Women in Technology

Article:		Will Mono Become the Preferred Platform for Linux Development?
Subject:		Patent isses with Microsoft remain a problem.
Date:		2004-03-11 19:59:09
From:		nzheretic
As a long time critic of the Mono projects position on the Microsoft patents, I am relieved that after more than a year since the patent issues were raised, Miguel and Novell legal staff are currently conducting a formal patent review of mono. However, even if the project is split into two distinct partitions of ECMA-based and non-ECMA components, how easy is it going to be for the third part developers adding components to the ECMA-based partition to know that he is not treading on Microsoft's patents by implementing functionality defined in Microsoft's .NET patents? For example, in the graphic from the patents section of the Mono FAQ... http://primates.ximian.com/~miguel/tmp/map.png XmlRpc.NET and RelaxNG will likely confict with Microsoft's patent application 20020059425 : Distributed computing services platform. Although there is prior art examples of individual technologies such as the JVM etc, Microsoft patents such as the one mentioned, define and claim the interoperation of the components and the .NET platform. There is NO way to work-around the issue, no amount of renaming the API calls or reimplementing the methords used will invalidate the patents.

Showing messages 1 through 3 of 3.

• Patent isses with Microsoft remain a problem.
  2004-03-12 00:37:55  gameboy1234 [View]
  
  
  OMG Miguel p\/\/0|\|3d U!!!!1!111!one!!!eleven!!

• Patent isses with Microsoft remain a problem.
  2004-03-11 21:01:55  aminorex [View]
  
  
  > There is NO way to work-around the issue, no
  > amount of renaming the API calls or reimplementing
  > the methords used will invalidate the patents.
  
  How true. Why, even doing your development in
  Java or KDE/C++ or CommonLISP won't invalidate the
  patents.
  
  

• Patent isses with Microsoft remain a problem.
  2004-03-11 20:47:00  migueldeicaza [View]
  
  
  I went to read the patent you have pointed out
  to, and I have failed to see how is it related
  to XMLRPC.NET or RelaxNG.
  
  It applies certainly to a distributed system of
  some form, but it does not seem to have any relation
  to XMLRPC.NET or RelaxNG.
  
  It seems like you read over the "Abstract" part of
  a patent, get scared, cry wolf, and come post to
  the forum. You must read the claims, and
  review point by point what is being described
  there. They begin with very broad strokes
  (sometimes due to prior art it will not apply)
  and the refinement describes possible implementation
  strategies for it.
  
  The link you posted has no relationship with
  with what we are doing; You would do yourself
  a favor if you stop pretending to be a patent
  attorney.
  
  Miguel