• From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@h...>
• To: "'Ian Graham'" <ian.graham@u...>
• Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:30:30 -0500

IBM and Microsoft will. MS is paying out millions for the patents.  IBM is
defending themselves trading on its portfolio, but also trying to work with
the USPTO and others to fix the system. 

Crazy?  

Maybe or maybe it is better to make it a profitable and laudable thing to
share wealth.    Citations are just addresses of resources.  How you define
a resource is up to you last time I read the TAG's opinions.

Openness: full agreement there.  Transparency and clarity are key.

len

From: Ian Graham [mailto:ian.graham@u...] 

I didn't mean to denigrate crazy ideas ;-)

I believe I oversold the whole peer review thing -- when the real issues 
are a) the relative openness of the peer review process, and b) that the 
value is in the market of ideas, and how work rates in that market.

I see the software world as having a very different value statement, and 
a different market process. So although you could do it, I suspect most 
s/w firms, or developers, would see no benefit to doing so.

• References:
  • Re: XML-DEV list - prior art
    • From: Ian Graham <ian.graham@u...>