[Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello,

> > If you did such a careful study with your lawyer, would you mind
> > publishing it so others can review it?
> 
> And I suppose you would just turn over internal Ximian/Novell legal advice and 
> developer discussions should I ask for it?  Nice try to avoid the apology.

Rhys, I am not the one making claims that `Windows.Forms has no patent
violations', you are the one who claimed that you had done a careful
study. 

What I said is reflected on our FAQ: we dont believe that *any* of it is
patentable.  But if you are going to pick `Windows.Forms' as part of
your initiative of "apis which are absolutely not encumbered by a
patent", then I believe that Norbert is miss-leading the community and
it can not be the basis of a completely pure effort to have a
non-encumbered system.

You claim that you did a careful study on Windows.Forms and its
applicability to the patent, and that is why its excluded.  I do not
believe either you or Norbert did any careful study.  

For us to cooperate in this delicate matter, I must trust you, and so
far you are not giving me any sense of security.  If anything, you are
avoiding the topic, just like Darl McBride is. 

> Anyway, from the USPTO's guidelines on patentability [1]:
> 
>     The subject matter sought to be patented must be sufficiently different
>     from what has been used or described before that it may be said to be
>     nonobvious to a person having ordinary skill in the area of technology
>     related to the invention.  For example, the substitution of one material
>     for another, or changes in size, are ordinarily not patentable.
> 
> The last sentence is the important one: "the substitution of one material for 
> another".  Changing C++ in MFC into C# in Windows.Forms would seem to be 
> little more than a change in "material".

An excellent quote, worth keeping it around.

> Of course, we could be wrong - anything could happen once the C&D's start 
> flying.  Hence the hedge-betting on Qt# and Gtk#.
> 
> I (still) await your apology.  Accusing us of being deceptive, and then asking 
> that we prove your own accusation, is quite offensive.  And needless to say, 
> uncooperative.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rhys.
> 
> [1] http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#novelty
-- 
Miguel de Icaza <miguel@ximian.com>