Tracy Reed wrote:
You may be right. That's just what everyone else has been saying. But if what you make is software how do you list the patenst on the cover of your device? I've never seen a piece of software that listed what patents apply. But people have been forced to pay to license software patents.
This is because judges know law, not technology. If judges knew technology - say if a judge was an accomplish software engineer - then the judge would know just how bad software patents are. They would also know many of the fundamentals about programming and software that we take for granted, but seem to be overlooked easily by the courts.
The only reason we still have such a problem with software patents is because the courts have no concept of it, and the lawyers are blood suckers and will go where the money is.
Microsoft claims Linux violates patents but hasn't requested any license fee at all. The threat is that they will sue. And nobody, lawyer or otherwise, has come out and said that they can't sue before requesting a license fee. Nobody seems to be able to come up with any way to clear Linux's good name or make Microsoft show their cards.
No, it's that such a case would be *extremely* expensive and no one wants to go down that road. It's probably IBM would if they were pushed, but chances are M$ would not push them and IBM won't volunteer to go after M$ without cause.
PGA -- Paul G. Allen, BSIT/SE Owner, Sr. Engineer Random Logic Consulting http://www.randomlogic.com -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
