Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards
M E Leypold @ labnet
leypold at informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
Tue Apr 9 10:45:59 UTC 2002
alexander at alexanderbraun.de writes:
> my name is alexander braun and I did not contribute much to the
> discussions yet.
> I'm not sure if I understood the topic correctly, but I looked up the
> two patents.
> though IANAL:
> is it possible to attack patent no. 5,265,261 due to terms of prior
> art? I only read the abstract but it seems to me it is a clear
> description of tcp/ip but with an initial date from 1993. and i don't
> see any difference to 5,437,013.
> both patents talk of :
> A method and system for sending data from a first computer through a
> communications line to a second computer. The second computer includes
> a redirector, a transport, a data buffer, and an application
> program. The method and system provides the transport with a read
> request to send data from the first computer to the second computer,
> and with a receive network control block which directs the transport
> to store the next data it receives directly in the data buffer. The
> transport sends the read request to the first computer. The first
> computer stores the data identified by the read request in a data
> block without a header. The first computer transmits the data block
> over the communications line to the transport. Using information
> contained in the network control block, the transport stores the
> requested data without the header directly in the data buffer.
If you ask me, if patents on software should ever be allowed, it
should be required that the description is accompanied by a formal
specification in a common modelling language, like Z, Larch, VDM or
whatever. This would clarify what the people really mean, avoid spongy
description like the above, and be actually a real win for other
people going to implement the stuff. And patents would be much less
:-], and equivalence could be decidable.
Regards -- Markus
More information about the Discussion