Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 19th Sep 2005 17:02 UTC, submitted by Eli M. Dow
Mono Project Build applications for Linux while maintaining cross-platform capabilities using .NET languages.
Thread beginning with comment 33612
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Summary of arguments
by on Mon 19th Sep 2005 20:35 UTC in reply to "Summary of arguments"

Member since:

>Have I missed anything?

Just that MS has a fairly broad patent application for .NET.

See -- ".Net patent could stifle standards effort"

If this patent is approved, I'd like to see how Miguel could "rewrite around" it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Summary of arguments
by Jamie on Mon 19th Sep 2005 21:34 in reply to "RE: Summary of arguments"
Jamie Member since:

Most software patents are flawed and unenforcable and when challenged in court the majority dont stand up.

Broad patents are especially vulnerable to being overruled in a court as its one of the main things a judge will take into account.

Lastly, anti-monoopoly laws prohibit a monopolist from using patents to stifle legitimate competition so MS's entire patent haul is totally worthless (whilst they remain a monopolist of course).

Additional : in the EU and generally outside the US software patents are worthless and unenforcable period.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Summary of arguments
by on Mon 19th Sep 2005 21:41 in reply to "RE[2]: Summary of arguments"
Member since:

So we know that MS has a broad patent application for .NET which (if granted) mono probably infringes.

But you say we should ignore the risk because the patent "probably won't be valid".

Sorry no thanks.

I have a simple solution for the Mono fans, why doesn't Novell get MS to clarify the licensing requirements for the .NET IP? This will settle the issue once and for all.

Reply Parent Score: 1