On Tuesday 14 August 2007, Jarl Stefansson wrote: >I would think about this long and hard before committing, having a legal >entity opens up the possibility of getting sued in any number of >countries where (software) patents are enforceable. > Good point.
>As EMC becomes more popular I would imagine several big players in the >industrial control market could drag us into courts and bankrupt the >legal entity regardless of the case merits. Duh, does not EMC contain, due to its NIST history, more than sufficient prior art to quash most of those? >An alternative might be to start a non-profit fund/foundation to promote >future work on EMC which would not be legally responsible for actions of >individual EMC developers. That's a bit less appetizing IMO. >Jarl >(dallur) [...] -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Does the name Pavlov ring a bell? ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
