Re: [DotGNU]IBM, Microsoft plot Net takeover

[David Sugar]

As far as I recall, the patents involved refer to specific "extensions" 
to SOAP, rather than to a reference or "standard" implimentation.  One 
could simply, for example, create an "extension" to HTTP and then 
similarly misuse the patent system to make some patent claim on it 
(https? :), but this does not invalidate or encumber the original 
standard or reference implimentations of the original standard or our 
ability to create free software for or using the original standard.  

The risk is one where the extension becomes a defacto standard onto 
itself or one a maliable standards body might wish to endorse, like what 
happened to https.  With the way current patent laws are enforced in 
this country, this can potentially happen to any protocol family and 
represents a common risk to software freedom everywhere.  Certainly it 
is not a specific problem unique to SOAP.

Barry Fitzgerald wrote:

> Bill Lance wrote:
>
> > >      1) Fight the patent
> > That's not to likely to be productive.
>
> Well, that depends on whether or not there is prior art.  If there is,
> then their patent is invalid.  Since SOAP is a derivitive of other
> transports - I'm willing to bet that there is significant prior art. 
> The trick beyond that is getting a legal fund and a lawyer to beat the
> patent.  If we absolutely have to implement SOAP, it's an option.
>
>
>
> > >      2) Not use SOAP
> > >
> > > Which is done by the community depends on how
> > > important SOAP becomes.  I
> > > suspect that patent encumbering SOAP will only kill
> > > SOAP over time.
> > If MapPoint is an example of the  pricing, it's likely
> > to be a lot quicker than 'over time'.  What amazes me
> > about the Hailstorm fiasco is that MS seemed to invest
> > so heavily in the model with what, in hind site, must
> > have been NO competent market research into it's real
> > demand.
>
> Heh - well, it's Microsoft.  They seem to think that the world is on
> their side regardless of what they do.  I think that's why they dodged
> through the anti-trust trial so much.  It's not that they were lying. 
> They actually seem to think that everything they do has consumer
> benefit, even if it's sole purpose is to take cash out of consumer
> pockets and put it into the MS bank account.  Some of what's going on
> must really be a wake-up call for them.
>
>         -Barry
> _______________________________________________
> Developers mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://subscribe.dotgnu.org/mailman/listinfo/developers