[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangere
From: |
Gopal V |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs? |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:28:49 -0700 (PDT) |
Hi Miguel ,
> Rhys, I am not the one making claims that
> `Windows.Forms has no patent
> violations', you are the one who claimed that you
> had done a careful
> study.
...
> What I said is reflected on our FAQ: we dont believe
> that *any* of it is
> patentable.
That is a huge assumption to make, good luck if you
want to risk that. Also I hope you have done a
risk assesment with your company lawyer. If you have
such a document , it would also be worth seeing as
that would solve all of the problems. (but as Rhys
has said, that's not done so easily, right ?)
Also on your side , Mono is using Wine and wrapping
over it to produce Winforms -- which is more of a
wrapper over MFC than dotgnu has. In reality that
is more of a risk , using an MFC binary level
emulation. X11 based implementations only implement
API, but Mono winforms seem to be even more
vulnerable in such a situation.
> You claim that you did a careful study on
> Windows.Forms and its
> applicability to the patent, and that is why its
> excluded. I do not
> believe either you or Norbert did any careful study.
Challenging the honesty of developers is a bad way
to start co-operation.
You could have provided a definite and polite "No"
towards the efforts to co-operation if you don't
want to. But please don't insult dotgnu for the
efforts to protect dotgnu users (as well as mono
users, as in the thread) from US E-Patents. Please
don't try to undermine the good intentions of
the effort.
Gopal
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
- RE: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, (continued)
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Rhys Weatherley, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Miguel de Icaza, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Rhys Weatherley, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Miguel de Icaza, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Rhys Weatherley, 2003/10/11
- Re: [Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Ian MacLean, 2003/10/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?, Seth Johnson, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?,
Gopal V <=
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?, Seth Johnson, 2003/10/11
- Re: [Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Paolo Molaro, 2003/10/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Norbert Bollow, 2003/10/13
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Adam Ballai, 2003/10/13
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?, Seth Johnson, 2003/10/11
- RE: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, jscottb, 2003/10/12
[DotGNU]ECMA Standard Base classes and Assemblies., jscottb, 2003/10/10