[Mono-list] Re: Mono-list digest, Vol 1 #284 - 23 msgs

[Brian Crowell]

> This whole document is a LICENSE. The claims in section 3.2 are only
> vaild if you recieved and read the Technical Reference in the first
> place.

Perhaps I misunderstood. I was under the impression that Microsoft was
setting its terms for producing _any_ implementation of CIFS -- that all
implementations of CIFS must be based on the CIFS Technical Reference and
fall under Microsoft's license. The language that confuses me is in 1.6,
which defines patents that "(b) are necessarily infringed by implementing
the CIFS communication protocol as set forth in the Technical Reference,
wherein a claim is necessarily infringed only when there are no technically
reasonable alternatives to such infringement."

Does this language mean that (1) you infringe the patent only if you
implement CIFS exactly as set forth in the Technical Reference, or that (2)
you infringe the patent only if you implement CIFS, which is described in
the Technical Reference? #1 is your interpretation, and would exclude Samba,
but #2 was my interpretation, which would include Samba. Could it be taken
either way?


> As for the DMCA, I would suggest you read it, yourself, it is not that
> long. But the jist of the clause is that you must by law allow others to
> interoperate with your products, ie  you can't lock people out of
> competing with you.

I have found the clause you refer to. Very interesting. It's apparent it'll
take a real laywer to make sense of half of it though, since a lot of the
DMCA refers to previous law.

--Brian

---