| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
If the patents are sold, is the promise no longer enforceable?If the patents are sold, is the promise no longer enforceable?Posted Jul 17, 2009 14:28 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769)Parent article: The FSF warns (again) against Mono
The Community Promise does not give you any rights to exercise the patented claims. It only says that Microsoft will not sue you over claims in patents that it owns or controls. If Microsoft sells one of those patents, there's nothing stopping the buyer from suing everyone who uses the software.Would any legally trained person care to comment on this? Would the buyer of the patents still be estopped in the same way as Microsoft, or is transferring the ownership an easy way to get out of the promise?
(Log in to post comments)
If the patents are sold, is the promise no longer enforceable? Posted Jul 17, 2009 23:25 UTC (Fri) by Ed_L. (guest, #24287) [Link] I am NOT legally trained, but I do think you have again identified the most cogent item in FSF's argument: A "Promise Not to Sue" is not a "License to Use."FSF suggests we minimize our infringement of patents for which we have no license. Their legal opinion appears to be that Microsoft's Community Promise is not a license. They have offered to help Microsoft make it one. In contrast Java is now GPLv2. Since Java is licensed under GPLv2 by SUN Microsystems, GPLv2 appears to grant (again I'm not a lawyer) an implicit "license to use" any of SUN's patents impacting Java: GPLv2 Section 7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.My bold. I don't know if SUN might also have issued an explicit Java patent license. Does anyone else? I agree that C#/CLI is a sharp language. But a programming language does not stand independent from the libraries that make is useful, and I share the belief that patent clarification remains TBD.
If the patents are sold, is the promise no longer enforceable? Posted Jul 18, 2009 1:00 UTC (Sat) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
Sadly, I actually think that Java being under GPLv2 is not a permanent license to use. Briefly, there is an opinion that since GPL is not a contract, it can be revoked retroactively.
See this old post of mine fore more details:
Does GPL implicitly grant patent license ? Posted Jul 20, 2009 10:49 UTC (Mon) by pjm (subscriber, #2080) [Link]
Can you be explicit about the premises that make that (likely to) imply a patent license? They have said (through the GPL) "you can redistribute this so long as there aren't any patent restrictions that forbid royalty-free redistribution", but I'd hesitate to infer that there aren't any patent restrictions that forbid royalty-free redistribution.
(IANAL.)
|
|
||||||||||||