Comments

• gpl1

  2007-06-20 03:51:38

  Microsoft still holds key patents on .NET (though with KSR hopefully they're much weaker now). YOu might like this Microsoft memo where they say they license them for only "NON-COMMERCIAL" purposes, aka when they released Rotor under FreeBSD, with a BSD license. Sounds like the hobbiest thing again, which was prevelant in the MS-Novell agreement.
  
  " Microsoft's Response to .NET Patents
  
  Standards, yes, but licenses required. And they're nice enough to offer it royalty-free... for now. Somehow this is called going a step further than the standard organizations require. Maybe Jim Miller from Microsoft doesn't understand that open standards organizations will never charge money for implementing a standard (by definition), yet corporations can change licensing terms at any time. Microsoft already changes license agreements quarterly and each stipulates that users must adhere to any changes in the future or the license is automatically revoked.
  
  RE: [Dotnet-sscli] Microsoft applies for .Net patent From: "Jim Miller \(.NET\)" Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:57:39 -0800 Subject: RE: [Dotnet-sscli] Microsoft applies for .Net patent To: "Giuseppe Attardi" , List-archive: List-help: List-id: SSCLI research list List-post: List-subscribe: ,
  
  List-unsubscribe: ,
  
  Thread-index: AcLYFOa5MDhyOAXkQ0ad3orCqQ0qPQAKjk+w Thread-topic: [Dotnet-sscli] Microsoft applies for .Net patent
  
  Beppe,
  
  As one of the inventors on that patent as well as the person heading up the standardization efforts for the CLI, I'd like to explain why I've never felt the two are in conflict.
  
  The ECMA process requires that all patents held by member companies that are essential for implementing its standards are available under "reasonable and non-discriminatory (RAND) terms" for the purpose of implementing those Standards. This is the normal condition used in all
  
  International Standards organizations, including both ECMA and ISO.
  
  But Microsoft (and our co-sponsors, Intel and Hewlett-Packard) went further and have agreed that our patents essential to implementing C# and CLI will be available on a "royalty-free and otherwise RAND" basis for this purpose.
  
  Furthermore, our release of the Rotor source code base with a specific license on its use gives wide use to our patents for a particular (non-commercial) purpose, and as we explicitly state we are open to additional licenses for other purposes.
  
  --Jim
  
  -----Original Message-----
  
  From: Giuseppe Attardi [mailto:attardi@di.unipi.it] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 4:34 AM To: dotnet-sscli@di.unipi.it Subject: [Dotnet-sscli] Microsoft applies for .Net patent
  
  News has been published (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-984052.html) that Microsoft applied last year for a patent that covers .Net:
  
  http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF& d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1='20030028685'.PGNR.& OS=DN/20030028685&RS=DN/20030028685
  
  This is quite broad claim, including all the architecture, the API, the set of types, etc.
  
  It concludes like this:
  
  Although the invention has been described in language specific to structural ii features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the invention defined in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described. Rather, the specific features and acts are disclosed as exemplary forms of implementing the claimed invention.
  
  I feel quite surprised by this news and I would like to hear your reactions. I had had the impression that Microsoft wanted to follow the path of standardization for .NET as the submission to ECMA seemed to prove.
  
  I have been supportive of the .NET approach, as a means to raise the level of support for applications from basic OS primitives to a powerful cross-language OO platform.
  
  I am afraid however that a patent in this area will stifle developments, since it will be difficult for researchers to undertake projects whose results can only benefit a single, albeit large, company.
  
  I understand the need for Microsoft to protect their investments in
  
  .NET, and I was willing to accept patents on specific techniques (e.g. the write barrier for GC), but an overall patent for the whole architecture seems too broad.
  
  I would like comments from Microsoft people on this issue and in particular how this is going to affect Rotor and other initiatives based or related to .NET.
  
  I am afraid that this initiative might split researchers in two camps, and only Microsoft funded projects will attract people working on .NET technologies.
  
  -- Beppe
  
  _______________________________________________ Dotnet-sscli mailing list Dotnet-sscli@di.unipi.it http://mailserver.di.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/dotnet-sscli "
  
  http://www.msversus.org/book/print/1

• Roy Schestowitz

  2007-06-20 04:54:32

  That is very interesting, gpl1. Here is Grokdoc's take:
  
  

  These standards [ C#/CLI] are burdened with so many patents, claim MS, that only MS can legally distribute an implementation of the .NET framework. However, the Mono developers are adamant that they do not know of any patent that they infringe on.

  Outside of the legallity of reimplementing C#/CLI, is the fact that MS has done the "embrace, extend, extinguish" backwards. As seems to be usual for MS (see the final decision of the EU commision), the published standard is only a subset of MS' implementation as is discussed
  
  here on GL. Mono does only implement the official published standards, so MS software will be able to use applications developed on Mono, but not the other way round.

  
  
  More writings on the topic are (quite luckily) tagged and therefore grouped.
  
  http://boycottnovell.com/category/mono/
  
  I noticed that Novell's PR blog had posted an item to rave about Moonlight, but it seems rather selfish. They are working with Microsoft against the rest of Linux.

• gpl1

  2007-06-20 05:39:06

  *oops, make that "Microsoft Shared Source Common Language Infrastructure" nstead of BSD, but for FreeBSD and OS X. again non-commercial. Thank you for the grokdoc link, interesting stuff.