RE: Patented XML Compression Techniques (WAS RE: [xml-d ev] Bi
All of them. However, the customer also often requires us to provide precisely SQL Server, etc., and when it screws up, requires us to fix it, and then we beat on MS and sometimes they notice it. But I was agog when I read that the GNU licensing put all the risks on the buyer and that no one was indemnifying open source sales. That is so contrary to contracts I am familiar with it felt like a rabbit hole to hell opening up. In other jobs I do, I support open source and royalty free specs and standards. I am beating up on certain parties to make sure that if they submit to an RFP, they show up with the RF policy signed, and so far, that works. Responsible parties act responsibly. I'm on record here and elsewhere as saying the patent suits are an economic danger. We must find a balance, and unfortunately, today, part of that balancing act means having ones own IP portfolio. The open sourcers naively or arrogantly walked away from a necessary to do business tool. This isn't a new requirement. I think they started believing their own press and here as in entertainment, that's bad. I am not implying it is automatic. I am saying flat out that it isn't. That is why the RFPs have those paragraphs in them. Cost of doing business. However, we've never had a problem of being sued for patent infringements based on Microsoft code. I'm sure someone will figure out a way to do it. Oh, and let me repeat what I've said already, the EULA [expletive deleted]. If open sourcers work out their problems, that will be one more reason to go to open source. Hint! I'm not here to defend Microsoft or incriminate open source. I'm reciting the facts of life of doing business in a contracting environment. I don't think too many here on this list read this stuff all day. I do. Y'all share what you know; I do the same. It is very important that the open source and GNU contracting community work out a means to prevent patented material from entering their code to the best of their ability. It is important that those who buy products from any source write the contracts to get the best possible protection. Nothing is certain, but as Tim said, some things are substantially better than others. len From: Jim Ancona [mailto:jim@a...] Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: > The GNU forces the cost of that back to the software purchaser > and that is unacceptable to some buyers. > It is a cost of doing business. As I read these > RFPs, I see the indemnification clauses in all of > them. This isn't new stuff. There is naivete > or simple arrogance in denying it is important. Len, You keep implying that indemnification is automatic in the proprietary software world. Is that really true? Here are a few links about the MS SQL Server/Timeline lawsuit, where MS apparently purchased a patent license that covers itself but not its customers: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-985359.html?tag=fd_top http://www.ecommlawreport.com/ecommlawreport/article.html http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/3564 Does your company use SQL Server? Has MS indemnified you against patent infringment? (Reading those articles, it appears that their standard EULA doesn't, at least in the Timeline case.) If you're indemnifying your customers, exactly what risks have you assumed?
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format