We had this discussion last week. The problem is in section 3 of the SCA, regarding the granting of patent rights. The structure and layout of the sentence leads to two possible interpretations, one granting rights to patents included in the contribution, but the other interpretation is that it grants rights to all patents owned by the contributor.
As Casper is saying, strictly speaking and according to the rules of law, it may not be ambiguous at all. However, the fact that a reasonable person reading the sentence might interpret it the other way suggests that it could be worded better, even if a court would never interpret it that way. Of course, simply removing the ambiguous parts would not be an option. Clarifying them would be. Trond Norbye wrote: > Joerg Schilling wrote: >> All I ask Sun is to remove the ambiguous parts. >> >> > > Could you please let me know what you think is ambiguous? > > Cheers, > > Trond > > > -- blu "Murderous organizations have increased in size and scope; they are more daring, they are served by the most terrible weapons offered by modern science, and the world is nowadays threatened by new forces which, if recklessly unchained, may some day wreak universal destruction." - Arthur Griffith, 1898 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Utterback - Solaris RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc. Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
