On Sunday 19 November 2006 12:49, M. Fioretti wrote: ...
If there were patented algorithms in the (open source, as in everybody can read it !! ) kernel ( or FSF core ) then it would have surfaced long ago... SCO would have won...
This is just what I meant when I said "confusion": SCO sued for break of trade secrets and copyright. Not for patent violation. It was IBM that, just to hurt SCO as much as possible, threw in a few patent violations in the _counterclaim_ .
Hi Marco, The confusion is bad adviser, but it is so if people don't want to look for definitions of copyright and patent. I read some titles of patents today, and whoever claims that patent violating code can be removed easily, lives in some other world. Who thinks that this is not the fact should look at http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/PTO/search-adv.htm and enter in Query field "an/microsoft" and later "an/novell" and look just titles of patents. Both have patents on methods that are essential for computing. I can recall that in some early discussions was asked, what makes situation after agreement different than before? The answer was nothing. Both parties had the same portfolio before, agreement didn't change legal system a bit, so patents were and are enforcable. The only thing that some can complain is that agreement left them in the air, but we talking about two companies out of myriad. Have anybody looked in other companies portfolios about anything related to computing. There is almost nothing that one can write about that is not protected, so patent violations are all over. The only thing that prevents one to start suing is fear from retaliation. I can imagine if anybody tries to disturb the balance, it can expect to be attacked from all directions. This agreement doesn't change environment a bit. It is more psychological move that will tell their customers that they do something. -- Regards, Rajko M. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org