Hello folks!
Facts: Microsoft did not claim to hold patents on these technologies. They are offering to license "any applicable intellectual property rights that Microsoft may have in regard to these technologies".
Of course you may say that they has no claim. You would be right if he claimed all rights to the usage of many of these protocols, but he doesn't(at least not yet). Probably what is in mind here is that he is offering to license out the rights that have, can, or will be secured by Microsoft at some point. For example, the use of a given protocol in so far as it interacts with SQL server, or WINXP. You may have paid for XP, but did you pay for the right to connect it to the Internet? Or more specifically for the ability to have your http request processed on the IIS server run by XYZ.com
In effect they are circumventing the (by now grounded to a halt) US patent system. Instead of leasing a patent, they are leasing the rights to the potential rights etc. Bottom line, they may have no rights, in which case buying the license isn't worth the paper its written on. More likely, Big Bill is using the ability to claim "Prior Art" as a defense against anyone else's claims (whether they have been made yet or not). In essence what it does is allows for his rights to be established without even filing a claim. So as long as he can claim prior art even if it was 20 years ago, he will retain his rights until 20 years from the day he files (which could be today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now if no one makes him).
Anyway I drag on, sorry I just thought I'd turn this discussion back towards law.
-Kraloftian
Slashdot Mirror
Hello folks! Facts: Microsoft did not claim to hold patents on these technologies. They are offering to license "any applicable intellectual property rights that Microsoft may have in regard to these technologies". Of course you may say that they has no claim. You would be right if he claimed all rights to the usage of many of these protocols, but he doesn't(at least not yet). Probably what is in mind here is that he is offering to license out the rights that have, can, or will be secured by Microsoft at some point. For example, the use of a given protocol in so far as it interacts with SQL server, or WINXP. You may have paid for XP, but did you pay for the right to connect it to the Internet? Or more specifically for the ability to have your http request processed on the IIS server run by XYZ.com In effect they are circumventing the (by now grounded to a halt) US patent system. Instead of leasing a patent, they are leasing the rights to the potential rights etc. Bottom line, they may have no rights, in which case buying the license isn't worth the paper its written on. More likely, Big Bill is using the ability to claim "Prior Art" as a defense against anyone else's claims (whether they have been made yet or not). In essence what it does is allows for his rights to be established without even filing a claim. So as long as he can claim prior art even if it was 20 years ago, he will retain his rights until 20 years from the day he files (which could be today, tomorrow, or 10 years from now if no one makes him). Anyway I drag on, sorry I just thought I'd turn this discussion back towards law. -Kraloftian