Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Dec 2010 19:27 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project For the most time, I've been firmly in the largest camp when it comes to the Mono debate - the 'I don't care'-camp. With patent lawsuits being hotter than Lady Gaga right now, that changed. For good reason, so it seems; while firmly in the 'ZOMG-MICROSOFT-IS-T3H-EVILL!1!!ONE!'-camp, investigated the five most popular Mono applications, and the conclusion is clear: all of them implement a lot of namespaces which are not covered by Microsoft's community promise thing.
Permalink for comment 453413
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Only in the fanboy wars of osnews would a point like this go unnoticed...
"That would be a crazy though but could mono have replicate the namespace name for compatibility sake and make a compatible implementation without copying the actual implementation, if true then they should be safe right ? "

Of COURSE your right.. thats how come MS can have j# (or j++) but cant call it java.

Thats the premise ANDROID is based on.

The point is not that Android is or is not in violation of Oracle's patents, but rather the point is that Oracle can make enough of an accusation to be able to bring Android to court. That alone is going to cost Google, "guilty" or not.

I would rather represent myself in court than take any legal advice from here. You people are delusional.. havent you realised almost everything in a pc has an infringing patent?

You all were obviously born yesterday and dont remember...
memory mapped files (owned by sgi).. sold to 3dfx.. purchases by MS for the xbox.. every graphics implementation of open GL and every graphics card infringes on this MS HAS NOT SUED

That was when MS could win by its tactic of pressuring OEMs to offer nothing but Windows to consumers. That isn't going to work in the mobile market, as the article points out Microsoft does not control the OEMs in this market.

BTW, Microsoft HAS sued TomTom and Motorola over FAT long file names.

SAMBA Reverse engineered from MS standards (isnt that illegal in the US?)

No, not at all. Reverse engineering is a perfectly valid approach to try to uncover a trade secret. SMB is IBM's invention, not Microsoft's, so the only "IP protection" Microsoft has over its networking software is the fact that its implementation is a trade secret.

and reversed the security apis (isnt that breaking DMCA if ms declares their code to be obfuscating)

How does Samba recording and analysing "data on the wire" represent an attempt to uncover Microsoft copyrighted code? This is what you need to attempt to answer.

FAT 32 support for linux

FAT 32 is not patented (long file names on FAT filesystems are). Linux doesn't write both long file names and short file names.

, NTFS support for linux

This one is problematical. However, I don't see how Microsoft can really expect to uphold any patent on a filesystem ... there are heaps of filesystems as prior art.

Apple patented the top line of pixels on the screen (thats why windows menus at the bottom).. MS now breaks this patent (you can close a window by clicking on the top line of pixles only AFTER win2k not before)

Apple lost its "look and feel" lawsuit against Microsoft.

I am so sick of this site being ruined by spamming of people who simply dont understand what they are talking about.

Then perhaps you need to go away and figure out what you are talking about then.

Edited 2010-12-14 04:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3