http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono

[drago01]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra<rms at 1407.org> wrote:

>> And no I am not doing something illegal because the company which
>> holds the patents stated in a legally binding document that I can
>> implement this standards as long as I don't sue them over a patent
>> that is covered by the CP.
>
> Yes, you're possibly doing something illegal, in the US it's called
> patent infringement.
>
> They just "promised" (and their word is worthless in this regard) not to sue you.

So what about the patents owned by redhat?
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
It's also just "promise".

You claim that this is a worthless statement, but others (including MS
here) claim that this is a legal binding document.
So we need a lawyer or better a court decision to clear this up.


>> (The only text that mentions RAND or RAND-Z)
>>
>> How do you conclude that you need one to get the rights to do anything.
>
> Two things:
>
>  1) they told so in several TC that analysed MS-OOXML, and even *promised*
>    to bring these terms to the TCs. Guess what? The promise was worthless.

Only because it is called "promise" in the sense "we will bring this
terms" it is not legaly binding.
This document is different.

>    they *promised* to get these terms to some companies. Where are the
>    terms? Microsoft doesn't even answer anymore.

See above.

> and
>
>  2) Because, as the *promise* quite clearly tells you so:
>
>        No other rights except those expressly stated in this promise shall
>        be deemed granted, waived or received by implication, exhaustion,
>        estoppel, or otherwise.

Yes but we are talking about the things stated here.

> Since they don't give you a license (just promise not to sue) you haven't
> got any right. The FAQ subtly reveals there's RAND or RAND-Z terms, and tries
> to fool you into believing "not suing" == "granting rights"
>
> In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
> promise down the drain.

Same applies to Redhat.

>> They just try to justifity why the filled patents to begin with.
>
> You think filing software patents is correct? It may be legal in the US and
> a few other countries, but while filing a few software patents in the US
> may be viewed as a defense strategy in a software patent infected country,
> filing them by the thousands, even in countries where they're invalid, but
> you'll still have to pay possibly hundreds of thousands of Euros to prove
> that.

Yes it is, even though I think that software patents are a stupid idea
and should go away, if the law allows you to fill patents it is broken
and needs fixing.
Not that companies that file patents are evil.
(Even RedHat owns and files softeware patents)

>> > I'm backing it up with what is in the text of the promise, instead of what
>> > is in the mouth of marketing agents.
>> >
>> > Trust whatever you want, but I prefer authoritative texts infinity times
>> > more than a marketing agent's tongue.
>>
>> No you did not, you are interpreting the text in the way you want.
>> "I don't trust MS so it must have holes", while blindly trusting
>> anybody is wrong, I don't see the point in making up points that do
>> not exits in the text.
>
> And I don't see the point of scorning someone by implying they blindly
> mistrust Microsoft. It's not blind mistrust, the reality is filled with
> enough fishy things to give the benefit of doubt. Proof is needed.

" someone by implying they blindly mistrust Microsoft"

I never said that but the opposite "while blindly trusting anybody is wrong".
Which implies do not trust anybody unless you have a reason.
But trying to come up with any unproven statements isn't right either.
And again whether this is worth anything has to be judged by a lawyer.

>> Neither in the promise itself nor in the FAQ.
>>
>> In order to get 100% clearance consult a lawyer I doubt that any
>> lawyer would interprets it the way you do.
>
> Funny enough we tried to get a lawyer team to analyse this problem in Portugal.

No you did not it was a _different_ (but similar) case.