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, The-Source.com 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.
Thread beginning with comment 453415
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ducker
Member since:
2006-12-26

"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. , "guilty" or not.

"
"The point is not that Android is or is not in violation of Oracle's patents," .. actually it IS that was my point.

"That alone is going to cost Google" .. actually it wont because google says the handset manufacturers will have to defend themselves in court. Lets see if android is seen to infringe java.. imagine the damages... all that software.. all those phones.. all that money lost. I thought we were trying to avoid patent litigation and here you are saying its a non issue. What are you trying to say here.. google can infringe but everyone else cant?


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.

What are you talking aobut .. these patents were before windows. The patent was in the days of DOS remember 3dfx cards? I never said nobody ever sued.. i just said theres many many patents that companies are NOT enforcing. Are u disagreeing with that? No your not because your hopefully not a complete idiot.. instead your trying to avoid the point.. which i made.. which is a fact.

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.


The law regarding reverse engineering in the computer software and hardware context is less clear, but has been described by many courts as an important part of software development. The reverse engineering of software faces considerable legal challenges due to the enforcement of anti reverse engineering licensing provisions and the prohibition on the circumvention of technologies embedded within protection measures. By enforcing these legal mechanisms, courts are not required to examine the reverse engineering restrictions under federal intellectual property law. In circumstances involving anti reverse engineering licensing provisions, courts must first determine whether the enforcement of these provisions within contracts are preempted by federal intellectual property law considerations. Under DMCA claims involving the circumvention of technological protection systems, courts analyze whether or not the reverse engineering in question qualifies under any of the exemptions contained within the law...

someone elses words not mine... reverse engineering is not simply protected and allowed in the usa.. its under legal debate.. so obviously you wouldnt want to reverse engineer anything ever if you were worried about legal issues. Since we are "worrying" about legal issues my point is perfectly valid.
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.

Refer to point ahead in the USA reverse engineering.. espcially when something is designed to prevent you doing it is sometimes illegal.

If your worried about legality DONT reverse engineer.


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.

You just said above MS HAS enforced file system patents above... ??? Remember im not saying MS will sue.. or wont.. im mearly saying theres are many patents help by many companies who have no intention of enforcing.

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)

This had little to do with the look and feel court case.. it was a functional patent not a style one. They patentent clicking on the top line of pixels and the great US of A gave them a patent for it.. ditto for amazon and the 1 click patent.

Go team america!

Ok so um exactly where wasnt i right?

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. [/q]

Reply Parent Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Under DMCA claims involving the circumvention of technological protection systems, courts analyze whether or not the reverse engineering in question qualifies under any of the exemptions contained within the law...

someone elses words not mine... reverse engineering is not simply protected and allowed in the usa.. its under legal debate.. so obviously you wouldnt want to reverse engineer anything ever if you were worried about legal issues. Since we are "worrying" about legal issues my point is perfectly valid.


WTF? What in heavens name are you on about?

The rules in the DMCA disallow reverse engineering of a "technological protection measure" which has been put in place to prevent copying of copyrighted content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.


The reverse engineering of networking protocols performed by the Samba team by examining messages "on the wire" does nothing of the kind. There is no "access to copyrighted works" that is circumvented. There is no disassembly of Microsoft code involved, and there is no copying of Microsoft code either in binary or source code form that results. No copyrights are broken by the activity.

The Samba code that is designed and written to implement the protocols is not a copy of Microsoft code, nor is it based on Microoft designs.

Furthermore, the Samba team now has specifications legally obtained from Microsft.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9836784-39.html
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-and-samba-finally-com...
http://www.pcworld.com/article/140786/microsoft_shares_windows_secr...

I think you must be VERY seriously confused here.

Edited 2010-12-14 10:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

ducker Member since:
2006-12-26

The rules in the DMCA disallow reverse engineering of a "technological protection measure" which has been put in place to prevent copying of copyrighted content.


A well versed internetaholic would realise i was aluding the fact the DMCA is often used when theres not any real encyption just a hidden set of apis.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/nov/28/apple-ipod

There is no disassembly of Microsoft code involved, and there is no copying of Microsoft code either in binary or source code form that results. No copyrights are broken by the activity.



Normally supporting a nondeclared 3rd party api (namespace) without reverse engineering is fully legal. Hence j# is allowed but isnt allowed to be called java.

If this dosent change then the whole point of this news item is mute. All its saying is mono (without reverse engineering or stealing ms code) has implemented a 3rd party api without permission.

Many programs do this not just microsoft.. (wine any emulation or vm software etc)...

Google is currently being sued by oracle for implementing java libraries namespace without permission. I would suggest this will fail based on information above.


The Samba code that is designed and written to implement the protocols is not a copy of Microsoft code, nor is it based on Microoft designs.


If oracle wins.. then samba can be sued by ms unless explicit permission is granted for use if ms say their networking protocols are part of its software protection. (see apple example above.. note this hasnt been proven in court properly yet)

...legally obtained from Microsft.

I didnt know that, thanks for the info. I beleive ms will NEVER sue mono as microsoft rarely sues anyone. Obviously implicit permission to use is implied when ms provided samba with the documentation so .. its extremely unlike ms would ever sue them (however perhaps potentially still within their right to if namespace patents are enforced.)

The issue you were mainly aluding to is that samba is a clean room implementation and so should be free of patent issues.. your right and i agree (so long as google wins that part of the case which it should as ms and others have previously).

Googles implementation of java is exactly the same as monos of .net only mono has semi direct permission from the owner.

This news item is just part of the pathetic media campaign to blind normal people from seeing the obvious hypocracy of the situation.

Google has issues with sun..
mono has never had any with microsoft (and has more rights to claim they have permission.)

If your worried about patent issues.. drop java/android and use .Net/mono

omg wtf ?? really?? think about it.. u know im right.

Reply Parent Score: 1