Chuck Mead wrote:
Guillaume Filion said:
Chuck Mead wrote:
Guillaume Filion wrote:
| csm(_at_)moongroup(_dot_)com wrote:
http://www.moongroup.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=2
|> A commented update on the MARID situation!
| Andy posted a clarification of his statement, they are not droping the
| MS patent... :-(
I reckon if you're not going to actually read the article you shouldn't
comment on it? :-)
Seriously... you should read the whole thing.
Arrg, I had read it earlier when it was posted on slashdot.
He-he... it's actually a completely different article from the one posted
on slashdot... ;-)
Good analysis by the way. You're more optimistic than I am, I hope
you're right.
Thanx... I hope I'm right too... I saw some stuff this mornign that leads
me to believe that Microsoft themselves believe they've been kicked to the
curb.
Hmm... perhaps Andy's followup was an attempt to sound more diplomatic
and not "slam" any doors in MS' face (leaving the possibility open for
continuation of -pra if the encumberances can be managed). However, part
of me gets the sense that MARID might like to push off the
responsibility for deciding the PRA issue to MTA administrators by
allowing it to be a "non-mandatory" scope and thereby avoiding the
political and business forces involved.
I can appreciate Andy's position, but I do hope your optimism rings
true. Allowing encumberances (IPR or otherwise) into Internet standards
is like negotiating with terrorists - you have to have an absolute "no
tolerance" stance. Once you've found some special case you decide to
make an exception for and opened that Pandora's box, there is no closing
it again.
Cheers,
Doug
--*--
An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in
a very narrow field
-General Omar Bradley
--*--