Slashdot Mirror
80% of MS Server Protocols Are Unpatented
perlow writes "ZDNet blogger Jason Perlow and Centrify's Tom Kemp discover that 80 percent of all Microsoft server protocols are un-patented. What exactly then, did SAMBA license? Are Microsoft's patent and intellectual property threats simply the growls of a paper tiger?"
... afterall, to patent them, they would need to describe them :)
Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
Why should a server protocol be patented? A patent should be for something you don't want copied. If I were selling servers I'd want to interoperate with clients and other servers.
Oh, Microsoft. Never mind, my bad.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
ZDNet blogger Jason Perlow and Centrify's Tom Kemp discover that 80 percent of all Microsoft server protocols are un-patented. What exactly then, did SAMBA license?
Is this article trying to present me with the logic: 80% of protocols are un-patented, therefore SMB is un-patented?
Because I don't see how that follows at all. Is SMB part of the 80% or part of the 20%? If you want to know what SAMBA licensed, why don't you just ask them? I'm sure they'd know...
Comment of the year
Google has the patent on toilets used for a server protocol. See http://www.google.com/tisp/index.html