I don't use the .NET web services classes, and I haven't read the whole patent application, and even if I did IANAL. With that said, doesn't Java provide these types of services as well? So there is prior art as far as the functionality goes. My understanding of the patent, however, is that MS is claiming the actual namespaces and class names used by .NET, in which case there really can be no prior art, unless someone else has used these exact namespaces before. It is ridiculous that this kind of thing can be patented, but since it can I don't blame MS for doing it.
A fallback approach, should MS come after Mono, would be to rearrange the web services classes under a different namespace. And if you really want to get after it, you could propose this alternate layout as a standard. I don't know what's involved in getting ECMA approval, but it's a thought. Jason 379 Mitchell Skinner wrote:
3. "Compatibility is not our main goal, anyway." -- This may be true for Ximian, but if the goal of compatibility goes away so will a huge amount of interest (and participation) in mono. 4. Actually produce some prior art. I think this is a good precaution to take. Any other objections to this patent (objections that the PTO might listen to) are also great. I think this needs to be discussed. Uncertainty about it is going to keep potential users and contributors away in droves.
_______________________________________________ Mono-list maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list
