[Mono-list] Re: someone, please clear out that patents issue

[J. Perkins]

I don't use the .NET web services classes, and I haven't
read the whole patent application, and even if I did IANAL.
With that said, doesn't Java provide these types of services
as well? So there is prior art as far as the functionality
goes. My understanding of the patent, however, is that MS is
claiming the actual namespaces and class names used by .NET,
in which case there really can be no prior art, unless someone
else has used these exact namespaces before. It is ridiculous
that this kind of thing can be patented, but since it can I
don't blame MS for doing it.

A fallback approach, should MS come after Mono, would be to
rearrange the web services classes under a different namespace.
And if you really want to get after it, you could propose this
alternate layout as a standard. I don't know what's involved in
getting ECMA approval, but it's a thought.

Jason
379


Mitchell Skinner wrote:
> 3.  "Compatibility is not our main goal, anyway." -- This may be true
> for Ximian, but if the goal of compatibility goes away so will a huge
> amount of interest (and participation) in mono.
> 
> 4.  Actually produce some prior art.  I think this is a good precaution
> to take.  Any other objections to this patent (objections that the PTO
> might listen to) are also great.
> 
> I think this needs to be discussed.  Uncertainty about it is going to
> keep potential users and contributors away in droves.