Darren New wrote:
Andrew Lentvorski wrote:
The actual *creation* of Mono is now suspect since it isn't considered
to be a "clean room" implementation, anymore.
You're confusing copyright and patent law. There's no such thing as a
"clean room implementation" in patent law.
You are correct. I am being imprecise.
While "clean room" has no meaning in patents, "willful infringement" does.
A system which trips over a patent and can plausibly claim that they
didn't know is likely to be given the opportunity to rectify the mistake.
Mono/Novell does not have that kind of cover since they actually bought
a "patent license". Lawyers can plausibly argue that users are required
to *know* the patents involved.
The IBM patent folks were absolutely *adamant* that engineers should
never read or research patents under any circumstances for exactly this
reason.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
