Re: on the topic of IPR
2004-08-28 04:46:04
3. If MS IPR proves to be not worth the pain caused, we (ietf, marid,
or individuals) all have alternatives to choose from that are not that
unsavory. In my mind, the advantage of including MS as a partner is
not that their IPR is that much better... But, if this doesn't work
out, very few components need to be switched out to remove their IPR
from play.
>...
>
MS employees also chose to not even disclose WHAT THE PENDING PATENT
IS FOR. The fact that they kept the "what is or is not pending a
patent" a guarded secret shows that their interests come first, and
makes me think that they are not hanging out on this group for an
altruistic purpose.
And herein lies one of the rubs - without knowing what the patent
alleges to include, we can't possibly say with any certainty that if it
doesn't work out, very few components need to be switched out to remove
their IPR from play. It's entirely possible that the pending patent
includes everything, and a few extras besides. Certainly if I were
their lawyer, that's how I'd write it. As such, it's entirely possible
that one could find that one couldn't use *any* related components.
Sure, as some have mentioned, there is prior art, MS created Caller
I.D., not Sender I.D., etc. etc.. Are *you* going to fund and mount
that legal battle?
From a legal viewpoint, it's always safest to assume that the claim
includes nearly everything, if not everything. Especially when one
can't even see it.
Anne
Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.
President/CEO
Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy
Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of SJ
Committee Member, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread> |
- Re: on the topic of IPR, (continued)
|
|
|