Re: Disappointed, yet..not surprised

"John Glube" <jbglube(_at_)sympatico(_dot_)ca> writes:

> From: Anne P. Mitchell, Esq. <amitchell(_at_)isipp(_dot_)com>
> Sent: September 24, 2004 8:47 PM
>  
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > In fact, I have to believe that right now Harry and his
> > colleague are probably really unhappy.
> The statements in issue were made in response to questions
> I raised on the MARID list. After the press statement was
> made on September 20, 2004 by an MS spokesperson which
> raised the possibility of the MS patent (s) applying to
> SPF, I had a telephone conversation with a knowledgeable
> person. 
>
> Without going into the details of this telephone call or
> with whom I spoke, I will state for the record to the best
> of my understanding:
>
> * Harry Katz and Jim Lyons at all times acted in good faith.
>
> * Harry Katz, who made the representations concerning the
> application of the MS patents in response to my questions,
> did so honestly and in good faith, believing they were true.
>
> * Harry Katz was not the press spokesperson who sent the
> email to Jim Wagner on September 20, 2004.
>
> I can't speak to their present state of mind, but I would
> concur in Anne's assessment that both Harry and Jim are
> likely embarrassed with what has transpired.
If so, this shows the kind hearts and decent human natures of Mr. Katz
and Mr. Wagner.  However, it says nothing about the intentions of the
higher-ups at Microsoft.  If this were an isolated incident, we could
have at least some confidence in believing that the press statement
might have been an honest mistake, and we'd have reason to hope for its
being corrected.

On the other hand, MS has a multi-decade track record of playing these
kinds of games ... like sending well-intentioned underlings to
negotiate, and then having the not-so-well-intentioned higher-ups drop
the sledge hammer after all parties have adjourned in good faith.

Given this track record, I think it's very likely that Microsoft did all
of this quite intentionally, and that they will not voluntarily change
one comma of the press release or the text of the patent documents.

And since Mr. Katz and Mr. Wagner feel so bad about having been
manipulated in this way, I would like to see them come forth and make
public statements to the widest possible audience, repudiating the
actions on Microsoft's part which make them feel so abused.

Otherwise, I wonder how much remorse or regret they really feel.

But anyway, I believe that now, the best course of action is _not_ to
assume that SPF Classic is safe.  Assuming the best possible outcome
when dealing with MS is the mistake that was just made at MARID.  Let's
not make it again.

I believe that we should come up with something new which differs from
SPF Classic in enough significant ways so that it will not fall under
any patent that might be claimed ... and then put it under the GPL or
something similar to protect it.  This is somewhat analogous to what
happened a number of years ago when the world discovered that GIF wasn't
freely distributable: PNG was invented and JPEG took a great leap
forward.

Is there any hope that we could invent something different from SPF
Classic (or enhance something that already exists that MS couldn't
patent) that would work as well and be as easy to put into effect
as SPF Classic?


-- 
 Lloyd Zusman
 ljz(_at_)asfast(_dot_)com
 God bless you.