Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
The actual *creation* of Mono is now suspect since it isn't considered to be a "clean room" implementation, anymore.
You're confusing copyright and patent law. There's no such thing as a "clean room implementation" in patent law.
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.
Fair enough, then. What makes you think a "clean room implementation" would protect you from patent infringement, then?
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.
Yep. That's true. But that doesn't mean the same doesn't apply to every other piece of technology out there.
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.
And then you pay the patent license fee. Welcome to the wonderful world of patents.
-- Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST) -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
