On Saturday 25 November 2006 18:29, Ian Malone wrote: > grumpy wrote: > > On Saturday 25 November 2006 17:38, Benjamin Franz wrote: > >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2006, grumpy wrote: > >> > >> [...] > >> > >>> It won't go anywhere because micro$ux would have to release their > >>> source code to prove infringement > >> > >> You are thinking copyright. If there is a _patent_ violation all they > >> would need to do is point to the patent - they are public documents > >> (they have to be, with a few specific exceptions such as where the > >> government can premptively classify a patent for national security > >> reasons). > >> > >> They don't even have to be using the patent for anything. They most > >> certainly would not have to release any source code. > > > > you still have to prove infringement you can't just say joe blow software > > is infringing on my patent the judge says How? you say they just are we > > have a patent. the judge says and how does that infringe on your patent? > > This is a road that micro$ux will not take to the bitter end > > You have to prove infringement, but you prove that the other > party is infringing your patent (the patent being published > and, theoretically[1] public knowledge). They would not > need to publish source code, and even if they did have to > show source code to a court it would still be protected by > patent laws /and/ copyright (the MS code is no big secret, > you can get a license to see it if you have enough money). > With open source they don't even have to subpoena or > anything like that, they can just download the source and > look for pieces that infringe[2]. > > [1] One of the problems with the whole system is that the > proliferation of patents has made it had to follow what's > been published, and they can be deliberately obscure. > c.f. gif/LZW debacle for an occasion when a patented technique > was widely used _because no-one realised_. The original > intent was that the method was made public knowledge in > exchange for a temporary monopoly to protect the investment > of time. This is versus trade secrets where you can keep your > monopoly indefinitely provided no-one else independently > (industrial espionage is still illegal) invents the technique. > My problem with this apparent MS posturing (maybe of course > it's an ill-advised publicity statement), is that they want > to have their cake and eat it; trade secret obscurity with the > monopolistic protection of patents. > > [2] IANAL, so I don't know whether such a fishing expedition > is legal (you can acquire the code with this intent without > going to court), but in practice it's hard to prevent anyway, > and there's nothing really unfair about it. I remember a talk I attended about Reverse Engineering There are some well tested rules that you have to follow...but it is possible > > -- > imalone
