• From: Amy Lewis <amyzing@t...>
• To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 19:27:10 -0400

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 03:28:28PM -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>Patents are a fact of life and law.  We have to 
>deal with it.   I have to wonder whether or 
>not open source implementations are violating 
>any existing patents and if so, who gets nailed.

Is this deliberate naivete?  A number of "hot" open source projects
have been shut down due to enforcement of patents ... sometimes patents
that are defensible, but more often, since most software patents are
indefensible on their faces, not.

>From: David Brownell [mailto:david-b@p...]
>
>As John Cowan pointed out,
>one set of physical commons was destroyed not all that long
>ago in order to promote/benefit private landowners.

Amy!
-- 
Amelia A. Lewis          alicorn@m...          amyzing@t...
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and three hundred sixty-
two admonishments to heterosexuals.  That doesn't mean that God doesn't love
heterosexuals.  It's just that they need more supervision.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
    • From: John Cowan <cowan@m...>

• References:
  • RE: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
• Next by Date: RE: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
• Previous by thread: RE: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
• Next by thread: Re: Re: W3C ridiculous new policy on patents
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread