FSFE Newsletter

[simo]

On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 00:06 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 10:36:10PM +0100, Michael Kesper wrote:
> > * Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms at 1407.org> [2008-01-07 15:05:20 +0000]:
> > > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 07:32:19AM -0500, simo wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 15:42 +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > > > The semi-disaster of the Microsoft-vs-CE result
> > > > 
> > > > Why do you call it a disaster? Just for the patents problem? Or is there
> > > > anything else?
> > > 
> > > The patents problem.
> > > 
> > > > >  is still producing the
> > > > > image that Microsoft's software patents are valid *in*Europe*.
> > > > 
> > > > It's not the EC that is making this possible, it is the EPO that is
> > > > releasing patents to Microsoft.
> > > 
> > > With full support from EC, as usual.
> > > 
> > > > Actually if you think it through you can argue that if the commission
> > > > forced MS to license their patents for a flat fee, that would constitute
> > > > much more recognition that such patents were valid,
> > > 
> > > *YES* this is *THE* principal problem.
> > 
> > Sorry I fail to see your argument. Software patents are a disaster but I
> > don't see the connection to the EU antitrust case.
> 
> EC said: «bad boys, as a punishment, you may charge royalties for the
> access to patented information from the competition.
> 
> Since you have patents, we cave in, but let's do it in a way where we
> can be seen as having a major victory against you, ok?»
> 
> > There was no acknowledging of any patent and no patent fees were paid.
> 
> Of *specific* ones, no. Just carte-blanche for royalties on patents.
> 
> > MS was forced to tell what it claimed to be patents instead of FUDing
> > "We have xxx patents on this".
> 
> Oh really? Can you point me to the lists? And HOW would that contradict
> that EC is validating Microsoft's software patents with this result? In
> fact, it proves it outright!

Rui you should get better information before calling doom.
There are enough documents to answer your questions.

There is no carte-blanche for royalties on patents, and the EC was able
to force Microsoft to provide a no-patents agreement to parties like the
Samba Team (I am a Samba Team member btw) so that parties can get the
documentation without recognizing any specific patent.

There is a specific list of patents Microsoft must disclose (see the
list attached to the agreement documents referenced in this thread
earlier).

Now we know exactly which are the claims of Microsoft, we can avoid
patents or work around them.

Simo.