Darren New wrote:
Since the code is now released, you can rewrite the Java/JVM code to
go *around* any patent. You can't do that with the CLR.
You've heard of Mono, yes? Why can't you rewrite Mono to "go around" any
patent?
Because Mono now has a "Microsoft patent license" implication thanks to
Novell. The actual *creation* of Mono is now suspect since it isn't
considered to be a "clean room" implementation, anymore.
(Incidentally, I'm pretty sure you never litigated any software patents,
or you wouldn't be quite so flip about it.)
Wrong. I've been through this several times. I actually provided the
testimony for a rather novel defense for breaking a "submarine" patent.
It had to do with the fact that the language used in the patent hadn't
been invented at the time they claimed it was filed.
Besides Microsoft doesn't *care* whether the patents are valid. They
have them, and it costs money to *overturn* them. You have to *fight
off* Microsoft, and very few people have that kind of resources.
Pretty much. As long as Java/JVM remains a viable alternative,
Microsoft will leave the open source CLR/.Net people alone. The
moment CLR/.Net becomes the dominant player, then they'll cut them off.
I fail to see how that makes any business sense. In any case, who would
they sue?
Any business that uses something based on Mono.
Microsoft doesn't care if Miguel de Icaza masturbates to .Net fantasies.
They do care if businesses start developing large applications that
bypass their control by using non-Windows development tools and
environments. Consequently, they will go after the businesses that
*use* Mono rather than create it.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
