On 2004-05-14 11:03:41 +0100 Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think that accepting non-free patent licenses is a useful
way to
defend free software.
Then why would suing IBM over patent license violations matter for
free software?
The wording is a little vague: a "patent applicable to software" could
possibly cover some of a licensor's hardware activities which the
licensee would then be unable to pursue?
Why should free software producers allow IBM these extra unfair
weapons in addition to the millions that they already hold?
It seems unfair to put the burden of discovering what has been
licensed on
the distributors and users. Does anyone know how a court would
handle this?
In the U.S., it's roughly the case that the defendant in patent
litigation
is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
What effect does existance of other licensees for a disputed patent
have?
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
