Paul Iadonisi wrote:
And what weight does that carry? As I've said before, we have a KNOWN
patent here. Or at least *somewhat* known, since Microsoft hasn't been
clear exactly what it has a patent (or patent-pending) on.
If Microsoft is unwilling to make clear what patent they hold that
needs licensed then what is this all about ?
Can I claim to hold a patent or patent pending on some unspecified
aspect of any draft standard and insist on requiring my
own License no matter how benign get included as part of the standard ?
Certainly Microsft speaks with more credibility there than I do, but
still does it make sense to allow any interest to hold the
standards process hostage without atleast making it clear what it is
they beleive they own ?
Microsoft has been able to provide a very concrete license, but what
exactly is it a license for ?
I have not had much participation in standards processes before. But
I understand that some less broadly deployed standards
might have included similar or even more restrictive licenses. But
have other standards included licensed technology without
atleast identifying what was licensed before ?
Without identifying the IP that requires a license I do not see how
this situation is fundimentally different from the possibility that
a standard could discover after appoval that there is an unforseen
IP infringement. Certainly to be avoided if possible, but do we just
quit drafting standards because they might infringe on something ?
Shouldn't discussion of whether Microsoft's license is acceptable or
not come after we know that they actually hold IP rights that do
cover some part of the standard ?