[Opensim-users] Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns

[Ethan Grammatikidis]

On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 13:13:40 -0700
Kyle Hamilton <aerowolf at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Ethan Grammatikidis<eekee57 at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:00:20 +0000
> > Opensource Obscure <open at autistici.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> At a first glance this is good news for Opensim users and
> >> developers that use Linux. I'd like to hear comments,
> >> especially from free-software advocates.
> >>
> >> Microsoft issues patent promise, dispels Mono legal concerns
> >> from Ars Technica - http://bit.ly/BasCG or
> >> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars
> >
> > Just wondering how binding this promise is. I guess MS couldn't break it without getting themselves bad press, but there's always a possibility of a company finding itself in a tight corner & thinking maybe it's worth breaking this. I find myself wondering if some, perhaps many big businesses are designed to run as if they're in a tight corner all the time.
> 
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've learned a lot from Groklaw. This is not
> legal advice, simply my interpretation of what I've read :):
> 
> The legal principle involved is called "estoppel" -- if you make a
> promise not to sue someone for doing B, and then they in good faith
> rely on that promise and do B, you can't go back on your word and sue
> them for it anyway.  If the promise was made by the rightsholder (and
> the fact that they issued it as a press release in written form), if
> they try, they will have the court rule against them.  It's been this
> way since before we had a legal system in the US, and imported
> England's.

Really good to know, thanks. :)

> 
> (Technically, this is the same thing that a license is: you receive a
> promise from the person who grants the license that they will not sue
> you.  It doesn't matter if you pay for it or not.)
> 
> This "promise" can be looked at as a "license" as far as CLR runtimes
> go: if someone tries to create a functional CLR implementation, they
> have a license to any necessary patent claims that Microsoft holds
> that must be infringed in order to adhere to the standard.  This
> license does not extend to non-CLR technologies, though.
> 
> Again, IANAL.  Check with an IP lawyer if you want to.

Strong enough reasoning for me. *nod*

-- 
Ethan Grammatikidis

Those who are slower at parsing information must
necessarily be faster at problem-solving.