robert burrell donkin wrote:
It worries me too. Can someone please post some links that show the claims brought up, the patent in question, and any other pointers?On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, at 10:18 PM, RL 'Bob' Morgan wrote:On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:<snip>You never know, but the fact that it is now a full year after they firstBlockers? ----------- "Are there IPR-related concerns with SAML (patents held by RSA but offered royalty free)?" Can you please elaborate more on this?
brought up this claim, and they still haven't had enough interest to come
up with procedures for getting licenses (and why would they, since they're
free), would lead one to believe that they aren't going to pursue
enforcing any rights here very aggressively. As Scott said, there are so
many nasty patent situations out there, this one seems quite friendly.
this worries me.
we've see numerous cases recently about companies sitting on IPR and then suddenly demanding money as soon as the technology has been widely adopted."A" license? What does this mean, that Apache has a license but all users of it need to ask for one too? %-|
these murky waters are muddied even further given the recent court win for rambus (http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/29102.html).
maybe apache should make sure that they can get hold of a license for this technology before accepting this project.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
