[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra<rms 1407 org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra<rms 1407 org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> >> > The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
>> >> > infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
>> >> >
>> >> > [1] => means you can't do it with GPL
>> >>
>> >> It explicitly grant this right.
>> >
>> > What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without the right.
>> >
>> > And you have no right!
>> If I told you "you can do whatever you want with this and I won't sue
>> you" or "you have the right to implement this"
>> Where exactly is the difference?
> In one you can be sued (because it's not only Microsoft who can do that in some
> jurisdictions) and you're doing something which is illegal.
> In the other you're lawfully using legally granted rights.
> Where exactly is the difference? I don't know, what do you think?

In which jurisdictions can somebody sue me because I infringe a US
Patent of a different company?
And no I am not doing something illegal because the company which
holds the patents stated in a legally binding document that I can
implement this standards as long as I don't sue them over a patent
that is covered by the CP.

>> > Further down (in the FAQ, outside the promise) you're told you need to get a
>> > RAND or RAND-Z license to have the rights.
>> Source?
> It's in the FAQ, which you would know by now if you read the promise and the FAQ
> instead of trusting Microsoft's employees.

I did read the FAQ and I could not find what you are referring to so I
asked. But ok lets quote the FAQ:

Q: Why does Microsoft obtain patents that apply to specifications to
which the Community Promise apply? Is that something that others do

A: Microsoft invests a significant amount of resources in research and
development efforts. Like any other company that commits such
resources to creating new technologies, Microsoft seeks to protect its
investment by obtaining patents on the resulting innovations. At a
minimum, patents have value in defending Microsoft with regard to
patent infringement claims made by others. Many patent owners use
their patents defensively to protect themselves against third-party
law suits when they make their patents available under reasonable and
non-discriminatory (RAND or RAND-Z) terms and conditions (including
promises like the CP).

(The only text that mentions RAND or RAND-Z)

How do you conclude that you need one to get the rights to do anything.
They just try to justifity why the filled patents to begin with.
There is no "you need a RAND or RAND-Z license to implement the
standards that are covered by this promise", no matter how you read

>> > You don't need a lawyer to distinguish between
>> >  a) having a right
>> > or
>> >  b) not being sued if you infringe
>> >
>> So what? "not being sued" is the key here... (does not matter how they
>> phrase it, see above)
>> You try to find holes, without backing it up with any citation so sure
>> you need a lawyer to clarification this.
> I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what
> is in the mouth of marketing agents.
> Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times
> more than a marketing agent's tongue.

No you did not, you are interpreting the text in the way you want.
"I don't trust MS so it must have holes", while blindly trusting
anybody is wrong, I don't see the point in making up points that do
not exits in the text.
Neither in the promise itself nor in the FAQ.

In order to get 100% clearance consult a lawyer I doubt that any
lawyer would interprets it the way you do.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]