote: > > > Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2008, 00:06 +0000 schrieb Rui Miguel Silva > > > Seabra: > > > > > MS was forced to tell what it claimed to be patents instead of FUDing > > > > > "We have xxx patents on this". > > > > > > > > Oh really? Can you point me to the lists? > > > > > > http://samba.org/samba/PFIF/PFIF_agreement.pdf > > > Page 46 to 55 > > > > Wrong, those are "third parties". > > It seems you're looking at the wrong page(s). > > Page 45 lists claims from third parties Microsoft has been notified by. > > Pages 46 through 55 list Microsoft owned/controlled patents in the US > and EU, and patent applications.
I repeated my "procedure" and noticed that in my pagedown after page 45 "Appendix iv" got hidden just above the upper limit of the window, so I thought they where a listing. > Hope that helps, Now it makes sense. Still: => recognising validity of Microsoft's software patents. => foot, meet bullet Rui -- Fnord. Today is Pungenday, the 8th day of Chaos in the YOLD 3174 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
