| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
RAND !== F/OSS compatibleRAND !== F/OSS compatiblePosted Feb 22, 2008 6:21 UTC (Fri) by ikm (subscriber, #493)In reply to: RAND !== F/OSS compatible by drag Parent article: Microsoft announces changes to promote interoperability
It feels that 'patents that cover protocols' are supposed to cover the protocols themselves, and as such, it should be impossible to work around them without deviating from the protocols by definition. An example of such a patent would probably show the real deal here.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||