To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The list is already published. From a short glance, it's:
- some OO optimization techniques (static initialization stuff, class preloading)
- a few JIT techniques
- security policy stuff (can class X be loaded? what kind of access does it have to the rest of the world?)
Of course it only covers "compatible" implementations.
Let's say that one of their patents isn't utter bullshit. Let's say that Outlook's PST format specification actually does something innovative and unique that's worth protecting - maybe they lifted a feature from Sql Server.
Let's also say I want to use this innovative feature in my database engine. If Microsoft allowed their PST patent exemption to cover "non-compatible" implementations, I could call my database engine a partial implementation of the PST format and get that patent exemption.
The point is that they're fine with you implementing a PST reader/writer library, but it's not cool if you pick and choose any of their patents and use them for other things.
Edited 2010-08-13 15:28 UTC




Member since:
2005-07-06
This is only partially correct. As far as I recall, the Microsoft patent exemption only covers compatible implementations of .net (such as Mono). If one were to implement a semi-compatible clr which infringes on Microsoft's patents, one would be open for a patent infringement lawsuit.
It will be interesting to see which patents Oracle are claiming infringement on.
Disclaimer: I'm a big fan of both Mono and Java.