"Microsoft Could Pose Patent Threat to GPL-licensed Software"

[NewsBot]

The title was taken from the Digg post.* The actual article*had a less controversial title, though it's content was still FUD.* Basically, they're making to claims.

 

1.* The OSP only covers current versions of the specified standards, which means that Microsoft could potentially decline to provide similar guarantees for future versions.

 

Response:* That's ALWAYS true.* Any standard can be "extended" by any party, and those extensions don't have to be submitted back to the standard.* I understand that the OSS folks have issue with the "embrace and extend" tactics (I'd tend to agree), but logic doesn't lead from that to concluding that extending is evil.* Extensions are the only true way to lead to evolution in standards.* It would be wrong for there to be no way for Microsoft to extend this, or any other, standard.* Just as wrong as it is for Microsoft, or any other company, to try and use extensions as a way to force lock-in.

 

2.* The second issue is that the promise does not apply to works beyond the scope of the covered specifications.

 

Response:* No, really?* I don't like patents, but come on.* This is another no brainer, to me.* I can certainly see this as an argument to be made by the standards committee, if they are concerned about this.* Then Microsoft would have to decide whether or not to abandon the patents all together.* But it wouldn't make much sense for a company to give away more rights than they have to in a situation like this.* In fact, I'm willing to bet there are a lot of situations just like this in several standards today.* Rail against the patent mess, but it's FUD to attack any individual companies over issues like this.

 

More...

 

View All Our Microsoft Related Feeds